Check out the New Reformation In Progress logo:

Above you'll see our new logo, designed by the very talented Jeremy Pelton. Thanks Jeremy!

What does everyone think?


-Jacob

I've always heard horror stories about asian prisons, but I had no idea.....

Paste this into your browser:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/1285143104

Defending the Deity of Christ

I'm involved in an e-mail discussion with an individual who I won't name since I don't have his permission, regarding whether or not Jesus is YHWH the God of the Bible or merely the Son of YHWH and human man designated as the Messiah, but not God. The individual gave me a link to an article that was Written by Dan Mages called "Trinity and Christology in Light of Modern Scholarship." The individual whom I am interacting with via e-mail said that this represents His view. I read the article and I will give you a link to do the same. I then wrote the following to the unnamed individual as my response to the assertion that the Bible teaches Jesus to be a human son of YHWH that is Israel's savior, but not God in flesh. If you have the time, read both Mages article and my response carefully and study the Scripture yourself to see what indeed the Bible teaches.

Here is the link to Mages article:

http://divinetruth.homestead.com/Jesus_relation_to_YHWH.pdf

And here is my response:

Dear Friend,

I apologize that my letter to you was put off for so long. It has been quite a week getting moved into a new home and starting a new job with the anticipation of attending school once again this next month. But at last I have internet set up again and I have found time to take a seat in front of my laptop to write a response to you.

I took the time to read the article that you pointed me to by your friend Dan Mages. While I found the article interesting, I also found it to be seriously flawed and guilty of committing logical fallacies. We will talk more about that later.

In our brief exchange previously we discussed a few issues that you wished for us to take up. One was the issue of whether or not Jesus is "most certainly Yahweh." I of course contend that He is and you contend that He is merely the Son of Yahweh but is not indeed God Himself. So let’s go ahead and start our exchange on that point. The following reasons are why I believe that Jesus is indeed Yahweh, the God of the Bible.

1. The Scripture Clearly Refers to Jesus as God.

John 1: 1-3;14

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

"14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Interestingly enough there is a clear distinction made here. The Word was with God, which tells us of more than one person, but also the Word was God. Note that the Scripture does not say that the Word "was a God" it says that the Word "was God." So the word is both distinct in some way from God in order to be "with God" and yet the Word is also that same God.

Verse 14 clarifies any confusion one might have about who "the Word" is. He is Jesus. God become man taking on Human flesh. Jesus was with God in the beginning and was God from the beginning.

John 20:27-29

"27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Note that Thomas not only calls Jesus "Lord" but also "God."

Colossians 1:15,19

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

And

"19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,"

Hebrews 1:3,8

"3He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,"

and the father speaking of the Son says,

"8But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. '

The Father himself refers to Jesus as "God"!

2. Jesus is Called the Creator, A Title that Alone Belongs to Yahweh.

John 1:1-3

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Colossians 1:15-17

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Hebrews 1:10-12, the Father says to the Son,

"10And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;11they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."

All of this and yet clearly we are told in Genesis 1 during the creation account that "In the
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) From your position, the God who created Heaven and earth could only be Yahweh whom you say is the Father alone and not the son, but the Scripture clearly attributes the work of creation to the Son. As we have seen the Son is referred to as God, and is now credited with the work of creation which God does in Genesis 1. I think the Scripture has already painted a very clear picture about whether or not Jesus is indeed Yahweh, the God of the Bible. But there is more to see, let us look.

3. The Problem of Worship.

One thing that you and I agree on is that Judaism and Christianity are strictly monotheistic.
That is to say they worship only one God. Faithful Jews would recite the following several times a day:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut. 6:4)

Also when the Lord Jesus rebukes Satan when Satan offers Him everything He sees in exchange for Jesus’ worship of him, the Lord says:

" Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'" (Mt. 4:10)

So clearly in Both the Jewish faith and the Christian faith that’s foundation is in Judaism, there is but one God, and only He is to be worshiped. If this is the case and Jesus is not Yahweh as you contend then why is it that Jesus is worhiped, readily receives worship, and is commanded to be worshiped in Scripture?

Matthew 2:1-2,11

"1Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him."

And,

"11And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and
myrrh."

Matthew 14:33

"33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."


Matthew 28:8-9, 17

"8So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and
took hold of his feet and worshiped him."

"17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted."

Luke 24:52

"52And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,"

Hebrews 1:6

‘6And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God’s angels worship him."

Revelation 14:6-7

"6Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to
those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Remember who we were told the Creator was?)

Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus receives worship along with the Father.

"13And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" 14And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped."

So one of a few things has just happened here. 1. A bunch of Jews blasphemed God and gave worship to another. 2. The Bible is fallible and inconsistent. 3. God changed His mind about worshipping only Him. 4. Jesus was a sinner who sought to take worship away from God.

OR

Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh and there is no problem with what has taken place in these passages.

It’s noteworthy that Angel’s rebuke people for trying to worship them: Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9.

Peter rebukes people for trying to worship him: Acts 10:25-26.

Paul and Barnabas stop people from worshiping them: Acts 14:11-15.

King Herod dies because he receives worship that is due to God alone: Acts 12:22-23.

And yet Jesus, whom you say is not God but only the God’s son, receives worship and welcomes it, what a conundrum unless Jesus actually is Yahweh as much as the Father is.

4. The Problem of Preexistence.

Some of the verses we are going to look at, I have already mentioned here, but there is another side to them that I believe is worth mentioning. The other side is the fact that they teach Jesus existed before He came to earth.

Philippians 2:5-8

"5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

John 1:1

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:57-59

"57So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."

Not only does Jesus clearly say that He existed before Abraham, but also He clearly asserts Himself to be the Great I AM of the Bible. YHWH.

The issue of Jesus being said to preexist before becoming a man is another real problem for the position that denies His deity. Those who deny Jesus as Yahweh must decide whether Jesus is another God like the Mormons claim, perhaps an angel like the Jehovah’s Witness claim, or that He is just a man who happened to preexist. Although no man has ever been called God and the Creator of all things beside Jesus.

5. Jesus demonstrates God’s Attributes:

Jesus shows His omniscience:

Jesus knows the thoughts of man: Mt. 9:4; 12:25; Luke 5:22; 11:17.

Jesus shows His omnipotence:

By Walking on Water: Mt. 14:22-33

By Raising the Dead: Lk. 7:11-17; Jn. 5:21; 11:43-44

Cursing the fig tree: Mt. 21:18-19

Calming storms: Lk. 8:22-25

And need I remind yet once again that Jesus is attributed the work of Creation?

6. The Old Testament Alludes to the Trinity:

In Genesis 1 we see that the Spirit of God hovers over the face of the water’s (Gen. 1:2) showing a distinction between God’s Spirit and the Father. Also we se that is says:

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...." (Gen. 1:26a)

God, singular, said "Let us", plural. Well who is He speaking to? Angels? Are we made after the likeness of God and angels? Is He speaking to preexistent human beings? Are we made after the likeness of God and man? No that wouldn’t work would it? Perhaps there is more to God than one might think. And that is exactly what the Scripture goes on to reveal as Scripture begins to unfold and more is revealed by God’s Prophet’s and Apostle’s.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut. 6:4)

Interestingly enough, the monotheistic Shema that is foundational to the Jewish and Christian faith, alludes to the trinity. Lord is the Hebrew word "Adonai" and God is the Hebrew word "Elohim". Elohim is actually a plural word for God, and yet it is used in this monotheistic statement.

7. Closing Thoughts:

I have some serious disagreements with the article your friend wrote, as you can tell. And here are a few more problems I have with his logic and argumentation.

First of all the title of the article throws out serious red flags. "Trinity and Christology in Light of Modern Scholarship." That kind of phraseology always makes me cringe. Whenever someone says, "yeah, you know that thing that faithful Christians have believed for 2,000 years? Well in light of modern scholarship, I’ve found that all of those theologians are wrong. Not to mention the people only a generation or two removed from the time Christ actually walked the earth."

Honestly, the assertion that Mages makes in his opening statements that there is "much confusion" surrounding "the question of how Jesus is related to YHWH, the God of Israel" is ridiculous. In fact the majority of denominations and even the Roman Catholic Church who I otherwise disagree with on much, have clearly defined in their doctrinal statements that Jesus is YHWH, part of the trinity. Mages makes it sound like there is a massive split in Christendom about whether Jesus is God or not. This couldn’t be further from the truth. This has always been a foundational truth of Christianity, taught from New Testament times until now.

It is a big red hearing to act as if nothing was ever said about Jesus being God until the 3rd Century when Athanasius was battling it out with Arius about whether or not Jesus was of the same or similar essence to the Father. That fight came about because Arius, a wolf in sheep clothing, was challenging what had been taught since Christ came to earth. As we have seen the New Testament clearly calls Jesus God, presents Him as Creator, gives Him worship and commands that He be worshiped as God, demonstrates His God attributes, Etc. And such teaching continued from the 1st century until now.

Mages asserts that there would be much confusion and riotous response against the message of Jesus being God. Has he read the New Testament? They try and stone Jesus when He tells them "Before Abraham was, I AM." (Jn. 8:58) The Apostles message was constantly ignored, got them beaten and stoned and all but one of them (John) eventually killed.

Not only were their logical fallacies in the arguments made but also it seemed more as though Mages was arguing against polytheism rather than the doctrine of the trinity. This leads me to wonder if Mages, or perhaps you yourself understand the Trinitarian position. In no way shape or form is the Trinitarian position suggesting that Jesus is a different God than the Father, we believe that the Bible teaches them to be the same God, yet different persons. 1 being shared by three persons.

Therefore Mages whole section entitled "Follow the Pronouns" is quite irrelevant to this discussion. If you were speaking to someone who believed that Jesus was a separate God from the Father, that would be different, but we who hold to the doctrine of the trinity do not in any way shape or form believe that. God may speak of Himself in personal pronouns all day long and that doesn’t contradict the Trinitarian view of God.

The teaching of the Bible is clear, Jesus is YHWH. I pray that you will study further, be convicted by the Spirit of God and repent and believe in the Biblical Jesus.

In Christ,

-Jacob Allee

"There are plenty of 'other' Bible churches around here"

I had quite the experience today. As my regular readers know, my family has moved just recently to central Kansas in a town called Hillsboro. As this is quite a drive from where we were living in western Kansas, we are looking for a new church home.

It's our desire that we find a good church that is Elder led and expositional in it's teaching style. Today was the first Sunday since we moved here that we have had the chance to look for a church, we chose a Bible Church to visit in a near by town and decided to check it out.

We went, of course, and the service was alright. All traditional hymns, which is ok although I perfer a mix of modern worship and hymns both, but not a big deal really. The pastor had a decent sermon and all that, and several people we talked to were very welcoming and friendly. By the end of the service I was pretty well decided that I'd be willing to visit again and we'd see if it was a fit for us as time went on.

However, that's when something changed my mind. An older gentlemen in the church came over to me and in no so subtle of a style he proceeded to tell my wife and I that there are "other" Bible churches that we shoould check out. I found this kind of odd that someone would tell us that when we were visiting their church. But as the conversation continued it became obvious that he was telling us that we wern't welcome their and should look elsewhere. To be honest I was speechless. (A first time I assure you)

I was so taken back that someone would be so forward as to tell us that. I'm not even entirely sure why, but I can only assume it is because I have earrings. Nevermind the fact that I was wearing a suit and tie. I was, and am, pretty upset by this. I don't think He represents the church as a whole, but I also don't think that my wife and I will be going back there and I intend on letting the Pastor know why tomorrow when I give him a call.

I share this mainly to vent, but also to ask, what should be the grounds for one believer (Supposedly anyway) telling another believer that they cannot fellowship in the same building with them? I guaruntee you, it's not a guy having earrings. Only unrepentant sin is a disqualification for fellowship and that is after a series of church discipline (1 Cor. 5; Mt. 18:15-17).

People such as this are what you might call "cancer" to what appeared to be an otherwise healthy church. And in my opinion this is a great example of why church discipline is necessary, because people like this gentleman are destructive to the body of Christ.

In Him


-Jacob

We Made It.

Well, we made it. My family and I have moved into our new place in Hillsboro KS. I appreciate those of you who have been praying for us. Our house sold this last week (God's perfect timing). I start my new job at Radio Shack on Wednesday and begin school in a little over a month. That said, there are still a lot of new and upcoming things headed my family's way. Your prayers are still appreciated for our future and our financial situation as we will be on a much tighter budget now.

In Him,


-Jacob Allee

What does the word "day" mean in Genesis?

As an apologist, one of my great pleasures is to get to answer questions from my brother's and sister's in Christ as well as unbelievers. One brother had the following question and I thought it was worth posting here with a reply. This is a subject that I feel needs to be given more attention by Christians.


My brother in Christ,

In response to your question:

"Explain to me the word day in Genesis, does it mean day or something else?"

This is a great question! I assume that you specifically have Genesis 1 in mind when you raise this question. If you have some other passage from Genesis in mind, do let me know.

As you are probably aware there are several different views on the subject of the creation account amidst those who are Christians. One view is that we should take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally. That is to say that God created the earth and all that we know to exist in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh day. He made man out of the dust of the ground and Eve from the rib of Adam, etc.

Another view (that seems to be growing in popularity) is that the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2 is speaking figuratively and/or metaphorically. Under this line of thinking there is a large range of ideas about what Genesis 1 & 2 is really teaching and how we should interpret it. I won’t go into large detail about this as it does not specifically pertain to your question. However it is this second category where the question pertaining to the word "day" comes up. In the non-literal camp of the creation account, the majority of those who call themselves Christians believe that the earth is truly millions of years old as "modern science" boasts it to be. The problem that this creates for them is that if the earth is truly million’s of years old then the Genesis account cannot be taken literally. If God actually created the universe in the course of a week then the earth could only possibly be anywhere from 6,000 to 9,000 years old depending on who you ask. But agreeably it couldn’t be in the millions.

It is because of this that the question regarding the word "day" has come up in Christian circles. Let me tell you here and now where I stand, and then I shall tell you why.
I believe that Scripture very clearly teaches that God made the earth and all it’s inhabitants and the stars in the sky, etc, in 6 literal, 24 hour days. So in short, yes the word "day" in Genesis 1 actually means "day."

While I have great respect for Wayne Grudem and some others who hold to a non-literal view of the creation account, I must strongly disagree and dare I say "refute" their teaching on this subject.

The Hebrew word that is translated "day" here in Genesis 1 is "yom." Now let me tell you that it is indeed true that the word "yom" does not necessarily have to be translated "day." It can also refer to an undetermined amount of time. This is true with many words in Hebrew and Greek, they can have different meanings depending on the context. But indeed context is everything. Let’s take a look at the Scripture.

Genesis 1:3-5

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

Now let me just ask you, what does it sound like to you? I mean take the Hebrew word "yom" which can mean "day" or a undetermined period of time. Put it in context, what make sense to you? You see basically the non-literal camp tries to force the creation account to be an undetermined amount of time. That way they can say that each "day" is really a long period of time. An "age of time" if you will. This then allows each "day" that is referred to in Genesis to possibly be millions of years. This is how some Christians try an compromise with "modern science." They still credit God as the creator but they just claim that He took a very long time in doing so, and therefore they harmonize their view of the Bible with science.

Many people point to the Scripture verse that says "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4. They try and make the point that God can refer to creating something in a day and have it really be a thousand years because it is all the same to Him.

This, however, is a terrible argument. The above verse tells us how a thousand years seems to God, it does not imply that God doesn’t know the difference. God breathed out this Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17) in Genesis 1 & 2 just like the rest of the Bible and when He inspired the text He did so in a simple and straightforward way. There is surely a lot that God chose not to describe about the Creation account, it is after all a very short account when you think of the vastness of creation. But what God did say, He said clearly.

The context of Genesis 1 makes it ever so clear that God referred to days as we know them. "There was evening and there was morning, the first day." Would it make sense to insert "There was evening and there was morning, the first million years."? Or the "first undetermined time period?" It’s rather absurd to even talk about it.

In Exodus 20 when God gave the Ten Commandments, look what He says in regard to the Sabbath!

Exodus 20:8-11

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

You see that even when God speaks to His people directly, giving them the 10 commandments, he refers to the creation account in a literal fashion. The very reason why the Jews took the Sabbath laws so seriously as to stone the person in their midst who ignored the law is because they took God for what He said. They did their work in 6 days and rested on the seventh because that is what God Himself did. Had you asked Moses what day meant (The one who probably wrote Genesis) he would have told you... "a day."

Indeed this is how "day" (yom) has always been understood by orthodox Jews, by believing Christians up until just recently. There has never been this question until very recent history. This should lead us to ask, "Why should we have any reason to understand it differently now?" My personal answer is, we don’t. But let’s be honest, the reason the question about the word "day" has come about is because to many Christians feel the need to try and make what the Bible teaches line up with modern Science. This I believe is extremely dangerous.

In fact it is due to this need to harmonize the Bible and science that we now have what is called "theistic evolution" as a theory some "Christians", if you can call them that, now hold to. The idea of course being that God guided/created the process of evolution. This view is completely incompatible with Scripture hands down. However it is this kind of thing that comes up when we start to "fictionalize" the creation account and insist that we cannot interpret it in a literal fashion. The very idea that we should change our interpretation of Scripture based off of what Modern science teaches is foolish. In fact I think it is such human wisdom that we are warned against in 1 Corinthians 1-2.

The brightest minds once thought the earth was the center of the universe, and they thought that the world was flat, all these things that were once modern science were found weighed and wanting eventually. True science always agree’s with the Bible. That is why there will never be found a "missing link" that conclusively proves evolution.

One other thing to keep in mind when discussing the creation account and how old the earth is, etc. God made Adam with an appearance of age. It’s clear that Adam must have been made a full grown man for him to "know" his wife. He certainly did not start out as a zygote, or embryo. In turn then, it makes just as much sense that the earth, plants, animals and everything else would also have an appearance of age. This would mean that when scientist measure the layers of the earth and guesstimate it’s age, they might be right if it weren’t for the fact that God made the earth to have such an appearance to begin with. Not to mention the possibilities of a world wide flood and what that might do to the physical appearance of the earth and it’s layers.

There is certainly a lot more we could discuss on this issue, and I do recommend that you read the differing views that are out there. But you must ask yourself a couple of questions.

1. What does the Scripture seem to clearly and plainly say? God is not trying to be tricky in what He says to us.

2. Does the narrative context of Genesis suggest that we should look at the creation account as metaphorical or as poetic rather that literal?

3. How have followers of the living God always understood this word "day" (yom) and is there any good reason to understand it differently now?

4. Would anyone understand the creation account to mean an undetermined amount of time if it weren’t for "modern Science?"

5. Should our interpretation of Scripture be conditional on human wisdom, especially that human wisdom that has not been proven?

It’s clear to me that the non-literal view of Genesis 1&2 comes from a foolish need to compromise with worldly wisdom. Where does this compromise stop? Should we take Genesis 3 non-literally also? Perhaps sin isn’t as serious as the Bible seems to say. Perhaps Christ has not raised from the dead and Hid crucifixion was metaphorical and symbolic as the "Jesus Seminar" claims. No the Bible is straightforward and means what it says. Though there are certainly places where there is Hebrew poetry like Psalms, and there are times where authors use hyperbole, and exaggerate, and use figurative and comparative language, we must be consistent in our interpretation of Scripture. We must always let the context define our interpretation, and we must always interpret the Bible by the Bible rather than by "modern science."
What does day mean in Genesis? It means day.

In Him,

Jacob Allee

10 Ways To Grow a Church Without God

The following article is written by Pastor Ray Baumann. It's a good reminder that you can build a big church using the wisdom of the world, but it'd be better to be a congregation of 40 people rather than 40,000 if it means the difference between pleasing God or not.

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2226/Ray_Baumann

I've been gone...

Hello,

I was gone all week at youth camp in Salina Kansas. I may be back now, but I wouldn't expect it to seem like it if I were you. I'm moving a week from Saturday and have a lot of loose ends to tie up. After I move it may be a little while until I have Internet set up, so I don't really know when I'll get back to regular blogging.

Please pray for me that our house will sell this week!!!

God bless.


-Jacob

Christian Rock On-line

Our local Christian radio station here in S.W. Kansas has done a "Rock-Show" on Saturday nights for a couple of years now. They play the latest in Christian Rock (Pillar, Red, Kutless, etc.) as well as some classics's from D.C. Talk, Third Day, Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline and those kind of bands.

They now have an online rock show 24/7 if anyone likes Christian Rock and wants to check it out here it is:

www.therockshowonline.com


-Jacob

God is Neat, Let's Eat!

The following is a link to an article written by Ray Baumann about our attitude regarding prayer before meals. He has some very good points that I know I stand guilty of doing. How about you?

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2168/Ray_Baumann


-Jacob

Updates on www.reformationapologetics.com

Hello. I'm going to be working hard these next several weeks to get the www.reformationapologetics.com web site moving forward. My wife and I will be moving in about one month and it make take a while in that transition before I'll have internet again, so I'm trying to make some good progress before that time. I appreciate your prayers for the move, I have found a job, but I still need to get our house here sold very soon.

I have updated the apologetics site and added a "Christian Presuppositions" page and linked to it a sub page on the "Existence of God" and "The Bible as God's Word." The "Existence of God" page has an article already on that page and is going to be undergoing further construction. The page for "The Bible as God's Word" is still under construction and doesn't yet have an article posted.

If you haven't seen the page on "Leadership" under "Biblical Christianity" that page has been updated recently too. Let me know what you think!

In Him

-Jacob

Hello all

If you are not normally a reader of my other blog, To Die Is Gain, then I would suggest that you would check it out for the exposition of chapter 5 in 1 Corinthians. Largely it deals with the issue of church discipline and it is a serious and important subject that more Christians should be aware of. To often sin is allowed to run free in our churches just like it would in the world, but Scripture has something to say about that....it's not to be tolerated.


Also, on another note, I've been pretty overwhelmed lately trying to get ready to move. My wife and I are trying to sell our house and it hasn't been looking good. I would appreciate your prayers. It's a very busy and stressful time in our lives right now. So thank you to those who pray for us.


-Jacob

Huckabee Was Right on Creation Question

The following is an article written by Janet Folger in regard to Creationism versus evolution. Worth the read.

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2148/Janet_L_Folger

Biblical Church Leadership

The following is a link to an article written by Steve Cornell on the issue of leadership in the Church. Very worth the read if you are interested in God's opinion about how the local church ought to be governed.

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/church-leadership-an-overview/


-Jacob

Well...

I said maybe Monday...Sorry. I'm swamped right now, I'll get to my next post whenever I can. Check out the apologetics site though, I've gotten some work done there and I changed the look, you'll have to let me know what you think.


www.reformationapologetics.com


-Jacob

Maybe Monday...

Sorry I didn't get the chance today to post on the issue of universalism. It gets busy when you are trying to prepare a sermon.... and hang out with the youth guys now that they are out of school for the summer.... and trying to manage the blog..... and work on my book..... and work on the apologetics site. It's not like I have anything to do.

Ha! Sorry, I'll try and get to that issue on Monday. I think I'll incorporate into that post several things that separate Biblical Christianity from the majority of world religions. For instance, the world religions are often very universalistic, that is to say, most people if not everyone goes to Heaven (Sure there are exceptions like Islam). As well as Biblical Christianity is the lone religion that teaches salvation through faith alone and not by works (I can't think of any other religion that doesn't build some sort of a works system in their somehow.) And then the old standby, monotheism. There are few religions that are strictly monotheistic (again, I know Islam is and obviously Judaism.)

Well, it'll be fun, when I get to it.

-Jacob

Jesus Smacks Down Universalism

The following passage is for all who think that everyone, or for that matter, even the majority of people will go to Heaven when they die.

Matthew 7:13-14

13"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

More on this subject tomorrow.

-Jacob

"I feel led.... God Told Me...."

One of those issues that has gotten under my skin for a long time is the issue that I call the "God told me" syndrome. People who suffer from this problem often experience symptoms such as, but not limited to:

• Weak theology
• Self justification of sin
• Gratification of the flesh
• A rejection of Sola Scriptura and the Sufficiency of Scripture

I myself, a former charismatic, have suffered from this condition. Yes it's true, there was a time when I would often say things like, "God told me..." or "God led me to do this" or "I think God is leading me to..." I would use these catch phrases to justify something I wanted to do. I sometimes genuinely convinced myself that God had really said something to me, but Got frustrated when it did not happen. I've had other experiences where friends would tell me that God told them something. I had a girlfriend in High school break up with me because God told her to. I had a friend that told me God told him that I shouldn't get married to the person who is now my wife of almost 4 years (whom I love and God has blessed our marriage). I couldn't figure out why God would tell my friend that, and not me. Maybe I wasn't listening, or maybe I was right that my friend just wasn't happy with the relationship I had with my fiance' that moved to quick for most people. (I asked Susan to marry me one day less than a month after meeting her.) So I have been guilty of this disease and I have suffered from the symptoms of others as well. But let me ask you this, when can we actually say that God told us something?

I submit to you that the only time we can confidently say "God told me..." is when we can follow it up with something like "...In John chapter 10..." After all, the only way we can know for sure the will of God is through his word. 2 Timothy 3 :17 tells us that Scripture makes the man of God "...competent, equipped for every good work."

Therefore when we come to a difficult decision or we are needing some guidance on any given issue, where should we turn? Do we stop and listen to that inner voice? No. We go to the Scripture that is sufficient to make us competent, and equipped for every good work.

When a person says that God told them something, my response is always, "What did God sound like? I mean if you heard from God, tell me what He sounds like, I'm eager to know!" Of course, that's not what they meant. They did not hear the audible voice of God. So then they might say, "Well, I feel God leading me to do this." Then of course I can't help but ask, "Really? How does it feel when God leads you?" About that time they are tired of my questions.

But here is the point, what do people mean when they say "God told me..." or "God is leading me..."? How does God do this to them? They just feel it in their heart? But Jeremiah 17:9 says,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

The problem here is that we are sinners. We have been seriously marred by sin. And even if you are a new creation in Christ, the Scripture tells us that we will struggle to defeat the flesh (our sinful old nature) for the rest of our earthly existence. So can we trust our feelings? Absolutely not. Our feeling are subjective. Think, right now as you are reading this, how many ungodly thoughts and feeling have you had this month, this week, today? If you're honest you will say, "I've had a whole lot." I know I have. Why? Because I'm a jacked up sinner in need of God's grace every moment I draw another breath.

So when I have a decision that needs made, or I need guidance, what do I need to do? I need to pray and go to the word of God. It is a dangerous thing that is being taught that people should merely pray, ask God for answers and sit quietly and listen for his voice. That is not how God tells us He operates. Who knows what you might here? You might hear your own desires saying "Yeah, do this" or perhaps a demon might speak to you and you think it's God! How do you know? What does God sound like?

I'm certainly this is where someone will say to me, "But the book of James tells us that 'if anyone of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given to him.'" (James 1:5) Well, yes it does. But it says wisdom and not knowledge. Wisdom, biblically speaking, is the application of knowledge. So Scripture is not saying, if you don't know something, ask God to tell you, rather, if you know the truth but don't know how to apply it, ask God for wisdom in how to do so.

How then do we let God lead us? Obviously it is something we want to do. We must let God take control. Take Ephesians 5:17-21 for instance:

"17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ."

Being filled with the Spirit is contrasted with being filled with too much wine. Wine controls in a negative way when a person become drunk, but the Spirit controls in a good way when people immerse themselves in Him. We are to give ourselves to the worship of God, the study of the Scripture, the fellowship of other believers, and other things that we are told bring glory to God. This is how we give control to the Spirit and let Him lead us, by doing what He tells us to do, being obedient to the word of God.

When Jesus talks about the coming of the Holy Spirit he tells His disciples that the Spirit will teach them all things and bring to remembrance the things that Jesus taught. This is how God speaks to us today also. As we worship God, pray to Him for guidance and wisdom, and seek Him in the Scriptures, the Spirit will bring to remembrance the things God has told us, in His word.

When we make decision about buying a home or a car, God might remind us about the parable of the talents and being a good steward with the money He gives us. We pray and think and then make a decision that we believe most honors the Lord with what He has given us. This doesn't make our decision inerrant, but it's a much better approach then just doing what we want and saying "God told me." The same is true for any circumstance. Dating for instance. Should I date this person or not. Well the Bible tells us to be evenly yoked, is she a Christian? Does she hold my conviction about the Bible and things that matter to God? Seek the word of God in Scripture, pray about it and make the decision that you think honors God.

Scripture alone is our authority that equips us for every good work. Trust God's word, not inner voices and urges, you do not know who those voices belong to.

Hebrews 1:1-2

"1Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

We have the word of Christ in written form. You need seek nothing else for answers. Ask God for wisdom as you read His truth that is already revealed.

Here is a link on this same issue that I appreciated by Pastor Steve Cornell:
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/do-inner-promptings-reveal-gods-will/

In Him -Jacob

After Centuries of Confusion the Truth... is Still Being Attacked!

We've probably all seen by now the massive campaign that the Mormon church has been waging via the TV commercials. Their tagline is "After centuries of confusion the truth has been restored." I've got to hand it to them from the standpoint of their marketing and enthusiasm. Of course the only problem is that they are preaching another gospel. This is exactly what we are warned about in Galatians 1:8-9,

"8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon church), claimed that an angel did appear to him. And if Joseph Smith had been a Bible believing Christian, and this were to have actually happened (which is more than questionable), he would have known to reject the message of this angel. Eventually Joseph Smith would found a religion that would exalt men to gods and lower God to man.

Christians need to be very aware about what Mormon's believe and its incompatibility with Scripture. Here is a ----> "link" <---- that should make anyone who knows and loves the gospel of Christ shudder. In this link you will see a video of a person talking about how unfair and unloving it would be for God to send to Hell people who have not heard about Jesus, and people who have done "good things" (Rom 3:10-12) but are not Christians.

Hello! What about the fact that the Bible says we are all sinners and deserve HELL! (Romans 1-3) It's not unfair that people go to Hell! It's unfair that God had to die in the place of sinners because we rebelled against Him! But how wonderful is His grace that He would do it anyway! You must repent of your sin and trust in Christ alone for salvation! If you do not, you go to Hell, and you deserve to. I deserve to, and I praise God that I'm notgetting what I deserve because Christ has saved me! There is only one way to Heaven (John 14:6, Eph. 2:8-9). But this is just a small part of the dangerous message that is being preached by the Mormon church.

It is because of cult groups like this that deceive people and pull them away from the true Jesus and His gospel that I am an apologist. This is why I am creating a new "site" that will be a resource for defending the Biblical Christian faith. But since my site has a long way to go, I suggest that you check out "Alpha and Omega Ministries" and James White's book's, "Is the Mormon My Brother" and "Letters to a Mormon Elder" for more information on the Latter Day Saints.

Know what you believe and why. Don't be silent about the truth! If you don't share Christ with your neighbor, someone else might share a pseudo Christ with them instead.

-Jacob

The 95 Thesis

Have you ever read the document that started the protestant reformation? On October 31st 1517 a man by the name of Martin Luther nailed 95 propositions for discussion to the Wittenburg Door. It was a common practice to nail letters to this door to spark debate and conversation. Luther had grown tired of the abuses going on in regards to selling indulgences and wanted to bring attention to the problem. The funny thing is, Luther thought that what he was doing would please the pope because Luther at the time still held the pope and the Roman Catholic Church in high esteem and simply sought to reform some of its practices. Luther believed that the pope would be glad that someone would draw attention to the practices that took glory away from God. Little did Luther know when he nailed the 95 thesis to that door that this would be the beginning of the Protestant reformation and lead to his excommunication.

It's quite interesting to see how Luther's theology changes from when he wrote the 95 thesis to the time he wrote "The Bondage of the Will." Luther like all Christians who seek after God's heart continued to grow in his knowledge of the word of God. Luther became a Scripture quoting, highly theological weapon that would call people back to the word of God and away from the traditions of men. It's clear when reading the 95 thesis that Luther still held much love for the roman church and the pope in his heart. It would not be long until his eyes were opened to just how deep the corruption in the church had gone. Luther would take a stand on God's word along with others like him that the world still feels today. Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone.

Here is what started the Reformation:

The 95 Thesis

by, Martin Luther

1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of penitence.

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 penitence in one's heart; for such penitence 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 penitence) 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 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 and 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 if 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 if 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, form 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 whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.

52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters if 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 note 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 favors, are seen to be, in fact, a favorite 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 eith 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 penitence, 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 not 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.


October 31, 1517

Source: Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther: A Selection From His Writings. Garden City: Doubleday, 1961.