I don't know?
For those who really want an attempt at answering the unanswerable check these two links out:
http://theburningplatform.com/groups/quinns-daily-dose-of-reality/discussions/fingers-of-instability-2
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how-currency-devaluation-can-be-bad-thing
For everyone else as clueless as me, read on....
What could trigger the economic collapse?
What is this fearlessness and mocking of which I speak?
However, I ask you, can anybody detect at least a majority of leaders or citizens running the government, the financial sector, or the household, after the pattern of how we should run our homes? There are many who do, I'm certain, but for the most part, do we not see gross corruption in government, finance, and consumers at all levels, the likes of which are only found in decadent nations before they implode? This is because we hate God's law. And, as we are irrespective of God's law, it only naturally leads to us becoming over litigious, lovers of self, power, and mammon, desperately hoarding what will be consumed by fire.
It is evidenced in Scripture (for example; just read the prophecies of Daniel), and in the annals of mankind that decadent nations fall, and usually the fall is quick, certain and irrevocable. What is most insidious about this death is that it is a willfully unforeseen suicide. Yes!; that's right, we willingly kill ourselves in ignorance! And, it's unforeseeable because nations, at this stage are willfully ignorant, purposefully blind, cognitively dissonant, or in our case "irrationally exuberant" to the realities of the world around them. Future and current nations can always look back with 20/20 hindsight, just as we do now, and say, "How could the world allow itself to become so financially dependent on the economy of American?" Or, "Why would anyone in America ever think that switching from the gold standard to a fiat money system (i.e. money backed by aether) was a good idea?" Yet we are unable (or unwilling) to see the fate which is about to meet us. Furthermore, an accumulated analysis of all the various fallen systems of either government, economy, or household, due mainly to arrogance and decadence, could never give us any definitive insight, or render a predictive formula so that we could see the ends coming from far away due to the "problems" overwhelming complexity. We can barely predict the next days weather correctly let alone predict something with so many variables as is encompassed by an intertwined world economy.
Even if someone can see the the fate of their nation or their future from a long way off, they might not be able to see any hope if the vision is rather dismal. Some of us are already experiencing the reality of a collapsed economy, and upon looking at the fundamentals of everything in the markets, the outlook is nothing but dreadfully dismal for the world. And, in my own Christian walk, I can't even begin to count how many arrows of outrageous fortune I have received in the past six months. I constantly fight, and ask God in prayer to keep me faithful in spite of everything I see, in spite of myself! So many times in the past six months I have given in to the feeling that God has been judging me, that I must not be doing something right. It hurts me to no end! I mean, God hates me! right?
But His Word tells me something else! His word tells me to look at my Savior on the cross; He is the one being judged, He is the one who God pours His wrath upon, He is the one that God hates, and not for anything He has done, but on account of what I have done on His behalf. His Word tells me I must accept the reality at present; that I am as righteous as God is, that I am in effect His Son, that I possess the entire Universe, that the Angels are at my beckon command, and that God enjoys my company and I His, and not for anything I have done, but on account of believing what He has done on my behalf! His Word also tells me this world is perishing, and that I shouldn't store up for myself treasures here, which moth and rust destroy, but to keep my hope in Kingdom come, to keep my hope in Christ who is the way to the Kingdom and my true Treasure, to trust in His Word of Truth which the Holy Spirit works eternal life through, to glory in suffering just as Jesus was glorified as "the Son of Man". And to believe all this in spite of what I see, in spite of what I think I know, in spite of the fact that I do not see the glory that is with me in Christ, that I do not experience being present in His Kingdom, and nor do I feel His Holy Spirit interceding on my behalf. With all that said, God wants me stop trying to feel Him and ultimately resign my entire self, body and soul, to the fact that God loves me even when I'm convinced He hates me.
Just as the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, so does misery. Be comforted in heart that God knows our sufferings, He has counted every tear, He has consumed the cup of wrath to the dregs and has died in the damnation reserved for people with a wicked and evil conscience all for the sake of those that don't love Him, for people who, in spite of knowing about salvation in Christ, still hate Him. We, who are utterly incapable of loving Him without a spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit, who still wrestle with the flesh because of faulty senses and our natural love for whispering, malcontented devils, also love Him, although we in our flesh still hate Him. This is the essence of the biblical maxim "Simul Iustus et Peccator" (both saint and sinner at the saint time), and yet, God still loves us. Let us give thanks for this amazing blessing in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
(**Update**It seems I have created a little bit of controversy in this post, and I do want to make one thing abundantly clear:)I just want to repeat, once again, that I have no authority to excommunicate or anything of the sort, nor have I once said that Sen. Kennedy is eternally lost by the powers invested in me, etc., (I am but a beggar in need of Christ's righteousness as well). But in Sen. Kennedy's letter, it would seem that there may have been a weakness in the life of a believer, something of which we all face, namely to depend on our own good works. Maybe it was too personal to use a real-life example. And for that I am sorry. Nevertheless, my intention in this article was not to condemn Sen. Kennedy, but to use this example for all of us to test whether we are in the faith or not....I do not lay claim to know where the soul of Ted Kennedy eternally rests, I hope he rests with Christ. My post as written, may have erred in to strong a direction implying that I know of Sen. Kennedy's fate....I do not. Please forgive me if this post comes close to suggesting as much, because the Lord knows I ask for forgiveness in all things I do: good, bad, or indifferent.God's blessings,Drew
In the famously realm he is know for being a long-time Senator, a brother of two assassinated American icons, and a part of the Kennedy political dynasty.
He is infamously known for his sordid past. Everything from the Chappaquiddick incident, to the Bork nomination, to the Kennedy compound incident; I hope I'm sure (for Ted's sake) he would be the first to admit he was a flawed man just like everybody else. However, deep down I believe there was a devoted Roman Catholic who knew that the eye of God was upon him at all times. Sometimes that realization becomes brilliantly clear in times of extreme crisis.
It seems there may have been some unease in his soul when facing the grim news regarding his recent diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. When President Obama visited the Pope earlier this year, Ted asked the President to hand deliver a special letter to his "Holiness". Here are the contents of that letter as reported by the Associated Press and the response from the Pope:
Excerpts of the letter from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy that President Barack Obama delivered to Pope Benedict XVI earlier this year and an account of the pope's response, as read by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington:
"Most Holy Father I asked President Obama to personally hand deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me, and I am so deeply grateful to him. I hope this letter finds you in good health. I pray that you have all of God's blessings as you lead our church and inspire our world during these challenging times. I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines.
"I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago and although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old and preparing for the next passage of life. I have been blessed to be part of a wonderful family and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provides solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith I have tried to right my path. I want you to know Your Holiness that in my nearly 50 years of elective office I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war.
"Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator. I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I am committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I will continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone. I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me."
___
An account from the Vatican of the pope's response, according to McCarrick:
"The Holy Father has the letter which you entrusted to President Barack Obama, who kindly presented it to him during their recent meeting. He was saddened to know of your illness, and asked me to assure you of his concern and his spiritual closeness. He is particularly grateful for your promise of prayers for him and for the needs of our universal church.
"His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful Father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the Risen Savior to all who share in His sufferings and trust in His promise of eternal life.
"Commending you and the members of your family to the loving intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
What's most sad about this letter is this statement from Senator Kennedy:
"I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me."Folks, this is what he is hanging his hat on for salvation; an intercessory prayer from the Pope. This isn't something to be mocked like the people from this blog seem to think is appropriate, this faith of Senator Kennedy is to be pitied.
In Isaiah 64:6, the Prophet says:
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
If we trust in the righteousness we craft with our hands, without ever trying to recognize what exactly our righteousness looks like in the eyes of God as revealed by His law, then we will never value the only righteousness that gets us to heaven, namely the righteousness of Christ.
St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:12-19
"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
The Holy Spirit communicates through St. Paul in 1 Cor 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.Let us hope that between the time this letter to the Pope was written and the time of Senator Kennedy's death he confessed Christs righteousness as his own, and in faith, trusted solely in Christ's righteousness alone.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?Let us all take the opportunity to contemplate whether we are in the "life", that is, eternal life found in Christ alone or not!
.
.
The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes.
Oops! It seems I did thesis six before doing thesis five, and subsequently labeled it thesis five as well. Please note the correct order (which makes more sense) when reading through these articles.
Anyway, onto thesis five! Both this thesis, and thesis six are once again inverse reflections of each other. Thesis five basically states that from our perspective, when we speak of any “good works” of man in any active sense being evil, we do not mean that they are abhorrent crimes such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. We, from our terrestrial perspective can easily see a difference in acts that seem altruistic and beneficial for many, versus acts that seem selfish and only beneficial to the criminal, so to speak.
However, when contrasted with thesis six, we find that when God works through us, the deed in appearance may seem to be good, for certainly nothing but good comes from God, and to our senses we can easily perceive and comprehend this, yet the acts is, nevertheless, not a sinless act for man, because man, even after his salvation and renewal in Christ can only sin in an active capacity, and consequently, regardless of the acts appearance, good or bad, is still nothing but sin as far as mans involvement is concerned. For further clarification on thesis six please read this article.
Committing crimes is simply man violating the laws of his land or what is simply accepted as common decency. Now, that is not to say that they do not come from God, for the laws of man derive themselves from the Law of God as written in his heart. This use of the Law of God, at least according to Lutheran theology, is what is know as the “curb”, or the second use of the Law. That is, the Law of God as written on the hearts of all men bearing witness that it is good for him to live in civility with his neighbor, and the best way for that to happen is for man to obey his conscience in outward actions so as to achieve the best outcome for all. This is what some would call altruism, and this thought is common or “common sense” to all civil people.
However, what makes a sin mortal is not necessarily what is so obvious. Here is what Luther has to say about it in the proof for this thesis, he states:
“For crimes are such acts which can also be condemned before men, such as adultery, theft, homicide, slander, etc. Mortal sins, on the other hand, are those which seem good yet are essentially fruits of a bad root and a bad tree. Augustine states this in the fourth book of Against Julian (Contra Julianum).”
What Luther is saying is that crimes are something which are obviously wrong, for it is just as easy for one man to see and understand a crime or evil deed than another man. However, here Luther introduces what makes a sin mortal. What does make a sin lead unto death? I bet it's not what you think.
St. Paul says in Roman 7:5,6:
For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
As Luther stated, “For crimes are such acts which can also be condemned before men,...”, which is in full agreement with Paul in regards to the Law awakening evil desires in us, and this basically means we know what's obviously wrong, which causes us to repent, that is unless our heart is hardened, with little to no resistance. What makes sin a sin is obvious, however, what about sins that are not so obvious? According to Luther (which is affirmed by God's word through Christ and his condemnation of the Pharisees) good works are also sin, and not just sin, but a deceptive sin, the type of sin the devil loves to tempt us with, because we can so easily fall into it and are so blind to what a “good work”, at least from the human perspective, actually is.
The evil that is awakened in the heart by God's Law is not always one which lusts after that which it cannot have, but lusts for a righteousness other than the one provided for us in Christ, the only righteousness our Father wants us to have or will accept for that matter. When our hearts accuse us of our sinfulness by God's Law, we, in turn, respond with a “will” to make ourselves right naturally with God. Yet, the only thing we can will in our life on earth in any active capacity is sin, so even our righteousness which we attempt to flaunt before God, is really us attempting to wave our filthy rags at him. This type of sinning is compounding sin upon sin making us doubly guilty. This is nothing but an abomination in his sight, for the moment we do this, we are very far from what God actually wants for us, and far from a saving faith.
So, what does He want for us? Well, He wants nothing for us to do, but wants us to believe much in His Son who has done everything for us already. You see, Christ died on the cross in our place atoning for our sins, and has made available his righteousness to be our own possession made available through faith in Him and His atoning work. However, this line of thinking is antithetical to our natural reason, for we trust only ourselves and our reason most certainly, and to give credence to something greater than ourselves is an abomination to us, but we must surrender this stubborn tendency within us and let the Lord of Lords reign supreme in our hearts in hopes of gaining the life everlasting!
.
.
(*Update*)
Here the InternetMonk blog posts that started this whole thing.
In addition, Todd Wilken of Issues Etc., has done an interview with the author of "The Coming Evangelical Collapse", Michael Spencer. Give it a listen!
Wow! Here is some "glass-is-half-full" positive news about American Evangelicalism from Michael Spencer, columnist for the Christian Science Monitor, he says:
"We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West."
"This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good."
Ah, there's nothing like callin'em as you see'em!
Now, According to Spencer, here's why (many reasons I agree with, by the way):
"1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism."
"2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught."
"3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile."
"4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism."
"5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching."
"6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith."
Now, according to Spencer, what will be left?
"•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success."
"•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions."
"•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal."
"•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision."
"•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear."
"•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism."
"•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community."
"•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war."
This partly jives with an (AFP) report regarding the rise of secularism, and other reports regarding declining Church membership across the board.
The basic gist of the (AFP) press report states that:
"Secularism is gaining ground in the United States, eating away at the percentage of Americans who identify with the Protestant Christianity of the founding fathers, a poll published Monday showed."
"The percentage of Americans who adhered to no particular religion jumped from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent last year, the third American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted over 10 months last year by pollsters from Trinity College in Connecticut, showed."
"When the survey was conducted in 2001, 14.1 percent of respondents said they were not religious."
Now, if what these reports are stating is indeed fact, then things will definitely be a-changin' in the religious and political landscape as we know it. However, for now, I want to go back to Spencer's reasons why and expectations of things to come.
First he says, "Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism."
When he states the term "Evangelicals" I will suppose that he's referring to everything under the umbrella of "American-style Evangelicalism".
Oddly enough, much of the "culture war" phenomena was started by the family values oriented LDS Church. Only since the late sixties, following the social and political upheaval of the times did the fundamentalists jump on board and try to "take back culture", as if they had owned it at one time or another, or that it's theirs by right or something. Now we have organizations like Focus on the Family, and Campus Crusades for Christ, etc., who follow more of a "deeds not creeds" mentality, which believes nothing more than civil righteousness as God pleasing acts. That's when you hear guys such as Hagee, or Robertson, et. al, claim that when any calamity which befalls the United States is a just punishment from God because of the immoral republic. These guys are classic theologians of glory, God rewards good behavior and punishes evil behavior, therefore when anything bad happens to the nation, it's because of the immorality of its people. Yet, these guys fail to see that everything, even the good things man does is nothing but evil. and for a better explanation on this point see thesis 6, and proof from the Heidelberg disputation.
As for the political element of it all, it is frankly disturbing. It is right for everyone outside the fray of Evangelicalism to look with a jaundiced eye at the gland-hand, Christian, political action committee lobbyists who cozy up with politicians in hopes of affecting some legislation favorable to their side. One hasn't seen such coziness between Church and State since the 15th century, and heaven forbid you tell a fundamentalist that he resembles the papacy, for he's sure to respond, "but I don't pray to Mary or the Saints, or go to confession, or believe the Pope is infallible", as if this "style-over-substance" were the only thing that separates us from Rome.
Later he says, "[w]e Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught."
I'll assume, once again, that when he speaks of "orthodox" that he's speaking of Churches rooted in Biblical doctrine and the Word of God. If this is the case, then I must say that I agree with him. The discipline, or lack thereof, regarding American Churches in passing on their faith, correctly mind you, in favor of the "happy-clappy" style of worship and personal devotion, has showed itself highly inferior to secularist intellectuals, especially when a young Christian is faced with it on their college campus.
Regarding what Spencer is anticipating for the Evangelicalism to come, he said, "[e]xpect [it] to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches...."
Oh no, not more of this! I suppose though if people are going to reject the Gospel and sound Biblical doctrine, not that the current American Evangelical Churches necessarily teach such things, but the masses will still need an idol of "Christian-Lite", you know, heavy on pop-psychology and lite on doctrine, to get them through. I just wish this won't be the case, but I'll suppose we'll see.
Later he says, "[t]wo of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions."
Well, this is already an occurring phenomenon. Please see my article here, and response to that article here where I wrote about, and then communicated with a Fr. Hackney who converted from the LCMS to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, another more notable case is that of Christian Apologist Francis Beckwith, who converted from (I'm not exactly sure what Church body he was originally affiliated with, but it was something akin to American Evangelicalism, I think, but please don't quote me on that) to Roman Catholicism.
So, I guess if people grow disgusted by "content-less", "un-historic" Christianity then it would make some sense for someone to gravitate towards something with a tremendous weight of history and meaningful tradition.
All-in-all no one knows what the future holds, and as for me, I'm with Luther (in more ways than just this one) when he says, and I paraphrase, "if someone knew beyond the shadow of a doubt the world were to end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today." So, in regard to crumbling Church movements, where crumblings have actually happened, and rumors of crumblings are supposed to happen, we, that is Confessional Orthodox Lutherans must preach the Gospel to lost and broken souls today.
(But then again maybe there's something to all this, perhaps this is what Dave Wilkerson was talking about on his blog. But then again, maybe not.)
Today we look at thesis five of the Heidelberg Disputation, it states:
The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.
It is here we delve deeper into how God works through man, and, more especially how these works of God relate to the so-called “righteous-capabilities” of man.
For the sake of illustration, let’s pretend a pro-angler was given a rod made of the weakest, rotted-through, worm-eaten balsa wood one could find. Also, instead of high-test string, he was given a spool of over-cooked spaghetti in its place. And, just to make the example a little more absurd, let's just forget about any kind of bait altogether. Yet, in spite of these impossible disadvantages this experienced fisherman miraculously catches a glorious 15 pound Bass! How he manages to do such a thing is beyond us, but, nevertheless he does it. Now, would we marvel at the fisherman and his ability to pull off such an amazing feet, or would we give all praise to the rod?
Given the knowledge of all the particulars it's kind of a stupid question right? Well not so fast, for what's truly amazing is how many people would actually give praise to the rod. Let me explain.
While many would give lip-service praise to God for the ability to do any kind of good thing, they would still be understood as a “good” person, and perhaps accept praise for as much. It's as if the goodness of the work derives itself from, and is attributed to the person, instead of the source of all goodness, which is none other than God himself.
The perfect example of this is seen at any kind of awards gala. The person receiving recognition, perhaps may give thanks to God, but in the end, the event is not about our Lord, it is about the people receiving the award. So, in many cases, after giving lip service to God, they then recite a seemingly endless list of people they thank, people they could’ve never accomplished such and such an act without, all the while never thanking God for putting these very same people into their lives to help in the first place. While it may be true that a person could never do a certain thing without help of another, nevertheless, the help they receive, whether it is from natural circumstances or helping hand from without, ultimately comes from God, does it not? And, as for the people who are attending, to them this is not a worship service for God, but for the people of honor, the people whom this benefit is for.
Unfortunately, it's not much different in the church either. In a PC-USA Presbyterian church, a church I was once a member of, it was, and probably still is common practice for the congregation to clap wildly in appreciation for any kind of soloist (instrumental or vocal), for the choir, or for the children’s skit (regrettably during worship), what have you, as if the congregation was at some kind of concert hooting and hollering for their favorite pop-star! One time, during a “Wide-Open-Worship” service I was regrettably attending (notice the clever acronym W.O.W.), the “worship-leader” felt a little embarrassed (perhaps a guilt-pang of conscience maybe) by all the praise she was receiving, and to alleviate some of this “embarrassment” she praised and encouraged the audience to continue giving “claps for Jesus”.
So, it's easy to see that from the secular world all the way into the pews of our local congregation that it's quite common to obey our natural urges and praise the works of men, but not the God who gives us the ability to do any of these works in the first place. However, that's not really all that this thesis is trying to get at, as a matter of fact, it is but a small part, for the focus of this thesis is on what man observes as a good and “sinless” work.
The thesis presumes the bondage of man to sin (Rom. 3:10-18) as the only thing he's capable of doing in any active sense, even when the outcome is good, or the observation of the act appears right to human eyes. Yet, it is really by God working through us in a passive sense that any good is procured or made manifest through the work itself, and subsequently the work we actively do still remains sinful because of our bound nature. Here is Luther describing it beautifully in his own words regarding the proof for this thesis, and he states:
“In Eccles. 7[:20], we read, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” In this connection, however, some people say that the righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be refuted in the following manner: “If that is what this verse wants to say, why waste so many words?” or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be adequately expressed by the following: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin.” Why does he add “who does good,” as if another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the realm of good works he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16], “The righteous man falls seven times a day.” Here he does not say, “A righteous man falls seven times a day when he does good.” This is a comparison. If someone cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is when God works through us.”
So, what does this all point back to? Well, what it points back to is that man, in his natural state, cannot see things as they really are. God is hidden to him, and is hidden to him by an act of mans evil will. When He, that is God, works in the world it's as if He wears masks, scary, ugly masks that effectively work in making God look like a devil, or a fool (not that this is or isn't necessarily his intention). Man's erring reason assumes that because Gods works appear evil or foolish is that it's because He is an evil fool. However, this is only man averting his eyes from the truth, for the evilness that seems to come about by God's work is really better likened to a master working with a poor instrument, which is nothing but Him working through us or fallen nature, both of which are a consequence of original sin.
Conversely, when we see a ray of light in the ordinarily ugly actions of man we are quick to attribute it to the “indwelling goodness” of that individual. Yet, once again this is simply man unwilling to look at his own evil nature, and willfully denying that he's incapable of doing anything other than actively sinning.
So, here we are once again, looking at the nature of God and the nature of man confusing ultimately what is plainly visible with what is hidden, and what is plainly good with what is evil. Why? Well, it basically boils down to this, we can't bare to look at ourselves as we really are. The only way we can possibly do that is by looking at our reflection in the mirror of God's Law, and even doing that causes us to retract in horror, so much so, that we pray to never do it again. You see, in this reflection we will see someone who so richly deserves the full wrath of God that the only punishment to suffice would be public humiliation, flogging, permanent alienation from God, and hanging cursed on a tree until death, nevertheless before our family, friends, and fellow countrymen.
If you ask me how I know this, then I must answer that this is the very death my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died in my stead. I know this because, according to the Scripture, my sin is now His, and His righteousness is now mine. This cruel death and punishment He took in my place. The humiliation I deserve He endured. The flogging He received was on account of my sins. And the curse of hanging on a tree, which Christ received was truly the curse that was solely unto me alone.
God did to His own Son what He vowed to never do to us.(Heb. 13:5) The forsaken nature of Christ on the cross at calvary was always meant for me, but because Christ took it upon Himself, I never have to question God's favor towards me. Whenever I feel forsaken of God I can always look back to Christ on the cross and know, confidently, that Christ was forsaken of God once and for all, and especially for me from all eternity. Yet, not only me, but for the whole world as well. Christ has made all things new, and in Him we are no longer made in the likeness of our first father Adam, but in the likeness of the Son of God, restored unto the very likeness of God himself.
Yet, do I not still look into the mirror of God's Law and see this wretched man? Of course I do, we all do! However, in spite of what we see, always know that God's Law is a two-way mirror, while, yes, you cannot help but see your hideous reflection, God, when looking through the other side at us, also can't help but see the resplendent beauty of Christ's righteousness in our place. He no longer sees us as our true selves; He sees us nothing other than His very own Son. So, let us then rest in the peace of our Lord, perceiving nothing but Christ and Him crucified for our sins just like our Father in heaven perceives our image through nothing but His blessed holiness. Once this right perception of things unseen is restored, then, and only then can we apprehend correctly the divine mysteries of our God in heaven.
.
(This story was originally found in the "Toledo Blade" publication:)
Meet Rev. (or I guess now Father) Daniel Hackney.
He is not what would be considered a "high-rank" Lutheran converting over to the Eastern Orthodox tradition so to speak, however, his case does give us an object lesson into how the deep-roots of heterodoxy in ones past can easily influence one to stray from true apostolic Christianity, such as the kind found in orthodox Lutheranism. (I will abstain from any distinctive critique at the moment in saying that he was apart of the LC-MS, which could possibly mean he never valued orthodox Lutheranism, but that for now is neither here nor there, because of my personal ignorance to aspects of his life and the inconsequential nature of such a thing to the ultimate moral of the story.)
In his early life he was raised as an "ecumenical mutt", a term he affectionately applies to himself, and his life was not unlike many "boomers" his age. Here's a brief biography provided by David Yonke, religion editor of the Toledo Blade:
"...his parents were Baptists who attended church with his older siblings but had lapsed after he was born."
His affectionate self-description as "ecumenical-mutt" is pretty accurate given his personal history, but, for now pay close attention to the Pentecostalism of his background and just keep that fresh in you minds as I shall return to it later.
It is also evident that he was ambitious in "deeds-oriented" evangelicalism, yet, unfortunately, the article does not touch on anything regarding the evolution of his stance on theology, in that, at a certain point in his life, one of couple of things may or may not have occurred in his Christian walk so as to perhaps drastically change his views, theologically speaking of course.
Here is what I'm driving at, first, it's hard to know if he ever left behind any of his affiliations with Pentecostalism, and the Jesus Movement oriented Christianity of his youth, I mean, did he choose Lutheranism because he saw it as being more conservative, grounded, what have you, than the "hocus-pocus" nature of Pentecostalism; or, was he one of those who believes it's possible to strain out and keep the good "stuff" from the kettle-top of such heterodox organizations while being able to dispense the rest easily down the drain? Alas, we shall never know! However, depending on what path, if either he took, there are two profound conclusions of dire warning to all Lutherans who are not careful when playing "footsie" with other denominations.
The first warning is to beware of sources from church bodies other than your own! Not that this is any guarantee against heterodoxy, for liberalism is rife EVERYWHERE, however, you have, in my opinion, a better chance at staying true to your own confession by viewing everything outside your tradition with a jaundiced eye no matter what time in your life you read it, or have read it. Yet, that is not to say that everything within Lutheranism is beyond reproach, or everything without to be leavened with error. At this point though, it must be said that the best attitude is always that of the Bereans, to test everything in light of the scriptures.
In Rev. Hackney's case, he was turned on to Orthodox Christianity when:
"...he was in high school and read a book by Bishop Kallistos Ware titled The Orthodox Church."
In his opinion this really, "whet [his] appetite..."
And, we all know the rest of the story regarding his "spiritual" upbringing and life history. Yet, if we were to map out the devil's strategy in the life of a believer we would be astounded by the fact that he doesn't always build roadblocks in the path of a Christian, but that sometimes he builds bridges.
The bridge can serve as the second warning to be gained by Father Hackney's story, which is really the same as the first; beware of sources outside of orthodox Lutheranism!!!
You see, early in his life he was turned onto the Orthodox Church, and he then seemingly went in a different direction by embracing Pentecostalism and the Jesus Movement tripe of his youth. All the while he was interested in church history and was a student of it in one form or another. Then, in the middle of it all he embraced Lutheranism; so much so that he became a Lutheran minister in the LC-MS for ten years. Only to embrace the Orthodox Church after his lapse from the LC-MS. Little is said about his thoughts on Missouri, and it's shame that the interviewer didn't ask, yet what we have is what we have.
However, the real kicker is that beside the formalities, theologically speaking, there really is very little difference between the "juvenile" Pentecostalism of his youth and the "mature" Orthodoxy of his current years, for one of the main tenants of both Church bodies theologically speaking is that revelation and authority are capable of being given outside of scripture.
Now, granted, the way that each of these faiths present this facet of their theology is different; with the Orthodox it's about tradition and the consensus of the Father's (ie. Church Fathers), and how that tradition and consensus jives with Scripture. Where it does not jive, it is open to interpretation as long as it doesn't coherently contradict any other theological or traditional dogma as agreed upon by the Fathers. This ultimately means that Scripture is not solely the rule and norm of all things Christian, and the only Scripture that is authoritative is that which is in agreement with the Fathers and prior Church traditions.
It is different, yet similar to Pentecostalism in this sense; Pentecostalism believes that there is human authority outside of scripture like the Orthodox Church, but that this human authority can only be trusted if they are the Lord's "anointed". This "anointing" is proven by signs and wonders like healing the sick, speaking in tongues, prophesying, et. al., and the "anointed ones" are capable of prophesying things as direct revelation from God outside of His Word. This revelation is expected to be, and accepted as authoritative for their parishioners.
Also, with the Orthodox, both the relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit are essentially two different things, and not necessarily one dependent upon the other in the order of triune procession. According to the Orthodox, they both proceed from the Father, but it is not the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from the Son, thus they are subsequently related, yet mutually independent entities only related by the Father. So, if one were to take this to it logical consequence, one would be forced to admit that the Trinity, at least by human understanding, is related, is even of one essence, but is not in any way unified. This disagreement between the Western and Eastern Church is one that goes all the way back to the 879-880 Council of Constantinople where the filioque controversy was anathematized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
While the Orthodox view of the Trinity is definitely not in line with Scripture, they at least still affirm a Trinity, where Pentecostals affirm what only could be called a "modalistically-uncertain" concept of our Triune God. Now, depending upon the "type" of Pentecostal, for it's hardly a unified Church body, I have heard everything affirmed about the Trinity from, Jesus was just a really good "Dude" adopted by the Father because of his goodness, too, there was God the Father at first, and then He came as the Son on Earth, and now He is the Holy Spirit. There are iterations upon iterations regarding everything in between those two spectrum's, but hopefully you get the point, which is, as regarding the Trinity, they are obviously way out there in left field far from any sound Scriptural teaching.
Most of the problem, as usual, has to do with human reason's need to understand something that's basically beyond all comprehension. How can God be three in one and one in three; how could Christ be God, while praying to God the Father, etc.? It doesn't make sense, that is at least according to human reason. But does not the Orthodox as well suffer from this worship of reason, for when we seek to put man as the authority over God and His Word, all sorts of errors are bound to spring up like Lillie's in April. Human reason always demands supremacy, even, unfortunately, over the Lord our God.
While, admittedly, these two Churches are different, there are similarities between them, and one can see that it wouldn't be too hard for a deceiver like Satan to bridge the errors of both, that is if one still harbored a soft spot in their heart for the heterodoxy of their youth.
Now, that is not to say that this is what happened to Rev. (or now Father) Hackney. I don't know the man personally, and I wouldn't want somebody speculating about me when they had no idea who I was, or what the circumstances of my life were personally. Yet, his story I believe is an excellent springboard for discussion on this strange phenomena of people with a liberal past all-of-a-sudden embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, or Roman Catholicism based on superficial reasons, such as:
"...[he] felt drawn by the history and continuity of Orthodox Christianity."
(this one is hard to understand, the age of the Church lends to its authenticity? If so, how?) or that,
"Most people come into contact with God through the worship services. Most people don't read their Bibles, really,...And so [he] wanted to be a part of something whose worship transcends categories such as traditional and contemporary, something that remains the same so that [he] can have the assurance that [his] children and their children will be praying the same prayers, singing the same hymns, and worshiping in the same way."
(excluding his statements about reading Bibles and transcendance, could the rest not be achieved in confessional Lutheranism?) or that,
"...there was a desire for something else..."
(I suspect another desire for something else will perhaps arise in time, but then again who knows?) or that,
"[He] found in the Orthodox Church a richness in their daily prayer lives,...They had a structure. They had offices of prayer that are easy to follow. And by daily commemorating the saints that have gone before us, [he is] now connected with them in a way that has found its fullness in the Orthodox Church."
(once again, excluding the statement regarding commemoration of the saints and his connection to them through the Church, couldn't he have had just as rich a daily prayer life with the offices of prayer found in pastoral service books, or hymnals, etc.?)
However, if there is one ray of sunshine in regards to Father Hackney it is this:
"I'm committed to religious pluralism, and by that I mean everyone has a right to worship as they deem necessary according to their conscience," Father Daniel said. "This does not mean that we have to accept what everyone believes, we have the right to disagree." [emphasis mine]
I do not share his same enthusiasm about religious pluralism, however I do agree that we don't have to accept what everyone believes, and in that spirit I do not accept what Father Hackney believes. Perhaps one day he and others like him will see, and I pray it happens sooner rather than later, that what he and others like him are looking for, this style over substance, this personal fulfillment over the resignation of our will unto God's, this restless heart that we feel must be tamed by what pleases us, will one day find rest in the comfort given us by the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church, something he already had in his hands and unfortunately let slip away.
.
*
Today we'll examine the fourth thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation, it states:
Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
If the last thesis jarred your head a bit, this one should definitely put many wrinkles in the old noodle. This thesis is more of a reflection, or perhaps the inverse of thesis three, for its structure and propositional content is essentially the same but only inverted. You see, mans works appear good, but, are in fact evil; while God's works appear evil, when they're in fact “eternal merits”.
Now, when we pious folk think of God, we think of nothing in him but goodness and light. And this is a right way to think of God; indeed it's most certainly true, however, God, when he works in his creation, does not always work in a way that is attractive to us, reasonably speaking, of course.
This is where many atheists have made their stand against the idea, and existence of an all powerful god. The argument goes something like this: if "he/she/it" exists, why would a good and omnipotent god allow evil to go on unabated? Do they not have the power? If not, then there really not omnipotent, are they, nor are they subsequently god for that matter, right? Well, it's a good argument, and I suppose worthy of meditation, yet, this is only the case if you allow for the premises to stand unchallenged. You see, this question really does not apply in Christendom, for in Christianity, under its own premises the question should really be: if there is a good God, then why does he let any of us evil people go on living and committing more atrocious behavior amongst ourselves? However, the atheist will not give ground for this argument because we're essentially and admittedly starting from two different vantage points; the atheist is seeking for some non-identified "god's" existence all the while believing they have a solid case in claiming the amorphous "it" evil, and therefore non-existent, on the other hand, the Christian presumes God's existence and questions his justice, and in so doing, is unwittingly claiming God to be evil as well, whether the believer is aware of it or not.
(nah, not really)
However, when most believers feel their reason begin to "connect-the-dots" regarding their perception of how unattractive their God appears, many will "shoo" away such thoughts and attempt to make their God's actions reasonable. This is because their “god” is actually their reason, thus many theologians will bend themselves backwards to make God appear good, but only result in twisting themselves into philosophical pretzels. In doing this they appear as fools to the learned and wise. Unfortunately, these futile attempts at theodicy, so as to make Christianity seem like the wise option, are completely unnecessary, for it is the work of the Holy Spirit to deliver the renewal of mind given solely by the power of the Gospel. Evangelizing is not equivalent to winning reasonable arguments; Evangelizing is bringing God's Word of the Gospel to broken people who despair of themselves. This work in “breaking” is not ours; this work is Gods and Gods alone!
Luther best shows the case for this in his proof of thesis 4, which states:
“That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53[:2], "He had no form of comeliness," and in 1 Sam. 2[:6], "The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is no form or beauty in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6[:9-10], "As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live." And that it is which Isa. 28[:21] calls the alien work of God that he may do his work (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3[:2] states, "In wrath remember mercy." Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his ugliness. Indeed, he also does these things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
This ugliness, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as 1 Cor. 11[:31] says, "If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged" by the Lord. Deut. 32[:36] also states, "The Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants." In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit.”
You see, we humans, since the fall of our first parents, have been trapped by the lie of the serpent. After Eve had told the snake what God said regarding the penalty of death for eating the fruit, the serpent responded in Gen. 3:4, by saying:
“You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Unfortunately, since then little has changed. We still judge God by our reason, because we'd rather trust in our own little “self-god” we're accustomed to, thus not solely relying upon His Word as Adam and Eve should have done. And now that we no longer commune with God in our natural selves, which is original sins consequence, we all the more do not understand him and his ways which is attested to by St. Paul in Rom. 11:33-35, it states:
“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
However, our Lord has not left us high and dry, for His Word forever abides with us in the promise of His redeemer Son, Jesus Christ, and by the guarantee of His Holy Spirit. It is by the Law and the prophets that God, as testified by Christ,overtakes our intellect, and puts reason in its right place so as to apprehend our Savior for all eternity. It is by the Law and prophets that our agitated and restless mind can shake off its arduous burden so as to cling comfortably in “child-like” faith onto God's Word alone. It is in Christ and Christ alone where our reason, nay even our whole selves find our final rest in regard to God and His “hidden” ways.
For example, when Joseph's brothers were ready to throw him in a well and leave him for dead, where was God? When his brothers sold him instead, and as a result he was put under the cruel bondage of slavery, once again I ask, where was God? When he was falsely accused of adultery by Potiphar's wife, and was subsequently jailed for many years, where was his God? It's a valid question, because as anyone can see of the Old Testament saints, none was as sterling in character as Joseph, and yet, he was completely mistreated and suffered horribly. Why? Where was God? Why was such a righteous man treated in such a wretched manner? Did God not foreordain this evil to befall his holy and upright servant? Surely God should have known how much he suffered?
However, after Josephs days of great woe were behind him; after he was transformed into a king governing the mighty gentile nation of Egypt, his brothers were to appear before him unaware of this now older-looking and made-over younger brother they had once left for dead. Here Joseph utters a profound truth concerning God's work in his life through his brothers actions, in Gen. 45:4a-8, he says:
"I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”
"So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt.”
According to Joseph his brothers weren't to blame for his calamities, God was! You see, when God has set us aside to suffer it is never without purpose, yet, in the midst of such suffering, whether we've brought it upon ourselves, or we are afflicted from without, we, of our own natural ability are unable to understand that this too is the will of God meant for our own good, and as well for the good of others.
The greatest and clearest example of this in God's Word is in regards to the events of Good Friday. What could possibly be good about that day? Man, unaided by God in any manner was and is completely unaware of what actually happened on the cross.
Jesus' friends and disciples were in a state of complete and utter shock. Here was the most innocent, perfect, Godly, and holy person they had ever known, who was now condemned to death as a criminal by one of the cruelest means imaginable. All they had known, all they had understood was lost, was over, and was to never be again, at least according to their reason.
To the common Jewish citizen on the street, this was the very person they had welcomed into town as the great Messiah King to deliver them from the oppressive Roman magistrates just days before, who now hung powerless and forsaken of God upon a cross.
To Christ's enemies, who came to see if His supposed “Father in Heaven” of whom He so boldly spoke would save Him from this most humiliating death. And as He suffered, as it became utterly clear there would be no intervention from God, they mocked Him all the more because their reason couldn't dream of a Messiah who would ever allow Himself to be treated in such a manner, who would be totally powerless over his captors.
Yet, little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph was to suffer but for a little while. Little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph was to attain life for many people by his suffering. And, little did they know, that Jesus, like Joseph would come again to show his brethren that he was not only king of them, but over a vast foreign nation as well. Yet, Joseph is only a shadow or a type of Christ in the Old Testament, for by God working through the life of Joseph he was able to help many people avoid famine by becoming a prudent king over a small portion of the world, but in Christ how many more were helped?
Christ in his suffering took upon himself the sin of the world, the evil power of death, and the wrath of God we so justly deserve. Yet, it is not only that, for in His resurrection He became victorious over sin and death with its ghastly power, and in so doing has promised that we one day will do the same through the gift of faith, given us by God, in this holy work of love done for our sake. Who could have possibly known without divine revelation what exactly took place during those three days? I dare say, even now, as someone who both knows and accepts this most holy truth, I'm still completely incapable of understanding why God had to do things in such and such a manner, yet, nevertheless, I'll rest my reason with God's Word; let Him be true, and every man a liar.
You see folks, the basic lesson and teaching of this thesis regarding our natural judgment of God and the way He does things is this; empirical observation isn't what it's cracked up to be, at least when it attempts to judge God and his works. As Nietzsche once alluded to in response to the logical positivists of his day, there is no such thing as the “immaculate perception”, and so it is amongst us Christians, just because we possess the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that we can see into the “hidden” will of God either. So, when our reason seeks to understand and judge God according to it's ability, it is here where we must suspend it and let God be God.
*
Thesis 3 states that:
Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.
Alright, at this moment I believe I've heard a "ker-plunk" in the reasoning portion of the blogosphere's collective mind. I can imagine people (even Christians mind you) saying that, "This isn't true, what could Luther possibly mean by this? Surely he's a fool!"
Well, Luther did refer to himself as "God's fool" many times, but he did so within the context of 1 Cor. 1:25 where it says:
"...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, ..."
So, as to the foolishness of God, let us all pray that we partake of God's unique and very different wisdom, trusting in nothing but what His Word tells us about us, Himself, and our relation to Him wholeheartedly, even if it's in spite of our reason.
Now, regarding what exactly Luther is saying here, it's very important to keep perspective. And, what's most important is that we, as much as humanly possible, try to lose our perspective and attempt to see things through God's eyes.
Mankind has made for himself a system of justice based almost in whole part upon a conglomeration of different philosophies and sciences from throughout the ages. This system is hardly a settled issue in any sense, for the pock-marked surface of human laws are hammered out each day in courts all over the world. Nor do mans laws agree in every land, and subsequently, confrontations have naturally occur based on what one tribe considers legal and what another one doesn't. Yet, man indeed does have a moral intuition given him by God (i.e. conscience), and from this moral intuition he sees the necessity in deeming certain acts good and other acts evil.
For example, when we saw the firemen that ran into burning buildings to save lives on the morning of 9/11, while recognizing that many of them payed the ultimate price in doing so, we easily understand this as a good, morally upright, and heroic act. And also, in another instance a little closer to home, a co-worker of mine recently received a badly needed kidney from his brother. Now, the owner of the company I work for-a Roman Catholic-has called my co-worker's brother, based solely upon his good work, a saint. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating in the least bit by saying that my boss believes his action has earned this man heaven itself. Although, I as a Lutheran do not agree with my boss or believe God's knighted him in sainthood based on his deed, I still do nevertheless naturally see virtue in his selfless act.
However, this is the very problem. I'm trusting in my nature and in the judgment of what I see, and if I were to let that carry me away beyond the safe harbors of sound Lutheran doctrine, then there's no doubt I'd stand in solidarity with my boss by thinking these great deeds have indeed earned all the men who performed them God's salvation.
You see, this is man's natural religion; if you do good deeds then you get rewarded, you do bad deeds you get punished, plain and simple! Anybody who questions this common sense notion is perceived to be silly, foolish, or even perhaps evil. However, and unfortunately, we don't see things as they really are.
This is how Luther describes our works in his proof for thesis 4, he states:
Human works appear attractive outwardly, but within they are filthy, as Christ says concerning the Pharisees in Matt. 23[:27]. For they appear to the doer and others good and beautiful, yet God does not judge according to appearances but searches "the minds and hearts" [Ps. 7:9]. For without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart. Acts 15[:9]: "He cleansed their hearts by faith." The thesis is proven in the following way: If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous. But the just speak in behalf of their works in the following way: "Do not enter into judgment with thy servant, Lord, for no man living is righteous before thee" [Ps. 143:2].
The Apostle speaks likewise in Gal. 3 [:10], "All who rely on the works of the law are under the curse." But the works of men are the works of the law, and the curse will not be placed upon venial sins. Therefore they are mortal sins.
In the third place, Rom. 2[:21] states, "You who teach others not to steal, do you steal?" St. Augustine interprets this to mean that men are thieves according to their guilty consciences even if they publicly judge or reprimand other thieves.
You see, since the time our first parents fell, we are by nature bound unto sin, and we can do nothing other. So, even when we do something we would otherwise judge as good, in God's eyes it is nothing but sin, for, that's all we're capable of doing. Yet, when we receive Christ's righteousness, when his virtuous works done here during his time on earth are applied to us, we are thus covered by it in everything we do, yes, even our sins, and this is what causes us to be righteous in the sight of God. And so, it basically boils down to this: if there is any good that comes about by the works we do, then God be praised; if there is any evil, whether great or small, intentional or unintentional, then we in whole part solely possess it.
Now, on earth we may act as judge and deliver sentences upon our fellow brothers to the very best of our ability, but we are unable to judge the hearts and minds of the defendants before us. This task solely belongs to God, and to God alone. He has given us the very scale upon which he has weighed what we consider our righteousness, namely by His Law, and He has found us severely wanting. Yes, even the firemen of 9/11 and my co-workers brother's works are nothing but wretched and vile sins, and yes, to make it abundantly clear, even these most heroic and life saving acts are but rubbish before God's eyes. However, the only reason they'd be rubbish, is when and if these men ever wore their works as feathers in a fancy cap, flouting them before God and thinking He was impressed by their pious attire.
You see, unless we fear that even our best works are mortal sins, salvation can never be granted us by God. Whatever good we believe we do, the praise really belongs to the one who has hidden our sin, by covering us in His righteousness. For, without God there is no good, and without Jesus we share no communion in God's goodness. He is what makes us good; we, left to ourselves, really have nothing to do with it at all. It's Christ who is our righteousness, and for God and His perfect judgment no other supposed pseudo, self-assured "righteousness" will suffice. We can now rest in the fact that all is done in Christ, and that we no longer need to labor under the torture of the Law. Jesus' sinless life has been imputed to us for all eternity, and not even Satan can take that away from us. Let us now steadfastly cling to out great Savior, our only assurance in this perishing world, and stand with confidence before God our Father, pointing to nothing but Christ and His cross.
(The article I'm quoting from was written by Christine Armario, a writer for the Associated Press, on 2-5-09.)
Beside what's most obviously horrifying about this tragic event, is the shock, dismay, and contempt of those on the "pro-choice" side of the argument have towards this particular abortion practitioner, without seriously considering where their dogma leads. Here's the first part of the story in the writer's own words.
"Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure."
"Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl."
"What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out."
"Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips."
""I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners."
Now, I can completely understand why the "pro-lifers" are up in arms about this, I as a "pro-lifer" feel as they do, and I can understand the natural outrage that someone with a conscience feels regarding the disgusting nature of this story, but at what point will the "pro-choice" side of things start to see that this is exactly where their ideology is heading.
That is not to say that I believe all abortion advocates currently believe in this kind of thing, but I do believe that abortion advocates will be forced to accept this this type of practice in the future. Right now I believe it's possible that not all "pro-choicers" are advocates of infanticide, but I do believe that all infanticide advocates are "pro-choicers", and this is very troubling. Here's my question, what side of the previous statement has stronger intellectual gravitas; what side is more consistent?
And for anybody who thinks I'm going over the line by asking this, then please meet Peter Albert David Singer, professor at one of Americas most elite universities; Princeton. I will quote what this utilitarian bioethics philosopher has said regarding the legitimacy of killing another human being, he says:
So he is at least honest in saying a fetus (otherwise known as baby) is a living being, but, at least to him, it doesn't categorically tell him whether it's wrong or right to kill that living being. Elsewhere, in regards to infanticide he has stated:
"''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,'' Professor Singer told the rapt audience in Harold Helm Auditorium. ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''"
Yes folks, this man is educating and influencing the elite's elite of future business leaders, "think-tank" philosophers, politicians, and medical practitioners, etc.; be very afraid!
So, here's what I mean in saying that the "pro-choice" ideology is headed down Professor Singer's road. The arguments for abortion are always rooted in utilitarian ethics, i.e. what is the greater good, etc., and this man is, perhaps, ahead of his time by just pushing the ideas of euthanasia and infanticide to their logically inevitable conclusions. Believe it or not, this man's a very clear and cogent thinker who longs to bring the truth of his sides position to light. He, as a person shouldn't be denegrated for speaking such things, although his ideas belong at the bottom of human reason's junk-heap, but his refreshing honesty is very rare among intellectual elites. All we can ask for is that people think consistently regarding their beliefs, and communicate them honestly without glossing over the unpleasant stuff.
However, Joanne Sterner, the Broward county president of NOW, remains inconsistent with her ideology when she says this about the incident:
""It really disturbed me...I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.""
I don't doubt that she was disturbed by the incident, but excuse me, the woman involved in this case was fine, at least medically speaking (maybe not mentally); now as for the child who suffocated in a plastic trash bag in the clinic's rubbish bin, that's another story. And once again, for anybody who believes I'm exagerating this account for effect, here is what Ms. Williams, the would be mother had to say about witnessing the event, she says:
"...Gonzalez [the clinic operator] knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she [Ms. Williams] had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out."
I believe it's safe to say this baby suffered terribly in her final moments. Here's a little more information about how alive this child actually was.
"At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.
An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity."
What a tragedy! Let's pray this brutal practice will one day be criminalized as it should, and that the Lord show "pro-choice" advocates the error of their ways so that they repent of this sin.
