The Fans Speak Out

The following fan club testimony is from this blog post.

1. 
   

   Dozie said,

   January 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm

   “Yet the problem in part as James complains, is Dozie’s link to James’s article at BeggersAll. The same which does nothing more than walk through Luther’s statement and put it in context.”

   I was going to let Ron and GB have the last word on this but now something has to be said about James Swan’s defense/adoption of Luther’s abominable statements.

   First, I disagree that James Swan’s article “does nothing more than walk through Luther’s statement and put it in context.” One has to appreciate the fact that James Swan has earned the reputation of being a Luther apologist and has been defending Luther in all manner of situations for some time now. In this role as Luther apologist, one has to ask: “how many match sticks does it take to burn down the house”? How many Luther bombastic statements does it take to discredit Luther and all those who defend him? Intelligent people bring up statements attributable to Luther (statements that ordinarily would not be indefensible) but James Swan in his singular role attempts, in the name of contextualization, to pull the blanket over some people’s eyes. In the particular instance in question, Luther claims: “Your sin cannot cast you into hell”. An unbiased person attempting to contextualize this statement will be obligated, first of all, to distance him/her self from the statement. There is nothing in James Swan’s analysis that indicates he finds the statement offensive or that the statement may create the wrong impression in others. He does not say that “the statement is misleading, but here is the context” or that the statement is wrong on its face. No, he simply justifies the statement by supplying or making up contexts that really sound bizarre to thinking Christians.

   Interestingly, even Lutherans are not impressed with James Swan’s hypocritical attempt to cover up for Luther. I know Paul McCain is not. Here’s a question put to James Swan by a Lutheran woman:

   “Dear James, it comes down to the question: if Luther was so right, why a Calvin? Does it not?” (This question was left unanswered). And then in the same comment, the lady points out: “And all the messes James is cleaning up, are just not as interesting to Lutherans who want to be more interested in the gospel than in Luther” (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=8878445420994759274).

   This Lutheran woman lady realizes that Luther created a mess which even Lutherans are not willing to touch; James Swan enters to clean up Luther but he does not find Lutheranism persuasive enough to sign on the dotted line. This is a sad commentary on the nature of Protestantism – happy in division. But the question remains: if Luther was so right, why Calvin?
   
   
   

2. jamesswan1 said,

   January 7, 2013 at 3:32 pm

   “One has to appreciate the fact that James Swan has earned the reputation of being a Luther apologist and has been defending Luther in all manner of situations for some time now.”

   I thought I was simply a person with a blog.

   “In this role as Luther apologist, one has to ask: “how many match sticks does it take to burn down the house”? How many Luther bombastic statements does it take to discredit Luther and all those who defend him?”

   Where Luther was in error, I’ve pointed that out.

   “Intelligent people bring up statements attributable to Luther (statements that ordinarily would not be indefensible) but James Swan in his singular role attempts, in the name of contextualization, to pull the blanket over some people’s eyes.”

   This sort of statement is a good example of why you’ve been banned from my blog, off and on, over the years. You are one of of maybe 3 or 4 people that have earned the honor of having your comments immediately dumped off the Beggars All blog.

   “In the particular instance in question, Luther claims: “Your sin cannot cast you into hell”. An unbiased person attempting to contextualize this statement will be obligated, first of all, to distance him/her self from the statement. There is nothing in James Swan’s analysis that indicates he finds the statement offensive or that the statement may create the wrong impression in others. He does not say that “the statement is misleading, but here is the context” or that the statement is wrong on its face. No, he simply justifies the statement by supplying or making up contexts that really sound bizarre to thinking Christians.”

   The context of Luther’s comment was provided in my blog entry for anyone to read. It’s not my fault if you can’t see past your own Romanism to understand what Luther is saying. Before I searched out the context, it was close to impossible to know where the quote was from. So you tell me who’s being dishonest here: the person that originally posted the comment without a reference, or my blog article which provides the context, and also a link to the writing it was taken from.

   “Interestingly, even Lutherans are not impressed with James Swan’s hypocritical attempt to cover up for Luther. I know Paul McCain is not.”

   That’s news to me. I’ve had cordial interaction with Rev. McCain for a few years, and I don’t recall ever having any problems with him. If you have any comments from Rev. McCain implying he’s “not impressed with James Swan’s hypocritical attempt to cover up for Luther,” I certainly haven’t seen any such statements. Certainly Rev. McCain doesn’t appreciate my Reformed theology, but I don’t recall ever being criticized by him for any of the obscure Luther quotes I’ve looked up. In fact, Rev. McCain himself has posts that refute the nonsense attributed to Luther.

   “Here’s a question put to James Swan by a Lutheran woman”

   A Lutheran woman, by the way, who is a friend of mine and who does appreciate my Luther entries.

   “This Lutheran woman lady realizes that Luther created a mess which even Lutherans are not willing to touch;”

   That’s nonsense. In fact “this Lutheran woman” actually helps me with translating Luther’s German so I can complete some of my entries. She’s actually been a great help over the years.

   “James Swan enters to clean up Luther but he does not find Lutheranism persuasive enough to sign on the dotted line. This is a sad commentary on the nature of Protestantism – happy in division. But the question remains: if Luther was so right, why Calvin?”

   It’s odd how you can read my blog in such a Talmudic way and yet miss the obvious: It’s often the case that what Luther is saying (or not saying) isn’t really the point- It’s the fact that Romanism, particularly pre-1920 Romanists and recent online e-pologists have a terrible time with contexts, that is, if they even bother to look up a context.

A very interesting discussion

A discussion between Pastor Saiko Woods (Reformed) and Fredrick Price, Jr. (Word of Faith - Name it Claim it Prosperity Health and Wealth Heresy)  I am grateful for Pastor Saiko Woods diligence and character in seeking to have a respectful discussion with a Word of Faith teacher.  Fred Price, Jr. is to be commended in at least being willing to discuss the issues.

Fredrick Price Jr., son of Fredrick Price, Sr., is the first Word of Faith/ Name it claim it teacher that I have seen who was willing to sit down and discuss theological issues with a Reformed pastor, or even another Evangelical who is not Reformed, but stands against the Word of Faith as a heresy.

I made a few comments:  (I have made a few changes; but not much.)

"Excellent Pastor Saiko - I really enjoyed watching and listening to that entire discussion you had with Fred Price, Jr.

One suggestion - I think at one point Fred Price, Jr. thought you were saying when we are dead in sin before regeneration, that we have no will at all. Reformed theology does not teach that the unregenerate man has no will at all; only that the will is so damaged that it is not able to choose good over evil, & we cannot repent and believe unless God awakens us first.

To help Arminians and folks like F.P, jr. understanding what we mean when we say, God "ordains sin" means - it means that God decided before to allow sin to happen; but God did not do the sin. That helped me.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1; and London Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1.

Fred Price, Sr. made some very disturbing statements in the past - that the Holy Spirit does not want to live in a body with damaged limbs (Quadriplegics) and blindness of the eyes. (Is God glorified through sickness? - audiotape FP605 - quoted in Hank Hanegraaff's Christianity in Crisis, p. 260. He also said a lot of other disturbing things, but that one is the one I think is the most outrageous and cruel."
__________
I do personally think that many, if not all, of the Word of Faith teachers are heretics and they seem to me to be in it just to make money - it seems motivated by greed - like Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, and those like them seem to be operating from that kind of motivation.   But there does seem to be some Christians who go to these types of churches, but are sincerely unaware that this teaching is heresy.    Then there are many others, who because they want their desires fulfilled, that keep these heretics going by giving to them and listening to them.  2 Timothy 4:3  The false teachers will be judged. (James 3)  But many of the people who keep them going have a part to play in the spread and prevalence of these heresies.  

I saw this by Pastor Saiko Woods tweeting to Dr. James White and asking for his opinion.  This subject is very interesting to me, because I think the Word of Faith movement is one of the most damaging movements within Christianity that is around in recent years.  These heresies and greed and goofiness are being promoted overseas now and being translated into Arabic, Turkish and Farsi and beamed into the Muslim world.  It is very damaging to the believers in Iran, and very confusing to them; and a bad witness to real Muslims.

Because of these heresies and obvious greed, and goofiness, the name of God is being blasphemed among the unbelievers. See Romans 2:24; 2 Samuel 12:14; Isaiah 52:5. 

Addendum:
Early in the discussion, Pastor Saiko Woods mentions this disturbing thing that Leroy Thompson and Creflo Dollar did a while back.  Heresy, goofiness, greed, and sin. 

Can doctrinal Islam not always seek to "Conquer the world"??

Here is a story on captured Jihadists in Syria being interviewed.  ( I saw this from Dr. White's tweet and link to it, "Hard times ahead for our brothers and sisters in Syria".)  You should read the article and watch the video.  The beginning of the video was confusing to me without context, but the article makes it more organized.

Not all Muslims believe this application of Islam, but this does seem to be the expression of real doctrinal and consistent Islam from Muhammad and the early centuries of Islamic history.  The news reporter seemed like he did not know what with do with the Muslims who were kind of friendly and smiling and open and yet expressed that to follow real Islam, they will make war with Christians and give them the choice of surrendering and paying the Jiziye or the Muslims will fight you to the death, after they take back Israel and Spain and Portugal.

We hope not, but it does honestly seem that the "Arab Spring" and the take-down of dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Qaddafi of Libya - could eventually result in some kind of Islamist State that seeks to get back to the way Muhammad and the Caliphate carried out aggressive war after 621/622 AD and applied Islamic Law in their lands for centuries.

Caliph is translated from the Arabic word khalifa (خليفة - khalīfah) meaning "successor" (of Muhammad), "viceroy", "substitute", "lieutenant-leader". 

The periods of the Islamic Caliphate - 632 AD - 1924 (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1)

1.  Rashidun Caliphate  - The first four "rightly guided" Caliphs - Abu Bakr, Omar (or Umar), Uthman, and Ali - 632-661 AD)  All Salafi and Wahabi (movement named after the basic philosophy behind the state of Saudi Arabia) and Jihadist movements seek to return the Muslim world to the period of Muhammad after the Hegira (622-632 AD) and the Rashidun Caliphate.   "Salaf" means the "pioneer - leaders of old"; it means Muhammad and his companions and successors and the third generation of successors.  It usually does not include the Ummayid Caliphate, as far as I can tell.

2.   the Ummayid Caliphate (661-750 AD).  (headquartered in Damascus, Syria)

3.  the Abbasid Caliphate, (750 - 1258 AD)  Based in Baghdad.  Within the Abbasid period, the Fatimids gained power in North Africa and Egypt and the Hijaz (Mecca and Medina).  (see below)

4.  The Fatimid Caliphate.  (909 - 1171 AD) was an Ismaili Shiite movement that covered mostly N. Africa and Egypt, until the defeat of the Crusaders by Saladin.

5.  The Mamluk period.   They fought the Mongols and drove the Crusaders out of the land of Israel/Palestine.  They are not technically a "Caliphate" period.  (1250-1517)

6.  The Ottoman Empire Caliphate.  (1517-1924)

The Muslims interviewed in the video were very candid and seemed relaxed in saying that a non-Muslim must convert to Islam, or if they are a Christian (or Jew), they must pay the Jiziye tax with willing submission, being humiliated.  This is clear in the Qur'an Surah 9:29 and many Hadith - see one classic Hadith below, and one on the law of apostasy.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.  Surah 9:29 

Hadith - Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:  Narrated Abu Huraira:
When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right." 

The Law of Apostasy in Islam - death - based on this Hadith

Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:  Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

The historical reality seems to be, that there has never been much of any other kind of political Islam except either the Caliphate Empires or Dictatorships.  (except for modern Turkey and some other farther east countries like Indonesia) There does not seem to be a "middle ground" of a secular/democratic Muslim country that is not a dictatorship.  (What western liberals seem to think is possible.)   What is there by example between the Islamic Caliphate/Sharia Law/no freedom of religion or speech vs. the secular/Arab nationalists Dictators like Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, Gamel Abdul Nasser/Anwar Sedat/Hosni Mubarak or authoritarian monarchies like Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world, except maybe secular Turkey since Mustapha Kemal Ataturk and far Asian countries like Indonesia?

Paul Bilal Williams, the British convert to Islam who looks down his nose in arrogance at all Christians who believe the Bible is true; at his own blog, states that the restoration of the Caliphate is obligatory for true Muslims and he gives a whole page on why he supports the Hizb ut Tahrir in England.  (no longer there, Williams has changed his blog twice (?) in 2014-2015. )

"The Khilafah (or ‘Caliphate’) is an obligation for Muslims and something we took for granted for well over a thousand years, much like the obligation of Salah (prayer) and fasting today which, al-hamdulillah, are not open to discussion and debate."  Paul Bilal Williams

Most of my last comments were banned from commenting on his blog, so I have given up trying to comment or reason with him there.  He couldn't handle me calling him out as inconsistent for not debating Dr. White and saying the reason is because he is a "fundamentalist"; but at the same time, he was debating Chris Green who believes pretty much the same things that I and Dr. White believe on issues of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the inerrancy of Scripture.   Paul Williams thinks I am a "Fundamentalist Christian" like James White and Chris Green.  I asked him a while back, before being banned, if he wants the Caliphate to be brought to England, he said no, that the purpose of Hizb e Tahrir is to restore the Caliphate in Muslim lands.

I guess my question is, then why does Paul and the Hizb e Tahrir operate in England?  Why don't they go to a Muslim country and work to restore the Caliphate there? 

After quoting a Hadith(you can look it up there at his site), Williams writes:

"This hadith holds a meaning that is especially reflective of our times, for in the last hundred years this noble Ummah has witnessed the destruction of her State and with that, due to the colonization of her lands by the colonialists, the crushing tidal wave of Western culture. Western culture completely engulfed her to the point of suffocation. It turned black into white and white into black. Never did the Ummah encounter such cultural strangulation, which left her bewildered and confused about the most basic and rudimentary tenets of her Deen."

Williams and Hizb-ut-Tahrir blame the downfall of the Khalifate on colonialism, but it was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who abolished the Khalifate in 1924.  Ataturk was a secularist but from a Muslim culture.  And the Ottoman Empire was justly punished for siding with Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany in World War I (1914-1917).  The breakup of the Ottoman Empire and Khalifate was the Muslims doing, not the west.  The west just came in and filled the vacuum left by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the desire for the Arabs to be free from their Turkish masters.

 He gives a link to Hizb-Ut-Tahrir and says it does not work to re-establish the Khalifah here in the west.  But it honestly does seem to be part of the agenda, if one reads the articles and subjects that Paul writes on and emphasizes.  It honestly seems that they want the west to fall from within because of secular liberalism/socialism/homosexual/abortion/pornographic/materialistic culture, and then the Muslims will be happy to fill the vacuum that left-wing liberalism/secular anti-Christian and pro-homosexual culture is creating.

"Hizb-Ut-Tahrir is a global Islamic political party working to re-establish the Khilafah in the Muslim world. It does this by a political and intellectual method, following the example of the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). Hizb-Ut-Tahrir does not work to re-establish the Khilafah here in the West. It also works to preserve and protect the values of Muslims in the West, and carry a correct understanding of Islam to non-Muslim society."

I am glad they state that they are not working to re-establish the Khalifah in the west, but the statement "It also works to preserve and protect the values of Muslims in the West" is by nature contradictory to that; because in order to have all of consistent and doctrinal and Sharia law Islam all the way in the west would be to seek to destroy western freedom of speech(insults to Islam and Muhammad are forbidden), freedom of religion (apostasy from Islam is punishable by death); and separation of church/ religion/Mosque and state are contradictions in Islam, and free market capitalism (Zakat and Islamic finance law are by nature contradictory to free market capitalism and banking systems in the west.)  Some Muslim articles and speeches offer Islamic law as a moral alternative to the homosexual agenda in the west that the church is failing to fight; and offering Islamic "justice and equality" by the Zakat and Islamic finance instead of, what Islam sees western capitalism is - a kind of greedy, self-interest, Ayn Rand-type capitalism, materialism, and secularism.

If you want to understand the hizb-ut-Tahrir's agenda for seeking to re-establish the Khalifate, see here, where they answer some questions.  It seems clear that if the Khalifate is re-established, they will eventually attack Israel(see the question on how they will deal with Israel.)   Not all questions that westerners have are asked there, and some of the answers need a lot more details, but if someone understands doctrinal Islam from all the Islamic sources - Qur'an, Hadith, Tafsirs, Sira literature, Tarikh (history of Islam by Al Tabari) and the subsequent history of how Islam actually carried out it's agenda of spreading Islam, it seems obvious that if they establish the Khalifate in a part of the Muslim world and then work out from it by Da'awa and then Jihad, they will seek to take back all lands that used to be Islamic - especially Spain and Portugal (Al Andalous) and Israel, and then declare Jihads against the west, atheist Russia, pagan Hindus and pagan Buddhists.

Beware “testimonies” of heaven from outside of Scripture

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=25777

Some good points over a recent fad.

Which Pope Understood the Reformation?

Pope Leo X, 1520: Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause... A roaring sow of the woods has undertaken to destroy this vineyard, a wild beast wants to devour it... Since these errors, as well as many others, are found in the writings or pamphlets of a certain Martin Luther, we condemn, reject and denounce these pamphlets and all writings and sermons of this Martin, be they in Latin or in other languages, in which one or more of these errors are found. For all times do we want them condemned, rejected and denounced. [source]

 Pope John Paul II, 1983: For the Catholic Church the name of Martin Luther is linked, across the centuries, to the memory of a sad period and particularly to the experience of the origin of deep ecclesiastical divisions. For this reason the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's birth should be for us a reason to meditate, in truth and Christian charity, on that event fraught with historical significance which was the period of the Reformation. Because time, by separating us from the historical events, often permits them to be understood and represented better. ["Pope John Paul II's Letter on the Fifth Centenary of Birth of Martin Luther" as cited by Gregory Sobolewski.

See also: Pope calls for re-evaluation of works of Luther: "In the first place it is important to continue accurate historical work. It is a question of, through an investigation without taking sides, motivated only by the search for truth, arriving at a just image of the reformer, of the entire epoch of the reformation and of the people who were involved in it." "Guilt, where it exists, must be recognized on whichever side it is found. Where polemics have clouded the view, the direction of this view must be corrected and independently by one side or the other."

It's interesting to me that Roman Catholic laymen (well, at least those zealous for their Romanism) typically gravitate toward the view of Pope Leo X. That is, the new strain of self-proclaimed Internet apologists that fill places like the Catholic Answers forums, typically fight for the cause of Pope Leo. This recent Catholic Answers thread though is interesting because it demonstrates both views are alive within Romanism. Roman Catholics appear to have a wide berth on how to understand the Reformation.

For further reading, see: Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet. This is probably the most extensive current study on the Roman Catholic understanding of Luther in English.

Roman Catholics Throwing a Roman Catholic Apologist Under the Bus

Here's one to watch from Catholic Answers about the work of Roman apologist, Robert Sungenis. Let's see what these folks will come up with as the hours go by. I predict they'll throw him under the bus, so to speak.

So far:

"I do not agree with his views on evolution or the geocentric model, and I do not see why they are part of Catholic apologetics. I do agree with his criticism of the State of Israel, Rabbinic Judaism, and Zionism, but, again, I do not to see what this has to do with Catholic apologetics. I do not deny his talents as an apologist and as a debater, but for the above mentioned reasons, I do not recommend his work to others."

 "His first few works -- "Not By Faith Alone" and "Not By Scripture Alone" -- were (and still are) great Catholic apologetics books. That's why they have forewords from heavy hitters like Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn. As the years went on, though, he sort of went off the rails from mainstream Catholic apologetics with his views on geocentrism and Judaism. That's why you are hearing mixed things about him."

Government use of scientism as power

Below are two videos.  The first one is about the dangers of western secular scientism - and C. S. Lewis' warnings against governments using scientism for power.  The second video is about how Iran allows and helps fund sex change operations and gender re-assignment.

I thought this first one was a very well done video.  This video is very timely in light of many recent effects of President Obama's first term and re-election victory.  The video starts with President Obama's statement in his first inaugural address of "we will restore science to it's rightful place".   Was this a reference beyond "global warming" and renewable energies? Was he  implying other issues related to ObamaCare, like eugenics and euthanasia (mercy killing) and other uses of technology that go beyond moral bounds? - gender re-assignment, sex-change operations - forcing companies to provide insurance for those things also - like the "woman" in prison who got government funds for "her" hormone therapy and sex-change operations?

Also in light of the case of our government forcing Hobby Lobby to provide Insurance that provides for abortions and abortifacient drugs, this video is very timely.    ObamaCare is not just economically stupid and a step in socialism; but it is evil coercion by our government; violations of freedom of religion and speech.   It is the result of our culture leaving it's Judeo-Christian roots.   The film quotes C. S. Lewis as writing, "I dread government in the name of science, that is how tyrannies come in."  I tried to find the quote on line or in my own copy of The Abolition of Man, but could not find the exact reference for the quote. This article seems to indicate that the statement is a summary of what Lewis thought.   In that article, it  quotes Lewis again on the problem with Theocracy: (From the context of the 1950s and 1960s, and Lewis as an Englishman, one can discern that "democrat" does not mean what it does today in the USA.)

I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. . . . [S]ince we have sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. . . . Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us.  (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and other Essays, pp. 168-169.)  (pages 113-114 in my copy of an older edition.) 

The second video is also very well produced, but disturbing in the realities it exposes in our fallen world today.  The other danger is when a false religious system is the government and then approves of sex-change operations, helps fund them, and uses technological advances to perform them.  The Sunnis are embarrassed by this phenomenon in Iran.  (Warning: the comment section on the YouTube site is full of inappropriate language.)

Here is a disturbing, shocking, and ironic video documentary of sex-change operations in Iran, a Muslim country where Shiite Sharia Islamic law is supreme.  It is ironic because one would have thought that religious Muslims would view all sex-change operations as wrong and sin.   Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and punishable by death, but if one changes himself or herself first, then it will be ok for that person to fulfill their desires and attractions.  They can then marry the opposite sex or they can, in Shiite Iran, sell themselves for temporary marriage.  (Farsi:  صیغه - pronounced: Seegheh or Siqeh;  Arabic:  مُتعه (mota'eh, or it is usually written in English as Muta. Iranians pronounce Arabic words differently, that is also why you will see "Moslem" - the more Iranian way of pronouncing it; and "Muslim" - the more Arabic way of pronunciation.) (*see  more at bottom) This (the Muta issue) is revealed at the end of the film, after one of the main characters in this documentary changes himself into a woman and then sells "herself" in order to make a living.  Wow.  Very disturbing stuff.  They never explain how they understand the contradiction/tension of Allah creating someone "with the wrong body" is justified.    This issue came up in my own evangelism with Iranians, and discipling and pastoring and counseling former Muslims.  It created doubts and struggles in the minds of some of the other Iranian believers as we taught them apologetic issues and how we as Biblical Christians respond to these realities of our fallen world.  How do believers in Christ respond to the struggles that some people have that we don't have?  We had an Iranian lady visit our church who claimed she was created in the wrong body, and she used Gnosticism and Gnostic writings and material from Elaine Pagels and the DaVinci Code type reasoning to argue her points against me.  She came a dozen or so times to church over several months, and heard the gospel and I was able to explain what the Bible says more in depth to her questions after several church services. (Eventually she never came back.  I pray that the message of the gospel will be haunting her mind and heart, from hearing it clearly in her own language, and that God would draw her to Himself, wherever she is now.  John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

Does Islam believe that creation is fallen? (Genesis 3, Romans 8:21) I honestly don't know how they explain these things.  The Bible explains that after God created all things, that after sin, then corruption and decay entered our world   After the fall - after sin entered the world, came decay, corruption, and death.  Birth defects are part of that corruption.  Creation today is "enslaved to corruption" because of sin.  Islam is adamant in denying original / inherited sin, but it seems that with this, they are agreeing that creation has defects/corruptions in it now.  At one point early in the documentary, the doctor is heard and seen saying to one of his patients, "nature has created you this way."  I wonder how religious this doctor is.  I suppose he could agree that nature has been corrupted from Allah's original design, but I wonder how they explain the corruption - since Adam, in Islamic theology, did not become a sinner by nature, nor pass that sinful nature on to his children.

* You can see a discussion of Muta here, even by Sunnis calling for it to be allowed in the current civil war in Syria and quotes from the Hadith that mention it. )



Another disturbing and evil thing, is that if the liberal / gay agenda keeps advancing, the liberal /big government in the USA will be forcing religious institutions to pay for abortions and sex-change operations, not just contraception and abortifacient drugs.

Recent CARM Discussion on Luther's Mariology

I've begun copying the discussions I take part in over to the blog to keep a record for myself (and also sometimes things disappear from forums). Blogger also now does a good job with copying the fonts and formatting from discussion boards.

The following discussion took place on the CARM boards. I realize this topic is a bit dull, but it's always a great reminder how how poorly some of Rome's defenders are at actually looking stuff up before they post it. I've also back-posted a very similar discussion from the Catholic Answers forums from last year: Luther's View of Mary on Catholic Answers Forums.

 Originally Posted by AmericanDream 

Did Luther retain the rcc practice belief of her special status?

You'll find a lot of propaganda about Luther's Mariology on the Internet. This particular subject has fascinated me for about 10 years now.

Here's how I see it: Luther rarely wrote about Mary- that is, if you take his writings as a whole. Of what he did write, you'll find his Marian views underwent development, particularly because of his eventual denial of the intercession of the saints. He was though against the typical Marian idolatry of his day, throughout his career.

A Roman Catholic going by the name "Aquinas" posted:

 Originally Posted by AmericanDream 

Did Luther retain the rcc practice belief of her special status?

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Martin Luther, Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ…She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Martin Luther, Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

"One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace…Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ…Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." (Martin Luther, Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

This sort of thing was hidden from me as a Lutheran (for ~30 years).

I listened for 30 years. These things were never mentioned to me while a Lutheran. I think the reasons are obvious.


 My response:

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Martin Luther, Sermon, September 1, 1522).

See: Luther: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart"

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ…She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

See: Luther: "Mary... We Can Never Honor Her Enough"

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Martin Luther, Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

See: Luther: No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

"One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace…Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ…Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." (Martin Luther, Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

See: Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

This sort of thing was hidden from me as a Lutheran (for ~30 years).

The quotes you posted are characteristic of shoddy Roman Catholic pop-apologetics put together by laymen on the Internet who rarely (if ever) look up the actual contexts of where these quotes originally came from. 

Fairly common topics posted by such Internet apologists include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach. 

Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Some of the Roman Catholics during Luther's day actually were suspicious of his Mariology, particularly his explanation of the Magnificat. Even later Roman apologists, some quite hostile to Luther understood this:

Hartmann Grisar, commenting on Luther’s Magnificat states, “[Luther] certainly was in no mood to compose a book of piety on Mary. The result was that the book became to all intents and purposes a controversial tract, which cannot be quoted as a proof of his piety or serenity of mind during those struggles.”[Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD, 1915), 502]. 

For further information see: Luther's Magnificat: A Representation of Luther's Lifelong Mariology?

Or, for detailed a look at Luther's Mariology, see: Martin Luther's Mariology (Index)

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

I listened for 30 years. These things were never mentioned to me while a Lutheran. I think the reasons are obvious.

God bless your previous Lutheran pastors for not spreading propaganda.



Aquinas Responded:

 Originally Posted by James Swan 

God bless your previous Lutheran pastors for not spreading propaganda.



See: On John Calvin's "Mariology"

JS

Agreed. Martin Luther was indeed a propagandist.

At least we got an indirect admission that Martin Luther's theology constantly shifted, and lacked anything resembling consistency. Even in his lifetime, Sola Scriptura had failed him as a praxis.

It can be argued from various schools of thought that he had moments of lucidity. Which moments were lucid entirely depends on the perspective of the one making the claim. Naturally, when he spoke these things of Mary, I would consider them lucid moments.

My response:

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

Agreed. Martin Luther was indeed a propagandist.

Either:

1) You misunderstood my post; the "propaganda" I referred to was that put forth by Roman Catholics and avoided by your previous Lutheran ministers.

2) You understood what I meant by "propaganda" but decided to be intentionally antagonistic.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with #1, and thus make this clarifying explanation: The quotes you posted about Luther's alleged hidden "Mariology" are not something that was hidden from you by your previous Lutheran pastors. Rather, the quotes you appear to be so smitten with, when placed back in their context and historical time period do not support Romanism. The "propaganda" therefore is that put forth by Romanism.

I hope that explanation clears things up. I'd be disheartened to discover your comment was actually intentionally antagonistic.

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

At least we got an indirect admission that Martin Luther's theology constantly shifted, and lacked anything resembling consistency. Even in his lifetime, Sola Scriptura had failed him as a praxis.

While Luther's theology did undergo development (and by the way, have you ever heard of Newman's development of doctrine hypothesis that Rome's defenders use to explain away the historical inconsistencies within Romanism?), there was indeed a consistency on important matters. There is a thoughtful paper by Gordon Rupp entitled, “Miles Emeritus? Continuity and Old Discontinuity Between the Young and The Luther” Rupp points out:

“But what of the old Luther? It is often assumed that his last years were racked with illness and exhaustion, and the symptoms of old age: that pessimism and intolerance provoked him into outrageous polemic and made him the scorn of his enemies, and a trial to his friends. I believe this to be a quite exaggerated impression.”

“Nor is his thought and in the quality of his writing, and in the depths of his achievement is it permissible to drive a wedge between the Young and the Old Luther. There were great and lasting continuities. Not that there were no changes.”

“Despite changes of emphasis, and a way of picking on a phrase like ‘Christ’s strange work’ or ‘gratia’ and ‘donum’ or the thought of the pope as a Werewolf, which he uses for a time, and the drops, and despite the fact that he was no systematizer, there is an inner coherence and consistency in Luther’s thought. This is most evident in the firmness with which he held to the doctrine of Justification ‘sola fide’ and ‘solo Christo’.”

Found in: Yule, George (editor) Luther: Theologian for Catholics and Protestants (Scotland: T & T Clark Ltd., 1985), pp. 75-76.

Many Roman Catholics also fail to understand the structure of Luther’s theology. Certianly Luther was not a systematizer. But this does not mean that Luther was haphazard. He wrote treatises for specific situations; hence he has gained the description of an occasional writer. Within these writings, one sees a constant method: Luther reveled in contrast and paradox. Examples of this would be “Deus absconditus vs. Deus revelatus,” “glory vs. Cross,” “law vs. gospel.” Luther rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). For Luther, theology is not systematic theological reasoning. It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another: Theology is always a matter of “denote” (nevertheless). At times, Luther can appear contradictory: he will say something like “God is both hidden and revealed.”

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

It can be argued from various schools of thought that he had moments of lucidity. Which moments were lucid entirely depends on the perspective of the one making the claim. Naturally, when he spoke these things of Mary, I would consider them lucid moments.

Why that's so nice of you to throw Luther a bone. What you haven't done though is demonstrate you have read the contexts your Luther / Mary quotes come from. In fact, I would speculate you simply copied and pasted them from... somewhere. I've been dealing with those specific quotes for years and I've yet to find a Romanist that actually went and looked up their contexts before posting them. But, no worries, I've done a lot of the tedious work already of researching them. All you would need to do is go through the links posted earlier for you.

Before I sign out for the day, if you ignore everything I've written above, I would be very grateful if you'd at least answer this one question: do you think it's responsible to post quotes from contexts you've never read?

JS

Aquinas responded:

 Originally Posted by James Swan 

Either:

1) You misunderstood my post; the "propaganda" I referred to was that put forth by Roman Catholics and avoided by your previous Lutheran ministers.

2) You understood what I meant by "propaganda" but decided to be intentionally antagonistic.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with #1, and thus make this clarifying explanation: The quotes you posted about Luther's alleged hidden "Mariology" are not something that was hidden from you by your previous Lutheran pastors. Rather, the quotes you appear to be so smitten with, when placed back in their context and historical time period do not support Romanism. The "propaganda" therefore is that put forth by Romanism.

I hope that explanation clears things up. I'd be disheartened to discover your comment was actually intentionally antagonistic.

JS

The quotes were never discussed in any context when I was a Lutheran, and I think it's obvious that the reason is as simple as (is typical protestant fashion) overcompensation. Anything that could remotely, by anyone, be understood as even similar to Catholic theology (as simple as "Hey, that Mary sure was something huh?") is ran from like the PLAGUE in protestant circles. Deny if you like. I've lived it.

They need not "support Romanism" to make a point in being discarded, hidden, or otherwise ignored by protestant theologians (save to point out that Luther allegedly held your consensus's view on Mary rather than his Catholic view, being a Catholic Priest, before he was a schismatic bearing theological ideas on the toilet).


 My response:

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

The quotes were never discussed in any context when I was a Lutheran,

I'm not sure why there would be a reason to. On the other hand, one need only read Luther's alleged Marian sermons to see that more often than not, Mary isn't even the main subject, sometimes she's barely mentioned. But, you appear to have some sort of strong adversity to any sort of research that challenges your Romanism. You can cling all you want to your story about "when you were a Lutheran...", but I suggest you'd find an audience that actually entertains triumphant conversion stories over on the Catholic Answers forums. They love stories and emotional responses rather than truth and historical facts.

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

and I think it's obvious that the reason is as simple as (is typical protestant fashion) overcompensation. Anything that could remotely, by anyone, be understood as even similar to Catholic theology (as simple as "Hey, that Mary sure was something huh?") is ran from like the PLAGUE in protestant circles. Deny if you like. I've lived it.

As stated above, how and what you lived is not all that important to me. I don't enjoy conversion stories, either Protestant or Romanist. I think people tell them because they like to talk about themselves. I would agree that there are Protestant churches that could do better in referencing Mary. But then again, the actual Biblical content about Mary is... sparse, when compared to other important New Testament people. On the other hand, in this very thread, I stated that Luther rarely wrote about Mary- that is, if you take his writings as a whole. So before you blast away at your former pastors for not quoting Luther on Mary, keep in mind that he didn't sit around writing and contemplating Mary like Romanists do.