Newt Gingrich: Why I'll not vote for him in the Republican Primary

As I write this, it appears that Newt Gingrich [?!] is the non-Romney frontrunner in the GOP Primary. But I won't be voting for him either. Because usually I wouldn't quote Ann Coultier-- although if her political positions were put on a checklist, I might agree with a good number of them-- because she regularly presents her points of view in a rude, uncharitable, fear-mongering manner, but in the following quote re: Newt Gingrich (given via Dan Phillips), I have to admit that she sums up conservative objections to Gingrich nicely:

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized 'poverty pimps,' and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan's plan to save Social Security 'right-wing social engineering,' we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

The "affair" mentioned above led to Gingrich divorcing his second wife and marrying the younger woman, just as he had divorced his first wife after having an affair with a younger woman. Gingrich's third wife convinced him to convert to Roman Catholicism (Newt had been a lifelong Southern Baptist). Gingrich's marital and religious infidelity-- his unfaithfulness to the most sacred of relationships-- seem to mark him out as a fundamentally untrustworthy individual.

"Cobb Neighbor" Promotes Mormonism

A week ago yesterday, the Cobb Neighbor, a newspaper in the Atlanta-metropolitan area, ran a full-page story about the "I'm a Mormon" advertisements being utilized by the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the main denomination of Mormonism).

The story, written by Marcus E. Howard, lacks any sense of journalistic integrity, for it makes passing mention of "some Christian leaders who have questioned [Mormon] religious practices," but, without exception, all quotes in the article are from Mormons, who argue that Mormons "are Christians:" the other side of the story is not represented at all.

Without comment or rejoinder, Bishop Robert Walton is quoted as saying:

[Mormons] are Christians and members of the church have a devout belief in the Bible; we follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and we accept him as our personal savior and redeemer.

Any Christian who has studied this issue at all could have easily given Howard a response to Bishop Walton's claims, pointing out that Mormons have historically re-defined ALL of the theological terms-- crucial terms such as "Bible," "Gospel," and "Jesus Christ"-- in the quote above.

Thankfully the Cobb Neighbor-- a popular publication-- is also a free publication, so that non-Mormon readers do not have to feel that they have paid to promote Mormonism. However, I wonder if the advertisers who do pay for the production of this publication would be comfortable with the thought that they are paying for the promotion of Mormonism.

Sermon Notes from "Hello, Goodbye, and What's in the Middle." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

[The following notes were taken during the 10:45AM service this past Lord's Day at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon should soon be available to hear on-line HERE.]

1 Thessalonians 5:26-28.

I. Intro.We should be intentional in our interactions with others.

II. Greeting
A. Christians ought to be friendly. (Matt 5:43ff.)
B. There is a special love we must have for Christian brothers.
C. "Holy kiss."
1. Greet one another warmly in a way that is culturally appropriate.
2. Appropriate physical touch can be tremendously meaningful.

III. What's in the Middle
A. Legal language is used to charge the Thessalonians to have the letter read.
B. We must give heed to the public reading of the word.

IV. Goodbye
A. We must be intentional with our speech.
B. Little things, like saying, "Have a blessed day," instead of , "Bye," can make a big difference.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 13: The Diet of Worms

[Continued from Part 12.]

In 1521, Martin Luther faced the trial that became known as the most significant public test of his faith. Luther was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms over which Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, presided. The Diet of Worms was convened by Charles V for the purpose of consolidating his power against his enemies: the governments of France and the Ottoman Empire. Charles V viewed the controversy over Luther's teachings as a threat to the unity of the Holy Roman Empire, and he wished to determine whether any agreement could be found between the Lutherans and the Romanists. No agreement would be reached at the Diet, however, because from the Roman point of view Luther needed to recant his teachings, whereas from Luther's point of view the pope and his followers needed to repent of their teachings. For Charles V, the Diet of Worms was a move in a political game; from the point of view of Luther and his opponents, the Diet of Worms was a battlefield for spiritual warfare.

Luther was scheduled to appear at 4PM on April 17, 1521 before a committee of the Diet. The streets of Worms were choked with crowds of both Luther's supporters and his opponents, and so the soldiers escorting Luther had to bring him to the Diet through a rear entrance. Luther then had to wait in a vestibule for about two hours as the committee considered other business. Finally appearing before the committee, Luther was confronted by a table on which his books were piled. Johan Eck, an official representing the Archbishop of Trier (no relation to the Eck of the Leipzig Disputation), addressed Luther as follows:

Dr. Martin Luther, you have been called before His Imperial Majesty in regard to certain doctrines that you have seen fit to propound and scatter; doctrines that have been judged to be heresy by His Holiness, the pope, the Most Blessed Father, Leo the Tenth. You have been called here to state whether these books arranged on this table were written by you, and whether you are prepared to recant the heresy they contain. [Robinson, 60]

Luther was about to answer when his counsel spoke:

Would it please you to have the titles of the books read in order that Dr. Luther might know whether or not he is the author of each? [Ibid.]

Eck agreed. As he picked up each book and read its title, Luther acknowledged by a nod of his head that he was the author. When all were read, Eck turned again and addressed Luther:

Having acknowledged that you are the author of all these books, you are now asked to declare whether you are ready to recant the heretical doctrines that they contain. What do you say? [Ibid.]

Luther reflected aloud:

This touches God and his Word. This affects the salvation of souls. Of this Christ said, "he who denies me before men, him I will deny before my father." To say too little or too much would be dangerous. I beg you, give me time to think it over. [Bainton, 141]

Bainton notes:

The emperor and the diet deliberated. Eck brought the answer. He expressed amazement that a theological professor should not be ready at once to defend his position, particularly since he had come for that very purpose. He deserved no consideration. Nevertheless, the emperor in his clemency would grant him until the morrow. [Ibid.]

Luther's delay in answering whether he would recant had the effect of allowing him to appear before a plenary session of the Diet rather than before a committee. On April 18 Luther was once again scheduled to appear before before the Diet at 4PM, and once again business of the Diet delayed his appearance for about two hours.

Eck asked Luther if he was ready to recant.

Luther responded:

Most serene emperor, most illustrious princes, most clement lords, if I have not given some of you your proper titles I beg you to forgive me. I am not a courtier, but a monk. You asked me yesterday whether [these books were all mine and whether] I would repudiate them. They are all mine, but as for the second question, they are not all of one sort... Some deal with faith and life so simply and evangelically that my very enemies are compelled to regard them as worthy of Christian reading. Even the bull itself does not treat all my books as of one kind. If I should renounce these, I would be the only man on earth to damn the truth confessed alike by my friends and foes. A second class of my works inveighs against the desolation of the Christian world by the evil lives and teachings of the papists. Who can deny this when the universal complaints testify that by the laws of the popes the consciences of men are racked? [Ibid., 142-143]

"No!" broke in the emperor.

But Luther continued:

Should I recant at this point, I would open the door to more tyranny and impiety, and it will be all the worse should it appear that I had done so at the instance of the Holy Roman Empire...

A third class contains attacks on private individuals. I confess that I have been more caustic than comports with my profession, but I am being judged, not on my life, but for the teaching of Christ, and I cannot renounce these works either, without increasing tyranny and impiety. When Christ stood before Ananias, he said, 'Produce witnesses.' If our Lord, who could not err, made this demand, why may not a worm like me ask to be convicted of error from the prophets and the Gospels? If I am shown my error, I will be first to throw my books into the fire. I have been reminded of the dissensions which my teaching engenders. I can answer only in the words of the Lord, 'I came not to bring peace but a sword.' If our God is so severe, let us beware lest we release a deluge of wars, lest the reign of this noble youth, Charles, be inauspicious. Take warning from the examples of Pharaoh, the king of Babylon, and the kings of Israel. God it is who confounds the wise. I must walk in the fear of the Lord. I say this not to chide but because I cannot escape my duty to my Germans. I commend myself to Your Majesty. May you not suffer my adversaries to make you ill-disposed to me without cause. I have spoken. [Ibid., 143.]

Eck replied:

Martin, you have not sufficiently distinguished your works. The earlier were bad and the latter worse. Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. How will the Jews, how will the Turks, exult to hear Christians discussing whether they have been wrong all these years! Martin, how can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the most holy and orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed through the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the Church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to discuss lest there be no end of debate. I ask you, Martin– answer candidly and without horns– do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain? [Ibid., 143-144]

Luther replied:

Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and by plain reason– I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other; my conscience is captive to the Word of God– I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe... Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise... God help me, Amen. [Ibid., 144]

Luther, who had been speaking in German, was asked to repeat what he had said in Latin, which he did, then he raised his arms victoriously and departed for his hotel.

Charles V was eager to be known as a just ruler, and so he honored his promise of Luther's safe passage and allowed him to depart for Wittenberg. But Charles V was also eager to be known as a faithful Roman Catholic, and he was greatly concerned that Luther's challenge of religious authority would result in a challenge to political authority as well, thus undermining his own rule. Therefore, Emperor Charles V issued the Edict of Worms, declaring Luther a "notorious heretic." The Edict of Worms called on the citizens of the Holy Roman Empire to both destroy all of Luther's works and to capture Luther himself so that he may be punished as a heretic (i.e., he was to be burned at the stake).

Now Luther had been declared a heretic by both the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Help Mark Lamprecht Win a $10,000 Scholarship to Seminary!

I don't know Mark Lamprecht as well as I'd like (maybe if I move back to GA we'll get to hang out), but I have interacted with him some over the Internet and we got to spend some time together at the John 3:16 Conference.

Anyway, from everything I know Mark is a strongly committed Christian, and he is currently attending seminary in preparation for vocational ministry.

Now Mark has an opportunity to win a $10,000 scholarship, but he needs your help. Anyone reading this should vote for Mark HERE and tell your friends to do the same. Voting ends November 30; you are allowed to vote once a day.

An Additional Critique of Jim Wallis

In his recent debate with Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jim Wallis consistently compared his concern for the poor with the Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement in previous generations; Wallis said that Christian leaders who worked for Abolition or Civil Rights were on the side of justice.

I wonder: what if a Christian leader during the Civil Rights era spent a great deal of time helping the poor in general, but refused to take a firm stand against racism? Would Jim Wallis say that Christian leader was on the side of justice? What if a Christian leader influenced other Christians to join the Democratic Party in the South during the era when the state Democratic Parties were institutionally racist due to the White Primary? Would that Christian leader be on the side of justice?

But now Wallis has influenced many Christians to vote Democrat because supposedly the Democrats care more about the poor. The main problem with voting for the Democratic Party in general is that their official party platform calls abortion a "right" and declares, "we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Certainly there are still some "blue dog" Democrats (especially in the South) and voting for such Democrats may, at times, be appropriate. But unless a Democratic candidate specifically repudiates the pro-abortion plank in his or her Party's platform, that candidate should be viewed in the same way that we would view a Dixiecrat. No matter how many other good programs a Democratic candidate may support, unless he or she both repudiates the pro-abortion plank in his or her Party's platform, and explicitly declares an intention to change that plank of the platform, that candidate is aligned with an ideology that runs contrary to the right to life for the unborn, which is the crucial social justice issue in America today.

If a person cared for the poor in the antebellum South, but did nothing to end slavery, then that person would not be considered 'on the side of social justice.' If that person claimed that, instead of focusing on the rights of African-Americans, he would focus on improving the economic system in the South so that slavery would be less necessary, then that person would not be considered 'on the side of social justice.' If that person helped pro-slavery candidates get elected for the end of accomplishing other (perhaps noble) political goals, then that person would not be considered 'on the side of social justice.'

Wallis wants to care for the poor, but has called the abortion debate "stale." Wallis wants to call Christians to care for those who are metaphorically without a voice and who are powerless, but his agenda would distract Christians from caring for those who are literally without a voice and powerless. Wallis, and those following his line of thinking, claim that by improving economic conditions of the poor (a goal that, they claim, will be accomplished by liberal economic policies), they will make abortion "less necessary," as if it is sufficient to make murder "less necessary" rather than illegal.

Though painful for the South, it was right for the United States to make chattel slavery illegal first-- recognizing the rights of African-Americans-- and then to work for an economic reconstruction of the South so that (as it was hoped) industry would come to the South, making slavery unnecessary. Though painful for the poor, it would be right for the United States to make abortion illegal first-- recognizing the right to life for the unborn-- and then to work to end any institutionalized injustice that may make the poor think that killing their unborn is the correct option.

Why Dr. Mohler won the recent debate (without Jim Wallis noticing).

Recently, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary debated Jim Wallis, President of Sojourners. The topic for the debate, which can be heard on-line HERE, was, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?" Wallis answered "yes," and Dr. Mohler (somewhat reluctantly, due to the way the question was framed) answered "no." Wallis stated that care for the poor is "integral" to the gospel: basically, he wanted to argue that care for the poor is an essential part of the gospel message itself. Dr. Mohler stated that care for the poor is a necessary consequence of gospel work in someone's life, but the gospel message is distinct from a message about caring for the poor.

Dr. Mohler said that he was concerned that the way Wallis framed the issue would lead to a loss of the gospel message. Wallis conceded that this was a valid concern, but that he worked to make sure that personal salvation is central to the gospel proclamation at Sojourners.

When Wallis conceded that the possibility of losing the gospel was a valid concern, after having earlier stated that doctrines such as substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection were also essential to the gospel, he automatically lost the debate without knowing it. Because earlier in the debate, when listing his heroes (in terms of those whom he felt got it right in terms of preaching that social justice is integral to the gospel) he kept mentioning people like Charles Finney and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason that the mention of these men is such a problem is that Finney was a hyper-Pelagian arch-heretic and Dr. King, for all his admirable qualities, denied the resurrection. If Wallis, who attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and should know better, is so enamored with "social justice" that he cannot discern when his heroes are those who abandoned the biblical gospel, then there is something drastically wrong with the way he wishes to frame the argument.

Sermon Notes from "The Doctrine of Salvation: Limited Atonement, Part 1." Sermon by Dave Stephenson.

[This morning, I had to miss worshiping with Kosmosdale Baptist Church because I was staying home with Christian, who has been sick. I decided to listen to the sermon mentioned in the title of this post. This sermon is from a pastor who has been greatly influential in my life, and is on a subject that I have studied in great detail. The sermon can be heard HERE.]

I. Defining the Controversy

A. The work of Jesus Christ on the Cross did not save every human being who ever lived, but salvation is limited to those who believe. The controversy is concerning the way in which the atonement is limited.

B. Did Jesus die to make salvation possible for every person without distinction? Or, did Jesus die to secure salvation for a particular people?

II. The Reformed Belief Concerning the Limit of the Atonement

A. We believe that the death of Jesus was sufficient for all, but effective only for the elect.

B. We believe that Jesus' death paid for all the sins of the elect, and none of the sins of the non-elect.

III. Passages Cited as Objections to Limited Atonement

A. "World" Passages (John 1:9, 29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 2:2, 4:14)

1. None of these make the point that the Arminians want to make; none of them speak of human choice.

2. "Propitiation" = "appeasing sacrifice" or "satisfying payment;" this word carries no sense of potential or partial satisfaction. If 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation for every individual has ever lived, then the verse does not teach Arminianism, but Universalism.

B. "All" Passages (2 Cor 5:15; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9)

IV. Passages Concerning the Limit of the Atonement

A. Passages: (Matt 1:21; 20:28; John 10:11; Acts 20:28; Eph 5:25; Heb 9:15; Rev 5:9)

B. Terms: "His people," "the many," "His sheep," "the Church"

V. The Harmony of these Passages

A. The natural use of inclusive language:

1. The normal use of "all" does not indicate "each and every human being who ever lived."

2. The biblical use of the word "all" means "all kinds" as seen, for example, in Rev 5:9.

3. In normal use, when "all" means "all without qualification," more words are added to "all."

4. In the Bible, when "all" means "all without exception" [with the lone exception of Christ], more words are joined to all, as seen in the verses leading up to the statement that "all have sinned" in Romans 3.

B. The use of world in the New Testament context:

1. In the Church, when we say "the world," we often think, "the world as distinct from the Church;" in [New Testament-era] Jewish culture "the world" would have been understood as 'the world as distinct from the Jews.'

2. Acts 11:17-18, the Church seems shocked that the world outside Judaism would be saved.

A Prophecy of Jesus' Coming: Revelation 1:7-8

Translation of Revelation 1:7-8

7 Look! He is coming with the clouds,

and every eye will see him,

and whoever pierced him,

and all the tribes of the earth

will anguish[1] over him.

–It is certain.[2]

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,”[3] says the Lord God, “He who is and was and is coming, the Almighty.”

---

[1]kovyontai has been traditionally rendered “mourn;” after much prayer, study, and consideration, I have opted to translate this term as “anguish,” as the ‘mourning’ here does not seem to refer to the grief over losing a loved one, but rather it refers to a deeply painful sorrow over personal guilt.

[2]naiv, ajmhvn is a synonymia, “whose function is to strengthen the certainty of what has just been prophesied.” Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 79.

[3]There is no theological significance to the fact that the word for “Alpha” is spelled out in the Greek text, while “Omega” is given as a single letter; that is, the phrase to; “Alfa kaiv to;; W (to Alpha kai to O) appears uneven in the Greek text, but this is simply because Greek grammarians did not coin the word #Wmega until the 7^th century A.D. (Aune, Revelation 1-5, 57)

“The Alpha and the Omega” could reasonably be translated as “the A and the Z” so that the one reading in English could immediately see that the Lord God is using the first and last letter of the alphabet. The traditional anglicized forms of the Greek letter names– “Alpha and Omega”– is retained because the phrase “the A and the Z” is not commonly used in English and rendering reading “the A and the Z” may have an unintended comic effect.

Commentary on Revelation 1:7-8

Having referred to his writing as “the words of prophecy” in verse 3, John now prophesies to his readers.

The prophecy. =Idou; (idou), translated, “Look!” is characteristic in the book of Revelation as indicative of special divine intervention and should be understood in this case as introducing an oracle or prophecy. =Idou; has two related meanings: (1) “It functions as a marker of strong emphasis indicating the validation of the statement it introduces;” (2) “It functions as a marker to draw attention to that which it introduces.”[1]

The prophecy in Revelation 1:7 draws upon Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10: texts Jesus used to prophesy of His second coming, as recorded in Matthew 24:30. Whereas Zechariah 12 seems to be firmly centered upon Jerusalem, Revelation 1:7 speaks of “all the tribes of the earth.” Viewed through faith in Christ, texts with specific revelation to the Old Testament nation of Israel are now seen as universal.

Assurance the message will come to pass. The One from whom John had received the prophecy recorded in verse 7 announces Himself in verse 8. This declaration from the Lord God highlights His sovereignty over the course of history and thus serves as an assurance that the prophecy will come to pass.

In Revelation 1:8, the Lord God first refers to Himself as to; “Alfa kaiv to;; W (to Alpha kai to O) “the Alpha and the Omega.” This divine title emphasizes the sovereignty of God in a way similar to the titles “the beginning and the end” (Rev 21:6; 22:13) and “the first and the last” (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13).[2]

The Lord God next refers to Himself as oJ w[n kai; +o #hn kai; +o ejrcovmenoV (ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos) “He who is and was and is coming.” This phrase is repeated from verse 4. In the former verse, this phrase clearly referred to God the Father as the phrase occurred in the first section of a Trinitarian formula. In this verse, the reader may ask if the phrase is once again in reference to the Father, or if it is now specifically applied to the Son. But the Trinitarian distinction made a few verses earlier does not seem to be in view with this verse; rather, God in the fullness of His divine essence is being magnified. That this verse takes in a reference to the Son in His deity along with the Father is seen in that: (1) “He who… is coming” in this context most naturally includes the idea of the One who is said to be “coming” in the previous verse– that is, the One who was also said to be “pierced”– namely, Jesus; (2) oJ w[n (ho on) “He who is” is basically the third person form of =Egwv =ei;mi (Ego eimi) “I am,” and John consistently records Jesus referring to Himself as “I am;” (3) In Revelation 22:13, Jesus is clearly the speaker, and He refers to Himself using a title for the Lord God also found in this verse: to; “Alfa kaiv to;; W (to Alpha kai to O) “the Alpha and the Omega.”

The final title by which the Lord God refers to Himself in this verse is +o pantokravtwr (ho pantokrator) “the Almighty.” This divine title occurs eight other times in the book of Revelation (4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22).[3] In Revelation 1:8, “the Almighty” summarizes the two previous phrases by which the Lord God identifies Himself– phrases that were rather poetic– into a single term. The Lord God can and will bring His prophecy to pass because He is “the Almighty.”

---

[1]Aune, Revelation 1-5, 53.

[2]Ibid., 57.

[3]There is only one other verse in the New Testament in which the term “the Almighty” is used– 2 Corinthians 6:18– and this is an Old Testament quotation. (Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 81)

A New Book to Honor Tom Nettles

Today during the chapel service at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), the highly influential Baptist historian and theologian, Dr. Thomas J. Nettles was honored by being presented with a festschrift. I was not able to be present at the chapel service this morning due to work, but apparently Tom Ascol, Director of Founders Ministries, presented the work to Dr. Nettles.

I first learned of this book about a year ago when I had the privilege of chatting with Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin while I was doing some research at the SBTS library. I asked Dr. Haykin about the research he was doing, and he told me that he was preparing to write a chapter on John Gill for an upcoming festschrift for Dr. Nettles. (At that time, Dr. Haykin told me not to mention this to Dr. Nettles, as the festschrift was meant to be a surprise: I wonder if this work remained a surprise to Dr. Nettles until yesterday?) It was highly interesting that Dr. Haykin would write the chapter on Gill, since (unless their positions have changed) Dr. Nettles does not believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, while Dr. Haykin is convinced that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist. I am extremely interested to see how Dr. Haykin's chapter turned out.

The rest of the book-- with contributors such as Dr. Greg Wills, Dr. Russell Moore, Dr. Sam Waldron, and Dr. Fred Malone-- looks highly interesting as well, and I look forward to reading it. For those interested, information about the book and how to order it can be found HERE.

Herman Cain: Why I'll not vote for him in the Republican Primary

Recently, Herman Cain's bid for the Republican nomination for President has come under fire due to allegations of sexual harassment. Four different women have made accusations against Cain, and the National Restaurant Association paid two of the women an out-of-court settlement. While Cain certainly has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, conservatives should resist the temptation to completely turn a blind eye to these allegations. We should beware of showing favoritism or having a double standard; if liberals were wrong to downplay Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, then, if it turns out that these allegations have against Cain have merit, we must consider that this moral failure indicates a lack of character, which would disqualify Cain from office.

But regardless of the truth or error concerning these allegations, I had already decided not to vote for Cain for two reasons: 1) the 9% federal income tax he has proposed; 2) his fuzzy statements regarding the right to life for the unborn [the second reason being much more important than the first].

1. 9% Federal Income Tax

Proposed as part of the 9-9-9 plan, the 9% federal sales tax would place an excessive burden on consumers. Also, I agree with the conservative opposition to granting the federal government another source of revenue, which would inevitably by expanded (a 9% federal sales tax today could be a 15% federal sales tax tomorrow).

2. Fuzzy Statements Regarding the Right to Life

Note the boldface statements HERE and Cain's answer under #3 HERE. Now, in other cases, Cain has given unequivocally pro-life answers, so I am not saying that Cain is pro-abortion. What I AM saying is [to borrow a quote from yesterday's blogpost by Dan Phillips] "he doesn't seem to have thought through even how to enunciate core principles." And this is especially troubling when it comes to a failure to enunciate a clear stand in regards to the chief issue of social justice in America today: the right to life for babies in the womb.

God's Love for the Non-Elect

Previously on this blog, I have written about God's love for His enemies. Recently, there has been some conversation about God's love for the non-elect on the Reformed Baptist Discussion List. One of the contributors to that List, David Ponter, recently wrote the following re: God's love for the non-elect, and I commend it to anyone reading this blog:

Does Scripture speak of God having any volitional or emotional disposition of favor to any who we can identify as non-elect, or whom it is clear God has identified as sinners who shall never be saved? Yes: Rom 2:4-5, John 3:16 with John 12:47-47. Clearly in Romans 2:5 the subjects of the long-suffering, given to direct them to repentance, are the vessels of wrath, who have stored up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath. And John 3:16 (with John 12:47-47) by obvious implication, the world of apostate humanity is loved, including even ultimate 'rejectors.' This world is subject of Christ's redemptive activities. And we have the passages where God-incarnate speaks to sinners as desiring and seeking their salvation, sinners who finally reject Christ and were not saved (Matt 23:37 and Jn 5:34).

In reading the statement above, I was especially struck by the use of Romans 2:4-5. Those addressed in these verses are hypocrites who will NOT escape the judgment of God (verse 3); they will face God's wrath on the day of judgment (verse 5b). AND YET verse 4 speaks of God's kindness, forbearance, and patience toward these individuals, and these aspects of God's disposition toward those destined for wrath are intended (in some sense) to lead these people to repentance.

Kentucky Residents: Remember to Vote Williams for Governor Tomorrow

Sermon Notes from "The Preservation of the Saints." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

[The following notes were taken during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon should soon be available to hear on-line HERE.]

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.

I. God
A. The God of Peace
1. There is only one God.
2. No other religion teaches about a god who has so humbled himself in the interest of peace.
B. Himself
1. The wonder of what God does
2. The effectiveness of what God does

II. What God is Doing and Will Continue to Do
A. Sanctification is being set apart for the pleasure of God
B. Sanctification will be complete at the return of the Lord

III. Our Confidence is in God's Faithfulness

Martin Luther Biography, Part 12: The Papal Bull

[Continued from Part 11.]

In 1520, Martin Luther published five of his primary works: The Sermon on Good Works in May, The Papacy at Rome in June, The Address to the German Nobility in August, The Babylonian Captivity in September, and The Freedom of the Christian Man in November (Bainton, 105).

Pope Leo X, meanwhile, despairing of conciliation with Luther based on the account of the Leipzig Disputation, and emboldened by Luther's affirmation of Hus (whom the pope considered a heretic), issued a papal bull titled Exsurge Domine, saying that if Luther did not recant, he would be excommunicated. Whenever a copy of the papal bull reached a new town, those in the town who were faithful to the pope would hurl all of Luther's publications they could find into a bonfire.

Receiving reports concerning the contents of the bull, Luther eventually published two tracts in response: Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist and Assertion of all the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull.

At 10 A.M. on December 10, 1520, the faculty and students of the University of Wittenberg-- joined by many citizens from the town-- committed volumes of papal constitutions, canon law, and works of scholastic theology to a large bonfire. Luther himself flung a copy of the papal bull into the flames.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 11: The Leigzig Disputation

For various political reasons, after Martin Luther's interview with Cardinal Cajetan, Pope Leo X sought a more conciliatory relationship with Luther. Leo X sent an emissary, Carl von Miltitz, to Frederick the Wise. Von Miltitz was a cousin of Frederick. Miltitz spoke with Luther, and secured Luther's promise that he would no longer engage in debate and publication regarding indulgences, if those within the Catholic church who had been opposing Luther would likewise refrain from attacking his position.

This "truce" was short-lived, however, due to the actions of John Eck. Eck, a professor at the University of Ingolstadt, had already engaged in public debate with Luther through a publication titled Obelisks, which was intended to refute the 95 Theses, and he persuaded Duke George the Bearded of Saxony to sponsor a debate between himself and Andreas Carlstadt-- a Wittenberg professor who had become convinced of Luther's teachings-- at the University of Leipzig. Luther desired to defend his own teachings, and so he arranged to debate Eck at Leipzig as well.

In July 1519, after Eck and Carlstadt debated for a week concerning the depravity of man [showing, incidentally, the centrality of this doctrine to Protestant Reformational teaching], Luther debated Eck on the question of whether the papacy was of divine or human institution. According to the terms of the debate, neither Luther nor Eck could bring books to the table, but they were dependent upon what they had memorized. The proof quoted by Eck consisted of canon law and selections from church history. Though Luther had studied vigorously for the debate, he was no match for Eck in regards to these types of documents. Luther instinctively turned to the writings that he had memorized for years as a monk and as a professor of theology; in response to Eck, Luther quoted the Bible.

Luther's quoting the Bible against canon law brought the charge from Eck that Luther was a Hussite, since Jan Hus, who had been burned as a heretic a century before, had similarly argued against the papacy on the basis of Scripture. Luther objected to the charge, saying that Hus should have kept to the unity of the Church, but it became apparent that he had only a vague knowledge concerning what Hus had actually taught. At the lunch break, Luther retreated to the library to study documents from the Council of Constance: the assembly at which Hus had been condemned. As Luther studied Hus's words from the Council of Constance, he was surprised at what he found. Luther was especially surprised to find that Hus, even in taking actions that seemed to (further) fragment the institutional Catholic Church, actually quoted Augustine in affirming that there is only one Church, spiritually speaking, i.e., "the company of the predestined." When the debate continued, Luther affirmed, "Among the articles of John Hus, I find many which are plainly Christian and evangelical, which the universal Church cannot condemn." This statement greatly troubled Duke George, who viewed the Hussites as political enemies of the Saxons.

The Leipzig Disputation helped Luther to refine his doctrine of sola Scriptura: the understanding of Scripture alone as the final and sufficient authority concerning matters of life and godliness for the individual believer and the church as a whole. During the debate, Luther asserted:

[A] council has sometimes erred and may sometimes err. Nor has a council authority to establish new articles of faith. A council cannot make divine right out of that which by nature is not divine right. Councils have contradicted each other, for the recent Lateran Council has reversed the claim of the councils of Constance and Basel that a council is above a pope. A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope's decretal on indulgences, I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils. (Bainton, 90).

Martin Luther Biography, Part 10: Interview with Cardinal Cajetan

As Luther's 95 Theses gained increasing popularity, the pope felt he must respond. His first response was to instruct the Augustinian order to deal with the matter, for Luther was one of its members. Gonzales recounts:

The Reformer was called to the next chapter meeting of the order, in Heidelberg. He went in fear for his life, for he expected to be condemned and burned as a heretic. But he was surprised to find that many of his fellow friars favored his teaching, and that some of the younger ones were even enthusiastic about it. Others saw the dispute between Luther and Tetzel as one more instance of the ancient rivalry between the Dominicans and Augustinians, and therefore refused to abandon their champion. Eventually, Luther was able to return to Wittenberg, strengthened by the support of his order, and encouraged by those whom he had won for his cause. (23)

The pope then attempted to summon Luther to Rome, but Frederick the Wise "wrote a calming letter to the pope, pointing out that it was right for German citizens to be tried in their own country" (Robinson, 43).

Gonzales continues:

The pope then took a different route. The Diet of the Empire-- the assembly of princes and nobles-- was scheduled to meet in Augsburg, under the presidence of Emperor Maximilian. As his legate to that gathering, Leo [X] sent Cardinal Cajetan, a man of vast erudition... (23-24)

The pope then sent a letter of safe passage for Luther, summoning for Luther to appear before Cardinal Cajetan at the Diet of Augsburg. Cardinal Cajetan was tasked with getting Luther to recant; if he would not recant, Cajetan was to have Luther bound and sent to Rome (since the days of Jan Hus, it had been understood that letters of safe passage were not valid in the case of notorious heretics).

When Luther came before Cardinal Cajetan, he followed the protocol of prostrating himself before the Cardinal. Cajetan then warmly bade Luther to rise; it seems that the Cardinal fully expected to hear Luther utter a single word, "Recanto," meaning, "I recant," after which Cajetan could offer Luther forgiveness. Instead, Luther asked to be instructed concerning his errors.

Bainton reports:

The cardinal replied that the chief [error] was the denial of the Church's treasury of merit clearly enunciated in the bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement VI in the year 1343, "Here," said Cajetan, "you have a statement by the pope that the merits of Christ are a treasure of indulgences." Luther, who knew the text well, answered that he would recant if it said so. Cajetan chuckled, leafed through the page to the spot where it said Christ by his sacrifice acquired a treasure. "Oh, yes," said Luther, "but you said that the merits of Christ are a treasure. This says he acquired a treasure. To be and to acquire do not mean the same thing. You need not think we Germans are ignorant of grammar." (72)

..."My son," [Cajetan] snapped, "I did not come to wrangle with you. I am ready to reconcile you with the Roman Church." But since reconciliation was possible only through recantation, Luther protested that he ought not be condemned unheard and unrefuted. "I am not conscious," said he, "of going against Scripture, the fathers, the decretals, or right reason." (73)

Luther asked for a council to be convened in order to determine whether his teaching was in line with Scripture.

Cardinal Cajetan replied, "The pope is above a council, above everything in the Church" (Bainton, 73).

"His Holiness abuses Scripture," retorted Luther, "I deny that he is above Scripture" (Bainton, 73)

Cajetan then angrily had Luther thrown out of his meeting-place, warning Luther not to come back until he was ready to recant.

That night, Luther's mentor-- Staupitz-- released Luther from his Augustinian vows. Staupitz apparently took this action both to protect the Augustinians from any reprisals by Rome and to guard Luther's conscience from the guilt of vow-breaking. Fearing that he would be bound and sent to Rome in order to be burned as a heretic (as he certainly would have been), Luther escaped from Augsburg in the middle of the night.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 9: The 95 Theses

[Yesterday was "Reformation Day:" the annual remembrance of when Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. The following is an examination of the circumstances leading up to Luther's writing and posting the Theses, a short summary of the Theses, an analysis of the Theses in light of Roman doctrine, and a brief word concerning the consequences of Luther posting the 95 Theses.]

Precipitating Circumstances

When Luther began teaching against indulgences, many people who considered themselves faithful Catholics began listening to him. One reason that people thought that they could agree with Luther against the practices of the Catholic Church was that the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church concerning indulgences was extremely vague.

In 1423 Pope Clement VI had issued a papal bull that gave official teaching concerning the "treasury of merits." (The idea of this "treasury" is foundational to the development of the idea of indulgences.) Clement VI taught that Christ’s life and the lives of saints provided an “overflow of merits.” These merits by the saints that go beyond their own need are known as supererogation.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says concerning “Supererogation:”

The sum total of the merits of Christ was greater than was required for the salvation of man, and that the saints also had done more and suffered more than was absolutely required to insure their own salvation, that these superabundant merits were placed in the “spiritual treasury” of the Church, at the disposal of its visible head; that as the Church is one, in this world and the next, they may be applied to such of its members as are still lacking in the required amount of works necessary to satisfy the divine demands.

One way to access the "treasury of merits," according to the Catholic Church of Luther's day, was through indulgences granted in connection with gazing upon the relics of the saints. Luther's benefactor, Frederick the Wise, had amassed a huge collection of relics, and this collection was opened to the public on “the day of All Saints, whose merits provided the ground of the indulgences whose relics were then on display” (Bainton, 53). By paying a fee and seeing the relics, people were thought to be able to reduce their time in purgatory by thousands of years.

Another way to access the "treasury of merits" was through other indulgences, which were issued in order to help people meet the requirements of satisfaction when normal means could not be used. “An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Indulgences”)

“At first indulgences were conferred on those who sacrificed or risked their lives in fighting against the infidel [that is, the Muslim people], and then were extended to those who, unable to go to the Holy Land [as Crusaders], made contributions to the enterprise. The device proved so lucrative that it was speedily extended to cover the construction of churches, monasteries, and hospitals.” (Bainton, 54)

Eventually, “The popes delegated to many churches in Christendom the privilege of dispensing indulgences, and the Castle Church at Wittenberg was the recipient of a very unusual concession granting full remission of all sins.” (Bainton, 53)

While Luther was a professor in Wittenberg, Leo X gave authority for a special indulgence in order to fund a third bishopric for Albert of Mainz. The special indulgence offered four benefits:

• 
  
  The plenary remission of sins



• 
  
  A confessional letter allowing the penitent to choose his confessor



• 
  
  A share for one and one’s family in all alms, fasts, prayers, and pilgrimages of every sort



• 
  
  The total remission of all sins for souls in purgatory

The most infamous of the sanctioned salesmen of indulgences in Luther's day was the Dominican priest, Johan Tetzel. Tetzel used tactics such as calling to mind the deceased family members of his hearers writhing in agony in purgatory while they held the money that could set them free. The following are quotes from Tetzel:

Listen to the voices of your dear dead relatives and friends, beseeching you and saying, ‘Pity us, pity us. We are in dire torment from which you can redeem us for a pittance.’ Do you not wish to? Open your ears. Hear the father saying to his son, the mother to her daughter, ‘We bore you, nourished you, brought you up, left you our fortunes, and you are so cruel and hard that now you are not willing for so little to set us free. Will you let us lie here in flames? Will you delay our promised glory? (Bainton, 59)

Remember that you are able to release them, for as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs. Will you not then for a quarter of a florin receive these letters of indulgence through which you are able to lead a divine and immortal soul into the fatherland of paradise? (Bainton, 60)

You priest, you nobleman, you merchant, you woman, you virgin, you married woman, you youth, you old man, go into your church, which, as I have said, is St. Peter’s, and visit the hallowed cross that has been put up for you, that incessantly calls you… You should know: whoever has confessed and is contrite and puts alms into the box, as his confessor counsels him, will have all of his sins forgiven, and even after confession and after the jubilee year will acquire and indulgence on every day that he visits the cross and the altars, as if he were visiting the seven altars in the Church of St. Peter, where the perfect indulgence is granted.” (Oberman, 188)

Indulgence preachers would often set up a replica of the papal seal as a symbol that they were under his authority. “A cartoon published…by one of Luther’s followers showed the cross in the center empty of all save the nail holes and the crown of thorns. More prominent beside it stood the papal arms with the balls of the Medici, while in the foreground the vendor hawked his wares.” (Bainton, 60)

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses against indulgences on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg.

A Short Summary of the 95 Theses

The 95 Theses may be understood according to three main points (Bainton 60-61):

• 
  
  “An objection to the avowed object of the expenditure”



• 
  
  “A denial of the powers of the pope over purgatory”



• 
  
  “A consideration of the welfare of the sinner”

Analysis of the 95 Theses

On some points in the 95 Theses, Luther seems yet to fall short of a Reformation view, as Heinrich Bornkamm observes: Luther, at this time upholds Roman authority in Thesis 7, "God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest."

Overall, the Theses seem to indicate that, when they were written, Luther still held to beliefs in:

1. Purgatory

2. Indulgences (in some sense)

3. The Pope

On the other hand, Bornkamm further observes that Luther does interpret penance biblically rather than sacramentally in Thesis 4, "The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

Furthermore, Bainton points out that the 95 Theses denied three main points of Roman doctrine:

• “There is no such thing as supererogation”



• “The pope has no jurisdiction over purgatory”



• “Peace comes in the word of Christ through faith. He who does not have this is lost even though he is absolved a million times by the pope…”

Luther taught that repentance and faith are synonymous. Luther’s teaching of the superiority of repentance over indulgences was considered revolutionary, but this teaching was actually preceded by the Augustinian Gottschalk Hollen’s statement in c.1452, “Repentance is better than indulgences” (Oberman 74-75). In the background of the Theses, then, is the change in Luther’s theology gained from a study of Pauline and Augustinian theology.

It is interesting that indulgences are rarely mentioned in the theses, but when he does mention them, Luther clearly states that good works are better than indulgences (Theses 43 and 45). Concerning indulgences, Luther argues that Papal authority is not to the extent that the pope may dispense or withhold grace.

Consequences of Posting the 95 Theses

The 95 Theses were originally written in Latin; Luther seemed to think that they would only be debated by a few theologians. Two weeks after the 95 Theses were posted they were translated into German and given to a printer. “Luther took no steps to spread his theses among the people. He was merely inviting scholars to dispute and dignitaries to define, but others surreptitiously translated the theses into German and gave them to the press. In short order they became the talk of Germany.” (Bainton, 63-64)

Luther was not meaning to attack papal authority in general, but the abuse of the doctrine of indulgences. But Luther's intention to discuss and debate was interpreted as an attack on the power of the papacy. For the Theses struck a blow at the misuse of indulgences and simultaneously called into question a central position of Catholic piety. Questioning the indulgences instituted by the popes lead others (and eventually Luther himself) to a question of the Pope’s authority in general.