A couple of years ago, my then-new pastor, Dr. Bill Weaver, responding to my over-abundant gushing about all things Reformed and Reformational, carved out 10 minutes for me to say a few words about the Reformation on Reformation Sunday, October 31, 2004. Being self-conscious about my public speaking weaknesses, I managed to get permission to give a Power-Point presentation on it instead of a customary speech. I have transcribed my slightly longer than ten minutes of commentary on the life of Martin Luther which accompanied the following slides. In a few days, I’ll post the remaining slides I didn’t have time to cover during the presentation.

Hope you enjoy the presentation . . .

Around the world, today is recognized as Reformation Sunday. It’s the anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of the Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. It was the year 1517, which makes that 487 years ago today (489 as of the year 2006–chk).

A little bit about his life . . .

Luther was born on November 10th, 1483, in Eiselben, Germany. He was the son of a successful miner–they were an affluent family–and at the age of eighteen, he was sent to study at the University of Erfurt, where he took a Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy, and at his father’s instruction, who was convinced he would be able to advance the family’s fortunes, advised him to study law, which he began to do, and he gained a Master’s Degree in law. Here are some snapshots of the presumably restored house Martin Luther was born in; and an archway at the University of Erfurt.

And then, as the providence of God would have it, there was a change of plans. Martin Luther, walking in a field one day, was nearly struck by lightning, and out of fear, he cried out rashly to, “St. Anne! Save me! I’ll become a monk!” he promises. And immediately he enters an Augustinian monestary, in the library of which, he discovers a Latin Bible. In Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s he tells us that he studied it “very greedily,” and began to develop a pronounced conviction of sin.

This is one of the things that astounds me the most about his life and his testimony: he was so aware–and people have attributed to his legal skills–looking in the Word of God, discovering God’s Law, and how thoroughly it applies to us and convicts us of our sins in a manner that many of us would never be aware.

Here’s the monastery that he lived in.

Here’s an engraving someone made of Luther poring over the Scriptures.

And because he was so troubled by his sins, he would spend hours, literally, in the confessional, wearing out his confessor, confessing the most minute sins–things that you and I would overlook and dismiss–to the extent that his confessor, in fact, instructed him not to return to confession until he had committed a sin worth confessing.

But Luther labored on, and when he was withheld from the confessional, he would find his brothers and confess his sins to them. Until one day, an abbot visited the monestary. Johann Von Staupitz is a man that Luther would never forget. Staupitz advised Luther to look to the Word of God, and look to the blood of Christ; for there he would find remission for his sins. This eased Luther’s anxiety tremendously.

But here’s the day we must also remember fondly. In this tower at Luther’s monestary, meditating heavily on Romans one, verse seventeen–a verse which has come to be known as “Luther’s Verse.” It reads, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed.” Or, in the Latin Scriptures which Luther was reading, it used the word “justice”–and he was struck by this phrase, “the justice of God,” or “the righteousness of God,” the terms “righteousness” and “justice” are synonymous. I heard a man explain it this way, “Righteousness is private justice, and justice is public righteousness.” So the righteousness of God is revealed. Luther meditated on this phrase; he prayed about it, asking God to reveal to him the meaning of this, for he was already thoroughly aware that unless a man attains to the absolutely perfect righteousness that God demands, he would not see heaven. The anxiety was so great that he confesses that he, indeed, began to hate God for the righteous requirements of his Law.
Until, he says, he looked at the passage in its context: “the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written, “the righteous will live by faith.” When Luther stopped meditating on the phrase itself, and looked at it in its context, he understood, “Oh, it’s in the gospel that the righteousness of God is revealed. And that it is a righteousness that is given to us by faith, as it says here, “a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,” and that, “the righteous live by faith,” and not by their works.

And he testifies,

“All at once I felt that I had been born again, and entered into Paradise itself through open gates. Immediately, I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light.”

And he goes on to say that the phrase, “the righteousness of God,” he began to love it with just as much love as he ever hated it before.

This was the beginning of the end of the status quo in Roman Catholic Europe.

Pope Leo’s predecessor began building St. Peter’s Basillica in Rome. By the time Pope Leo took the reins the treasuries in Rome were exhausted. Well, they needed to start a “building fund,” so to speak. “What can we do?” Well, the church takes in money from the sale of indulgences, which were papal declarations for the forgiveness of sins if a man would pay a large sum of money. These indulgences were expensive, rare, and they were reserved for extreme circumstances. But Pope Leo decided, “We’re going to be innovative!” I look at it as, he adopted the “Wal-Mart” model of business: he cut the price–made it available to all–for much more minor offenses. Pope Leo abused the sale of indulgences to raise money for St. Peter’s. This is the way Martin Luther looked at it. Being the good Roman Catholic that he still was, he had no objection to the sale of indulgences, per se, but when Pope Leo dispatched indulgence preachers throughout Europe to preach indulgences in the excessive manner that they did. For instance, John Tetzel was dispatched to Wittenberg, and he made such outrageous claims, not only could these indulgences remit your sins, but they could do so even if you’ve gone so far as to violate the Mother of God herself, he said. But the line that really became famous, was a little couplet he wrote, that explained to the people that, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, asoul from purgatory springs!” You could purchase years off of your dead relatives’ experience in purgatory if you would merely pay a nominal fee. And here’s an illustration of John Tetzel, his arm resting on his coffer, encouraging the people to put their money in it.

Well, Martin Luther decided that’s just a step too far. We need to have a discussion about this! Martin Luther never intended to turn the Roman Catholic Church on its head. He never intended to change the world. He wanted to have a debate. He wrote in Latin, what we call the Ninety-Five Theses, but it’s actually entitled, A Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. I thought I would share just a select few to give us an idea of what these were like–just bullet statements, really, sentences numbered, kind of like verses in the Bible, I guess. These two in the middle, theses numbers twenty-seven and twenty-eight, are my favorites, because I believe they are vintage Luther. He was a master of hyperbole. He knew how to speak in a controversial manner, and he knew how to cut to the quick effectively, and get straight to the point. He writes,

“There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clings in the bottom of the chest. It is certainly possible, however, that when 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.”

Then, toward the end, Luther points out what would be the consequences of suppressing debate on serious matters of conscience such as this one raises. He wrote,

“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.”

Do you like it when others refuse to answer the serious questions that you have? Martin Luther reminds his colleagues that this is true.

Martin Luther wrote for three or four years after that–that was the event–the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses, 487 (489!) years ago today. Like I said, he had no intention of turning the Church on its head. However, an unknown citizen, I’m told, translated Martin Luther’s Latin theses into German, had them printed, and distributed them throughout Germany, and so the word got out, and there became a great public outcry, and Luther’s fame spread. So Luther began to write. He wrote three books that are considered at this “Diet of Worms,” which is actually a council held in the city of Worms (pronounced, “Vorms”), Germany. Here’s the cathedral in Worms in which Luther was tried, and a portrait of him giving his answer. Luther was questioned on the contents of the three books he’d written, and he was challenged to recant. Now, everyone knows the name Martin Luther today because of another man. A beloved American, by the name of Martin Luther King. And we know Dr. King had his seminal speech, “I Have A Dream.” If Martin Luther King has his “I Have A Dream,” surely, this statement made by Martin Luther, is his most famous. When he was commanded to recant of his positions, he, first of all requested twenty-four hours to think it over. And then, the following day, Luther meekly rose, and made this statement:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, or by evident reason–for I can believe neither popes nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly, and contradicted themselves. I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is held captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot, and will not, recant. Because, acting against one’s conscience is neither safe, nor sound. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

Thus concludes the biographical portion.

I was really impressed with some of the evangelical truth that is contained in some of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Consider the first four theses, in which Luther introduces the doctrine of repentance. If he were alive today, I think I could guess which side of the Lordship debate Luther would come down on, couldn’t you?

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Now, let us consider how he elaborates on repentance in the Smalcald Articles:

THE THIRD PART OF THE ARTICLES
Article III: Repentance
This office [of the Law] the New Testament retains and urges, as St. Paul, Rom. 1, 18 does, saying: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.Again, 3, 19: All the world is guilty before God. No man is righteous before Him. And Christ says, John 16, 8: The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin.This, then, is the thunderbolt of God by which He strikes in a heap [hurls to the ground] both manifest sinners and false saints [hypocrites], and suffers no one to be in the right [declares no one righteous], but drives them all together to terror and despair.This is the hammer, as Jeremiah says, 23, 29: Is not My Word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

This is not activa contritio or manufactured repentance, but passiva contritio [torture of conscience], true sorrow of heart, suffering and sensation of death.This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc.

But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1,15: Repent and believe the Gospel, i.e., become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise. And John, preceding Him, is called a preacher of repentance, however, for the remission of sins, i.e., John was to accuse all, and convict them of being sinners, that they might know what they were before God, and might acknowledge that they were lost men, and might thus be prepared for the Lord, to receive grace, and to expect and accept from Him the remission of sins.

Thus also Christ Himself says, Luke 24, 47: Repentance and remission of sins must be preached in My name among all nations. But whenever the Law alone, without the Gospel being added exercises this its office there is [nothing else than] death and hell, and man must despair, like Saul and Judas; as St. Paul, Rom. 7, 10, says: Through sin the Law killeth. On the other hand, the Gospel brings consolation and remission not only in one way, but through the word and Sacraments, and the like, as we shall hear afterward in order that [thus] there is with the Lord plenteous redemption, as Ps. 130, 7 says against the dreadful captivity of sin.

However, we must now contrast the false repentance of the sophists with true repentance, in order that both may be the better understood.

Of the False Repentance of the Papists.
It was impossible that they should teach correctly concerning repentance, since they did not [rightly] know the real sins [the real sin]. For, as has been shown above, they do not believe aright concerning original sin, but say that the natural powers of man have remained [entirely] unimpaired and incorrupt; that reason can teach aright, and the will can in accordance therewith do aright [perform those things which are taught], that God certainly bestows His grace when a man does as much as is in him, according to his free will.
Read more . . .

A Prelude of Martin Luther
On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church

Martin Luther, Augustinian, to his friend, Hermann Tulich, greeting.

(Tulich was born at Steinheim, near Paderborn, in Westphalia; graduated from Wittenberg (A.B., 1511); was a proofreader in Melchior Lotter’s printinghouse at Leipzig. He returned to Wittenberg in 1519 and received the doctorate in 1520; became professor of poetry at the university; rector of the same, 1525. He was a staunch supporter of Luther; rector of the school at Luneberg from 1532 until his death in 1540.)

Whether I wish it or not, I am compelled to become more learned every day, with so many and such able masters eagerly driving me on and making me work. Some two years ago I wrote on indulgences, but in such a way that I now deeply regret having published that little book (probably the Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses (1518)). At that time I still clung with a mighty superstition to the tyranny of Rome, and so I held that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing that they were approved by the common consent of so many. No wonder, for at the time I was still engaged singlehanded in this Sisyphean task. Afterwards, thanks to Sylvester (Sylvester Prierias–more properly called Mazzolini–from Prierio in Piedmont, 1456-1532, was a prior of the Dominicans. He became Grand Inquisitor and Censor of Books in 1515. he and others of the order (e.g., Tetzel and Hochstraten) had written against Luther), and aided by those friars who so strenuously defended indulgences, I saw that they were nothing but impostures of the Roman flatterers, by which thy rob men of their money and their faith in God. Would that I could prevail upon the booksellers and persuade all who have read them to burn the whole of my booklets on indulgences, and instead of all that I have written on this subject adopt this proposition: INDULGENCES ARE WICKED DEVICES OF THE FLATTERIES OF ROME.

What better way to begin to remember the life and ministry of Martin Luther, than to read the document which the Lord used so effectively to turn the world upside down and recover the article on which the church stands and falls, the doctrine of justification by faith alone!

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.

17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.

18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.

19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.

20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.

21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.

24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.

26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.

27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.

31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.

36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.

38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.

39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.

40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

48 Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

55. It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.

57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

61. For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.

67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.

70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.

73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Co 12[:28].

79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.

81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.

82. Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

83. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

84. Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”

85. Again, “Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?”

86. Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

87. Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?”

88. Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”

89. “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”

90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

October 31,2004, I had a rare privilege to give a Power Point presentation at Shady Grove Baptist Church on the life of Martin Luther and a short summary of the “Pillars of the Reformation,” the five “solas” which encircle Luther in the portrait to the right designed by David Jacks, owner of Theological Pursuits Bookstore, in Fort Worth, Texas. My thanks go to him for both this portrait and the burning bush logo I feature on this weblog (www.reformationshirts.com).

In the previous post you should see an icon which reads “Play This Audio Post.” This is the first few minutes of my 14 minute, 45 second long presentation. Unfortunately, I exceeded the limit of the post, so you’ll have to endure something of a cliffhanger until I regroup and record the rest of the presentation in a future post very soon, tomorrow, God willing.