|
| Happy Reformation Day! |
| 31.10.06 |
On this day in 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, launching the "Protestant Reformation." The Christian church has changed remarkably since then. Many evangelicals wish to de-reform the church and compromise with Romanist doctrines and practices- including an agreement not to "proselytize" Catholics. In other words, to make agreements with men, many evangelical leaders have sacrificed the Word of God. A real shame.
In honor of the spirit of the Reformation, I offer the 95 Theses as written by Martin Luther:
Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
13. Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
20. Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope's indulgences.
22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
25. The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
26. The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
30. No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
31. One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.
36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
38. Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.
42. Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
49. Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
53. Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
55. The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
57. That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
61. For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.
70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
73. In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
74. It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76. We assert the contrary, and say that the pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity.
82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.
83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
86. Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
87. Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
89. What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace. Labels: Holidays |
posted by pregador27 @ 09:50   |
|
|
|
| Caners v. Calvinism: Caners Run from debate |
| 7.10.06 |
For several months I have been following a challenge for a debate between the Caner brothers (former Muslims and big men on the Falwell Liberty U campus). I have read all the emails (sometimes debates in themselves) and have seen the Caners try to duck the debate multiple times. Finally the debate was scheduled. Agreement was made on where (in the Caner's home court of Liberty U), and rules for the debate were being worked out. They finally agreed and the debate was set for October 16, 2006.
Well, now the debate has been cancelled. The Caner's camp has attempted to change the rules again causing the debate to fall through.
Here is the text from the Caner's site regarding the proposed debate:
Baptist/Calvinism Debate
Baptists And Calvinism Debate
October 16th - 6-9pm at Thomas Road.
Monday evening from 6-9p Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner will debate Dr. James White and Dr. Tom Ascol on the topic Baptists and Calvinism. This is open and free of charge to the public. Please contact 592-4140 if you have any questions.
Live Video will be available via our site. Please visit this page again on October 16th for the live feed. (Baptists and Calvinism Debate page- Ergun Caner http://www.erguncaner.com/site/?page_id=125)
Here is the announcement of cancellation by Dr. James White and the Alpha Omega ministries:
There Will Be No Debate in Lynchburg on October 16th
The following e-mail was just sent to Emir Caner, Brett O'Donnell, and Ergun Caner.
Gentlemen:
Thank you for finally writing, Dr. Caner. I believe a quicker reply would have saved us all a lot of trouble, but that is water under the bridge.
In essence, Emir, you have just said that while you worked with Tom to arrive at an agreement, you are willing to renege, less than two weeks prior to that debate, on the agreement, throwing out the very heart of the requests Tom brought to you in good faith, all because Dr. O'Donnell does not like them? Sir, could I please ask you how we can trust anything that is said to us when your word can be changed by someone with an allegedly "higher" authority? What if someone decides that the debate needs to be two hours, and that on Monday night the 16th of October? Will that then be what happens?
Further, Emir, if Dr. O'Donnell is to be given ultimate, final, and complete authority over the debate (something that was never requested, let alone granted, by us), why did you come to us and ask what we would have to do to make this work? Why not have Dr. O'Donnell do this, since, if you are being consistent now, you did not have the authority to negotiate anyway? If you were negotiating in good faith then, how can you renege on that negotiation now? If you were not negotiating in good faith then, what was your purpose? I cannot begin to understand this behavior on your part.
I have to ask you all. If this is not breach of contract, at least in the realm of one's word and honor, what would, in fact, constitute this?
Well, this saga will certainly go down in history. It will do so because I will continue to arrange meaningful, scholarly debates with leading proponents of other viewpoints, just as I will be debating John Shelby Spong in November, and we will continue to demonstrate the highest standards in honestly seeking to fairly and openly defend the Christian faith in those situations. And if Dr. Ergun Caner would like to arrange a one-on-one debate at a neutral location in the future, I would dearly love to do so. But as it stands now, you have reneged upon our agreement unilaterally; you refuse to allow for sufficient time for a four-man debate and for the agreed to cross-examination; you likewise have claimed, through O'Donnell's actions, the advantage of speaking first and last despite the thesis statement not requiring that advantage to the affirmative side. Since the video taping rights issue likewise has not been completely settled, and given that Dr. O'Donnell has disqualified himself by his demeanor and behavior from moderating, it is obvious that there is no good faith being exercised by your side in this event. The ability to trust that the others will do what they say they will do is necessary to have a meaningful event.
Therefore, in light of the knowing and unilateral abandonment of the settled agreement on the part of Brett O'Donnell, and your support of this, there will be no debate on October 16th in Lynchburg, Virginia. Immediately before your e-mail arrived Dr. Ascol called me from Sao Paulo, Brazil, and I confirmed with him that we would not accept the unilateral rejection of our agreement. Then, I sent this e-mail to him for his approval, and he managed to get an internet connection from the airport, and he stands with me. There can be no debate without debaters, and the behavior of your side in openly reneging upon your word has made any further attempts to make this work, despite months of struggle, worthless. My personal challenge to Ergun Caner stands for a one-on-one debate, but now with the stipulation that it take place in a neutral location with a neutral moderator.
Any suggestions or assertions that this debate ended for any other reason than the truth, i.e., that twelve days prior to the debate the agreement upon which it was based was unilaterally thrown out by Brett O'Donnell with the support of Emir Caner, will be met with full and complete documentation of the facts. It is bad enough that this has happened. Please, do not add to this with any campaign to make it look like we pulled out of this. Everyone in this group knows otherwise.
James White
If the need arises (and I'm sure it will), I will provide all the documentation of the past days' e-mails. However, the last e-mail, to which I responded above, had a conspicuous "privacy" notification. See today's DL (here) for a discussion of the events leading up to the cancellation of the debate. (Alpha and Omega site October 6, 2006- James White http://aomin.org/)
While I am Reformed in theology, I have friends who are not. We make commitments to each other and are very civil to each other. We fellowship desite our disagreement. The Caners Mr. Falwell are venomous anti-Calvinists. I feel that Frank Page (SBC president) leans in that direction with the slanderous remarks about Calvinists getting in the way of missions. I believe, after reading the email exchanges, that the Caners have been trying to duck the debate for the whole time that Dr. White was trying to set it up. Ergun Caner calls himself the "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world." Well, he resembles more of a poodle. Anyway, I don't see that referenced on his site any longer. He does have a bunch of pictures of himself though. I wonder about that. He boasts about his debates with other religions, but Dr. White has many recordings and documentation of his debates with many more different opponents than Caner mentions.
I doubted the debate would happen. I guess I was right. Such a shame. Albert Mohler Jr. and Paige Patterson were able to have an amicable debate during the Southern Baptist Convention in June 2006. Too bad Fawell and Caner couldn't be as civil.Labels: Doctrines |
| posted by pregador27 @ 09:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
