This article originally ran in October 2017.
After Luther published his 95 theses, inviting debate on the abuse of indulgences, things began to move rapidly in Wittenberg. Phillip Schaff, the grand church historian, sums up the course of events during the following year:1
In the Summer of 1957, Billy Graham came to Madison Square Garden in New York City. In this excerpt from his autobiography,1 Graham discussed the opposition he received from fundamentalists prior to this Crusade, and his own reasoning for doing ecumenical evangelism:
Opposition also came from a few in the Roman Catholic and Jewish communities, although I had made it clear I was not going to New York to speak against other traditions or to proselytize people away from them. My goal instead was to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was presented in the Bible and to call men and women to commit their lives to Him …
Anselm was a brilliant guy. A genius. He published his book Why God Became Man in 1097, so you could say it’s a bit of an antique. Anselm’s book is really about why Christ had to take on a human nature and be conceived of and born to a virgin. But, along the way, he tackled the reason for Christ’s death and thus popularized the “satisfaction theory” of atonement, which envisioned God as an overlord of sorts who was owed “satisfaction” or payment by his subjects for crimes committed, in order to set things right.
This theory is very intriguing, and it’s not too far from the penal substitution theory most conservative Christians are taught. Here is the excerpt:
The following is the full text of Chapter 7, from the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith.
Chapter VII: Of God’s Covenant with Man
I. The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.1
If a Christian commits sin after his conversion, can he be forgiven for these sins? Many today assume he can and will. Doesn’t the Apostle John, for example, say that very thing (1 John 1:8-9)? However, John also wrote, “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God,” (1 John 3:9). In fact, a curious reader will find long discussions of this issue, and the implications of sinless perfectionism, in any responsible commentary on 1 John.
If Christians confess that the Son proceeds from the Father, then is it proper to call this “generation?” Doesn’t this term imply the Son had a beginning, or at least owes His existence to the Father? Is the “eternal generation of the Son” a Biblical concept?
Many Christians assume the medieval period lacked original theological insight. Almost unconsciously, they often assume the church entered a dark age at the end of the patristic era; a darkness which was only pierced by the bright and shining rays of the Reformation 1000 years later. This is incorrect.
Sir Anthony Buzzard is a Unitarian theologian and founder of Restoration Fellowship, a movement dedicated to proclaiming (among other things) the allegedly Unitarian creed of Jesus.
In this short excerpt from his massive and unfinished systematic treatise, Summa Theologica, Aquinas discusses the difficult doctrine of reprobation 1
Whether God reprobates any man?
Objection 1: It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wis. 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.
Below is the actual text of most of Martin Luther’s infamous 95 theses. Many people have heard of them; fewer have actually read them. Here they are:1
The following essay appeared in the September 1850 issue of DeBow’s Review, which was one of the most important antebellum journals in the South. It appeared just as Congress was debating and passing what became known as “the Compromise of 1850.” The author is anonymous, but the piece sums up, in a remarkably straightforward way, the “Biblical argument” for slavery from a pro-Southern perspective. SharperIron does not endorse the conclusions or presuppositions of this article.
