When the Lord stops him, that'll be it !! Too late . . .

I don’t care what anyone says, this is a great song! (From 1976-1977)  I don’t exactly know where Phil Keaggy is spiritually today, but he seems like a mild Charismatic Christian.  I like his music and sometimes he has some great music with really good Biblical words and concepts. His pro-life song, "Who will speak up for the little ones?" is also really great and beautiful.   Last time I posted a song of his, some one commented that they thought he had converted to Roman Catholicism.  I cannot find substantial evidence of that; although he seems to lean to a more “ecumenical” type of thinking when the issue comes up. 

I am not Charismatic nor third wave nor a Reformed "continualist" on miraculous sign gifts (Wayne Grudem, Samuel Storms; John Piper to a lesser emphasis, it seems to me), but I do like good classic Rock n Roll music (stuff like this would be great for a Friday night outreach to youth with Biblical preaching of the gospel; but no, I don't want this on Sunday morning); and I wish there was more of it, in quality that is; of it with Christian words.  Keith Green was another really good classic rock Christian song writer and singer.   I don't want heavy Rock for worship; but I like good hymns that have been updated with acoustic guitars and flutes; and I also like the good hymns of worship with just piano.  Lots of variety with quality performance and making a joyful noise is good.  If we don't update a little, we loose young people.  (Just my opinion, as I see worship leaders now using 70s and 80s praise choruses that were considered anathema by them at that time, that are using them today.  (30 years too late!)  

Anyway . . .

This is a great rock n roll song that communicates the truth of Hebrews 9:27 – “and in as much as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes the judgment.”

Time is running out for all of us; one day each one of us will die, and we will have to face God, the Holy One, in the judgment.   One day, time will stop; “When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it!” – God is sovereign and controls time, and one day He will bring it to an end. 

Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, before it is too late.  (Mark 1:15; Matthew 3:8; 2 Corinthians 6:1-2; Isaiah 55:6; Acts 17:30-31; Psalm 90)

Time

By Phil Keaggy

Well He hasn't always been around
And He won't always be.
But He's on the move at this moment
Measuring life for you and me.

I fear we all submit to him
Existing anxiously,
And no one is able to turn him off
Except the Lord who holds the key.

When the Lord stops him, that'll be it,
Too late for apologies.
Too late to forgive your brother,
Too late to get on your knees.
When the Lord stops him, that'll be it,
Too late to help the needy
And worst of all it's too late to turn
You must face eternity.

His name is time and he's coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?
His name is time and he's coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?

Most people think he'll never stop
He'll go on perpetually,
But old man time is running out
And he'll cease eventually.

When the Lord stops him, that'll be it,
Too late for apologies.
Too late to forgive your brother,
Too late to get on your knees.

When the Lord stops him, that'll be it,
Too late to help the needy
And worst of all it's too late to turn
You must face eternity.

His name is time and he's coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?
His name is time and he's coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?

Addendum:
I fully agree with James and Steve Camp's assessment of the Contemporary Christian Music Industry - artists need to be in submission and membership of a good evangelical Biblical Church and have accountability. 

Catholic Answers Roast...

Today, 5:14 pm

manualman  Senior Member   Join Date: December 17, 2004 Location: Western Chicago Burbs Posts: 8,800 Religion: Catholic - no buts.

Re: What books did Luther consider including? Swan's stuff is interesting reading, I've been through it once a long time ago, thanks for the refresh. I find some of his tone a bit strained and defensive, but one can say the same about rather a number of catholic apologists too. In some ways, its the nature of the apologetics (and why one needs to do it in moderate doses). In particular, I think he misses the point when he points out how Luther did scholarly consultation with the best and brightests minds of his day rather than being the egomaniac self-appointed master of theology and Scripture many catholics accuse him of being. The problem with this defense is the lack of recognition that one can do all the proper homework and STILL fall victim to a fatal case of pride. The difference is starkly visible when you compare Luther's approach to differing opinions on doctrine to someone like John Henry Newmann who managed to be both brilliant and humble at the same time. There's more to revelation than mere scholarship. Which isn't to denigrate scholarship; revelation would be largely wasted without good scholarship. But scholarship short on humility is as dangerous as ignorance.

The Authority of Roman Catholic Apologists....

This sort of posting from Catholic Answers makes me wonder as well why any Roman Catholic should listen to any Roman Catholic apologist.... they aren't "invested with authority to teach, never ordained, never canonized..." I've never quite understood why Roman Catholic apologists think they need to be the middle men... or the interpreters of Rome....

Sirach2  Regular Member   Join Date: April 18, 2010 Location: A small borough Posts: 2,510 Religion: Catholic - Secular Carmelite OCDS since 1981

Re: Tertullian does not reject infant baptism.....(hmm) Erick, Tertullian's position on baptism should not matter a hill of beans to any of us, not what he thought or taught. He was never invested with authority to teach, never ordained, never canonized, and joined a heretical sect. You would do 100% better to listen to the Church today rather than attempt to figure out what thoughts were generated in antiquity by questionable theologians. What possible bearing could that have on any of us? __________________ + Let nothing disturb thee, nothing affright thee. All things are passing; God alone suffices. St. Teresa of Avila

The "Going to Mass" Apologetic

Here's a recent offering from CTC: Do You Wan to Go to Heaven? which addresses, "So do you mean to say that if I decide to skip Mass on Sunday, and then drop dead on Monday, I will go to Hell?" Which, after various considerations, is affirmed (but not given the typical loopholes and qualifications that many other Roman websites do). The article presents an apologetic against "once saved always saved" etc. and explains to ill-informed Protestants why going to mass is so serious for Roman Catholics that if missed, qualifies as a mortal sin: "When we 'skip Mass' we are deciding that we would rather be elsewhere than in the presence of God the Father, with the angels and saints, in that perfect act of worship which is the presentation of the sacrificial Lamb of God to the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit."

Compare this to: Just Why Are Only 20% of Catholics Attending Mass? Here, a priest explains why only a small percentage of Romanists actually go to mass (poor homilies, poor music, poor hospitality). "A Protestant once said: "If you Catholics really believed what the Church teaches about the Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist, your churches would be full and you would see Catholics crawling on their knees to attend Mass!"

Interesting... CTC is busy "calling" wayward Protestants to "communion".... seems to me 80% of their fellow brethren are, according to a Roman paradigm, in danger of hell. Most of us Protestants, according to a Roman paradigm, just don't know Rome is the true church. That is, many Protestants will at least make it to Purgatory due to our ignorance...

This seems to me to be a poor business move for CTC (their goal: "Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition").

Ah, look at the time... I don't want to be late for church.

Luther's Prayers for the Dead

I recently checked in to see what Crossed the Tiber has posted, and came across this: All Soul's Day. Pray For the Church Suffering. The basic thrust of the post is that praying for the souls in purgatory is an historical practice of the church, the ancient church as well as...

16th century theologians: "Dear God, if the departed souls be in a state that they yet may be helped then I pray that you would be gracious. When you have thus prayed once or twice, then let it be sufficient and commend them unto God." (Martin Luther)

This Luther quote is indeed authentic, however, Luther eventually denied the reality of purgatory, so saying Luther allowed prayers for the dead is not the same thing as Luther allowed prayers for the dead in purgatory. While Luther early on believed in Purgatory, he soon denied it at his Reformation career progressed :

"When in 1518 [Luther] further explained his fifteenth thesis, he remarked: 'I am very certain that there is a purgatory,'... In the Leipzig debate of the following year purgatory was discussed at length...Luther there said he knew that there is a purgatory. The dispute was about the nature of the institution rather than its existence. The 'orthodox' Romanists contended for the meritorious character of the purging. But increasingly Luther could find no room for this figment in Scripture theology. By November 7, 1519, he had progressed far enough to write to Spalatin: 'It is certain that no one is a heretic who does not believe that there is a purgatory,' although he had still professed to believe in its existence in February of that year. In fact, also in the following year in 1520, he still holds to it. But thereafter his language becomes different until...he calls it a fabrication of the devil" [Plass, What Luther Says Volume 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 387-388 n.25.

As to the quote in question, it comes from the treatise, Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528):

But the pardons or indulgences which the papal church has and dispenses are a blasphemous deception, not only because it invents and devises a special forgiveness beyond the general forgiveness which in the whole Christian Church is bestowed through the gospel and the sacrament and thus desecrates and nullifies the general forgiveness, but also because it establishes and bases satisfaction for sins upon the works of men and the merits of saints, whereas only Christ can make and has made satisfaction for us. As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: “Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.” And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. For vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and are merely the devil’s annual fair. Nor have we anything in Scripture concerning purgatory. It too was certainly fabricated by goblins. Therefore, I maintain it is not necessary to believe in it; although all things are possible to God, and he could very well allow souls to be tormented after their departure from the body. But he has caused nothing of this to be spoken or written, therefore he does not wish to have it believed, either. I know of a purgatory, however, in another way, but it would not be proper to teach anything about it in the church, nor on the other hand, to deal with it by means of endowments or vigils. Luther, M. (1999, c1961). Vol. 37: Luther's works, vol. 37 : Word and Sacrament III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (37:369). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Don't be confused by Luther's comment about knowing Purgatory "in another way." This other way has nothing to do with the dead or those suffering after they died.

The difference between Crossed the Tiber and Luther certainly becomes apparent when the quote is put back into a larger context. Praying for the souls in purgatory with "vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations" are, according to Luther, "the devil’s annual fair."  In his Preface to the Burial Hymns (1542), he states, "Accordingly, we have removed from our churches and completely abolished the popish abominations, such as vigils, masses for the dead, processions, purgatory, and all other hocus-pocus on behalf of the dead" (LW 53:325).

This doesn't mean that there should not be any funeral services. Commenting on Rachel's tomb (Gen. 35: 20), Luther states:

"The fathers decorated sepulchers magnificently. They did not throw away the dead like the bodies of beasts, but they set up memorials of them for a perpetual and immortal reminder so that they might be testimonies of the future resurrection, which they believed and expected. Therefore funeral ceremonies and the funeral procession are to be retained, and likewise the weeping and sympathy, not that there should be prayers for the dead, as Lyra wishes, or that we should fear death, but rather that in death itself we should learn to exercise faith as it struggles against the terrors of death and think that we indeed die and are buried in dishonor but that we will rise again in glory" (LW 6:273).

The basic thrust of Luther's thought at times is that he won't stop someone for praying for the dead, however sparsely, but linking it to purgatory and the ceremonies and practices that had made it an essential was to be avoided:

But if anyone says: in this way purgatory will also be denied, I answer: if you do not believe in a purgatory, you are not therefore a heretic. The Scriptures know nothing of it. It is better that you disbelieve what is not taught in the Scriptures, than that you reject what is found in the Scriptures. Let the pope and papists be as angry as they will. They have made an article of faith of purgatory because it has brought them the world’s riches—and sent innumerable souls into hell, since they placed their reliance on works and consoled themselves with the thought that works would bring them release. God has given no command concerning purgatory; he has commanded you not to consult the dead nor to believe what they say. Accept God as more reliable and truthful than all angels, and let the pope and his papists keep silence, the more so since their doctrines are lies and deceit which do little to inspire faith in purgatory. I will not stop you if you desire to offer prayers for the dead. In my opinion purgatory is not our common lot, as they teach; I think very few souls get there. Nevertheless, as I said, there is no danger at all for your soul if you do not believe in purgatory. You are not obliged to believe more than what is taught in the Scriptures (LW 52:180).

I can certainly understand why a Roman Catholic would point out the few instances in which Luther allows for praying for the dead. Since it is an important practice in their system in regard to salvation, finding that Luther allowed for it to a degree serves as an apologetic. However, when Luther is placed in his context, and when Romanists are placed in theirs, praying for the dead simply doesn't mean the same thing. Crossed the Tiber concludes by stating of purgatory,

"I am no longer freaked out by it but am thankful to God for his grace and mercy towards us in that we have an opportunity to be purged of the last vestiges of sin that we are attached to before we step into His throne room."

Luther speaks quite differently. Commenting on the death of Electtor Duke John of Saxony, Luther stated:

"It is my hope that we too shall die this way and carry with us to heaven a poor sinner, if only we hold on to this cloak and wrap ourselves in the death of the Son of God and cover and veil ourselves with his resurrection. If we stand firmly upon this and never depart from it, then our righteousness will be so great that all our sins, no matter what they are, will be as a tiny spark and our righteousness as a great ocean, and our death will be far less than a sleep and a dream. Moreover, the shame of our being buried so nastily is covered with a dignity which is called the resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which it is so adorned that the sun is put to shame when it looks upon it and the beloved angels cannot gaze upon it sufficiently. We are graced and adorned with such beauty that all the other uncleanness of our poor body, such as death and the like, are as nothing. Hence, one must look upon a Christian death with different eyes, not the way a cow stares at a new gate, and smells it in a different way, not as a cow sniffs grass, by learning to speak and think of it as the Scriptures do and not considering deceased Christians to be dead and buried people. To the five senses that is the way it appears. As far as they can lead us, it brings only woe. Therefore go beyond them and listen to what St. Paul says here, that they are sleeping in Christ and God will bring them with Christ [as he brought with him the Savior, the devourer of death, the destroyer of the devil]. Learn to comfort yourselves with these words and instil in your hearts the fact that it is far more certain that Duke John of Saxony will come out of the grave and be far more splendid than the sun is now [cf. Dan. 12:3; Isa. 60:19] than that he is lying here before our eyes. This is not so certain as the fact that he will live again and go forth with Christ because God cannot lie. But take it to heart! For he who does not have this comfort can neither comfort himself nor be happy, but the more the Word escapes him the more the consolation also escapes him" (LW 51: 238-239).

Opinion and Fact in Luther Studies (Followup)

This is an update on an earlier blog entry. This entry received this response, to which I commented as follows:

 Opinions and Facts in Luther Studies (2)

 Originally Posted by JoeT 

I apologize if my elongated post caused consternation.

JoeT,

Noting the length of your post was done to demonstrate methodology. Those who post longer messages with multiple rabbit trails really don't deserve a response, because in doing so (as I stated previously) it becomes a multi-hour endeavor, and, I would add (based on your current response), any sort of interaction with this sort of methodology leads to longer posts and even more rabbit trails. Your response fits this description. That being said, I'm going to take my own advise and offer only a few comments in response, as a coutesy to your post.

1. Your comments reflect a Romanist worldview. I deny the validity of that worldview, therefore we don't have common ground by which we can evaluate some of the facts together. That is, your opinions may make sense according to your worldview, but they are bogus according to mine (i.e., vows, Marian doctrines, Luther's doctorate, semper fides, etc.).

2. Your scripture citations reflect your personal interpretation. Since you don't have any authority to infallibly exegete Scripture, I have no desire to read your personal opinions as to what you think Scripture means. I'd ask you to only cite Rome's infallible interpretations, but there isn't really anything you could cite, and even if you could, your would be stuck interpreting those infallible interpretations. I'm not interested in your personal interpretation of Scripture.

3. The approaches to Luther as put forth by Grisar and Denifle are no longer that of Roman Catholic historians. Even the current Pope, while still a Cardinal, recognized that Roman Catholic Luther studies previous to Joseph Lortz were more polemical and psychological than accurate. I would speculate Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion is more informed than yours on Grisar and Denifle.

4. There are areas in which we do share a common ground: the area of checking facts:

a) You were in error about Luther quoting directly (or expounding on) Homiliae II of Chrysostom. You are also in error as to Luther's overall opinion (as demonstrated from his collective writings) about Chrysostom.

b) Luther's Table Talk is not a primary source by which to establish facts about Luther. Even Roman Catholic scholars admit this (i.e. Posset, Wicks, etc.).

c) Luther did not believe "once saved always saved" but rather believed salvation could be lost (See the Smalcald Articles).

d) You utilize a version on Luther's Turmerlebnis that is speculation, not fact, but attempt to pass it off as fact and not speculation.

e) Psychohistory is not history. Thus, there is no way for you to know "Luther was quite mad."

f) Grisar is merely one voice in regard to dating Luther's tower experience. Had you actually known Luther studies, you would be aware that various scholars offer different dates.

Regards,

James

Then I was offered this response. To which I stated:


 Opinion and fact in Luther studies (3)

 Originally Posted by JoeT 

I feel honored. I'll try to be short. Nonetheless, I don't want to keep you if it is too difficult to follow more than one rabbit trail at a time.

I must make a retraction of something I wrote previously. I stated, "There are areas in which we do share a common ground: the area of checking facts." After your last post, I realize this isn't the case at all. You were directly confronted with your errors on a number of basic facts, that, anyone who checked them, be they a Romanist, Protestant, Muslim, Scientologist, Wiccan, or Democrat, etc., should have been able (granting an average IQ) to ascertain the truth of those basic facts. You owned up to none of your errors. Perhaps others here have time for nonsense, but I don't.

 Originally Posted by JoeT 

There was no error made to own up to.

JoeT

See this earlier post, take special note of point 4, a-f. I would add as well, You were in error when you stated, "more important however, he gave birth to relativism and naturalism."

I'm moving on to more honest interactions.

James

Catholic Answers Explains The Inquisition

I recently came across the Catholic Answers tract: The Inquisition. This is actually an article of a better pedigree than most Roman apologetic stuff (the article has the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR).

The article ends with the following:

"The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds."

At first glance, this argument contains an appealing sense of balance. Certainly it's true that previous generations of Roman Catholics and Protestants understood that heresy was a so serious as to warrant the death penalty. I mean... why should we point fingers at each other? Our forefathers on both sides were guilty of cruelty and executions. One may be tempted to argue that because Romanism put more people to death, she's more guilty. True, but in fairness, the charges against Protestants utilizing the death penalty for heresy is not alleviated by such a response. Simply because they weren't as guilty doesn't mean they weren't guilty.

I can certainly appreciate the even-toned conclusion, "The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds." I've argued similarly in regard to scandalous priest problems, much to the disapproval of  some of my Protestant friends (yes, it's a lonely position to hold!).  But, I don't think this argument really treats Romanism accurately. I'm sure the Inquisitors wouldn't be happy being thrown under the bus by Catholic Answers. I'm fairly sure the Council of Constance would be very confused by Catholic Answers, for they stated:

Sentence condemning J. Hus to the stake

This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God's church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court.

Now I imagine (though I'm not certain), Romanists have a way around how an infallible council sentenced a man to death, and how the conclusion of the Catholic Answers tract still follows. I'm sure there's a way to weasel out of this. I can't recall if it was Sungenis, Matatics, or Staples (in debate against Dr. White) who argued Constance didn't kill Hus, the secular authority did (I'm thinking it was Staples, Algo can correct or verify). Plainly though, Constance at least knew what their decision would mean for Hus, and if the bolded "Sentence condemning J. Hus to the stake" is part of the actual document of Constance, they certainly expected it. If an infallible council can sentence people to death, this certainly puts a different spin on things. In fact, it makes the conclusion of the Catholic Answers tract null and void.

Addendum
Old Google Books can sometimes give a good snapshot as to how previous generations of Protestants understood Romanism. For instance, note the following from 1853 as to trying to figure out just what councils were said to be infallible:

This becomes still more palpably evident when we advert to the disputes among Romanists themselves, as to what the councils are that ought to be reckoned general and unerring. Most Romanists agree in maintaining, that there have been eighteen councils which were oecumenical and infallible; but they differ materially among themselves as to what particular councils are entitled to a place in this list. The Italians and Ultramontanists, that is, the immediate adherents, and the most servile dependents, of the Pope and the court of Rome, regard the councils of Lyons, Florence, and the fifth Lateran as oecumenical and infallible, while the French divines, who defend the liberties of the Gallican Church, deny to these three councils this exalted character, and substitute in their room the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle. Every Popish priest at his ordination swears to believe and maintain "everything delivered, defined, and declared by the oecumenical councils." It is to be presumed that when men take this oath, they have made up their minds as to what particular councils are oecumenical, and have satisfied themselves that all the decisions of these councils are just and accurate. Now, we would like much to know, whether, when the Popish priests of this country take this oath, they swear to adopt the French or the Italian list. They have never given us any information upon this subject, and probably most of them have never considered, and are unable to tell, what the oecumenical councils are, to which they intend to swear.

"Most Catholics vote for Obama"

Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-campaign-religion-idUSBRE8A71M420121108

"Lively" discussion:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?123235-It-looks-like-Catholics-may-have-done-it-AGAIN

Catholic Answers shared a link

.

Wednesday

A gift from the Church to all believers, the Year of Faith is to be a time of reconversion to God through special consideration of the truths he has revealed to us.

Let the "Catholic Answers Guide to the Year of Faith" get you started on that path of reconversion, and lead you to reap the great graces the Year of Faith holds in store.

The Catholic Answers Guide To The Year Of Faith

shop.catholic.com

To help you understand what the Year of Faith is all about, and to respond to the pope’s call to celebrate it more fully, Catholic Answers presents this Guide to the Year of Faith.

2Like ·  · Share

• 36 people like this.
• 

  Paul LaChapelle What page has GOD's directive: "Vote for Obama"?

  Wednesday at 1:59pm · Like · 1
• 

  Paul LaChapelle Pg. 138 Nov 06 "Vote For Obama, Thus Saith The Book."

  Wednesday at 2:06pm · Like
• 
  

"Assurance" From a Reformed Perspective

I recently heard Rev. Daniel Hyde speak on the topic of "assurance" from a Reformed perspective. There has been theological debate within Reformed theology on this topic. I appreciated Rev. Hyde's pastoral approach.

An original account of Luther's death

ht: Lutheran Theology Study Group

An original account of Luther's death - Adolph Spaeth

An copy of the out of print 1909 English translation of the "Original account of Luther's death" by Adolph Spaeth, presented by the author to Princeton Theological Seminary then was recently found at  Mount Airy. It is now digitized and uploaded by Princeton. You can download the pdf copy from this link.

Luther's last words were apparently, "I thank Thee, Lord God, heavenly Father, that Thou hast revealed unto me Thy dear Son, in whom I believed, whom I confessed and preached, whom I loved and lauded but whom the godless dishonour, blaspheme and revile. I pray Thee, Lord Jesus Christ, let my soul be commended to Thee. O heavenly Father, I know, though I must give up this body, that I shall live forever with Thee. Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in eum„ non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam, Deus, qui salvos facis sperantes in Te et reducis ex morte. I am ready to depart." Then he said three times,"Pater, in manus tuas commendo' tibi spiritum meum." After this he was silent. When they shook him and called him, he did not answer. They then applied Aqua Vitae to his nostrils and called him loudly by name. Doctor Jonas and Michael (Coehus) asked him: "Doctor Martine, Reverende pater, are you now ready to die in the faith of Christ and the doctrine which you preached in His name?" Thereupon he said, so that it could be heard distinctly, "Yes." Then he turned on his right side and slept for some minutes, so that we hoped he was getting better. Then came the death-rattle, a deep drawn breath, and he was gone. Thus he departed peacefully and patiently in the Lord between two and three o'clock a.m.

Posted 8 hours ago by Martin Yee