Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: “I am looking for Michael Jackson! I am looking for the King of POP!”
As many of those who did not believe such news were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. “Where has Michael Jackson gone?” Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying Michael Jackson? Do we not smell any decomposition? Kings too decompose. Michael Jackson is dead. Michael Jackson remains dead.[1]
We all take it for granted that we will see another day, so did Michael Jackson. In fact he was scheduled to perform in the United Kingdom in July. Death seems to have no concern or respect for our lives or priorities, it is not concerned with those who are going to grieve it appears to be selfish. But really…how different is death from a life not glorifying to God. We think that our life is defined by our jobs, fancy cars, and designer clothes. Life is not defined by what you have, even when you have a lot. Michael Jackson is going to meet his creator naked…without Neverland or his wealth. Jesus told a story about the farm of a certain rich man produced a terrific crop. He talked to himself: ‘What can I do? My barn isn’t big enough for this harvest. ‘ Then he said, ‘Here’s what I’ll do: I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones. Then I’ll gather in all my grain and goods, and I’ll say to myself, Self, you’ve done well! You’ve got it made and can now retire. Take it easy and have the time of your life!’ “Just then God showed up and said, ‘Fool! Tonight you die. And your barnful of goods—who gets it?’ “That’s what happens when you fill your barn with Self and not with God.
The dying atheist Voltaire, who was very rich, declared that he would give half his riches to his doctor if he could prolong his life for six more months. He had no hope for resurrection after his death; he could only hope to extend his life in this world. Like Voltaire, the vast majority of modernists reject the resurrection of the body altogether. The prevailing modern view is that miracles are against reason, so they do not happen; therefore, Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead and no one else can either. Yet the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact as recorded in the historical records of the New Testament. It is the cornerstone of Christianity
Jesus Christ alone conquered death for us! Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, just as the Scriptures say he did. Because Christ rose from the dead, we have no reason to fear. When the risen Christ spoke to his disciples, his first words were, “Peace be unto you; do not be afraid.” Christianity is the only religion that is based on the historical fact of the death and resurrection of its founder. Even secular historians acknowledge that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is unique in world history.
The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.”Matthew 28:5-6
Salvation Based on the Resurrection of Christ
Our very salvation is based on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is very simple: If the most unusual and difficult prophecy of Jesus concerning his own resurrection came true, then all the teachings of Jesus Christ must be true. Jesus Christ said, “I have come to give my life as a ransom for many.” These words of Jesus were validated by his resurrection from the dead.
When Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter confessed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This tells us that Jesus Christ is God. In Romans 1 we read that that God the Father declared Jesus Christ to be the Son of God with power. The resurrection of Christ tells us that Jesus Christ is God.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ means that the death of Jesus Christ was a sufficient atonement for our sins and God is satisfied with the redemption price. God demands a redemption price for us which Psalm 49 says no man can pay because it is so costly. But not only does God demand a price for our redemption, he also pays it. Jesus Christ’s death was accepted by the Father because it alone satisfied his demand for divine justice.
The Meaning of the Resurrection of Christ
What is the meaning of it all? The Bible tells us Christ died, not for his own sin, but for our sins, so that those who trust in Christ can stand in the presence of God in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. That is what salvation is all about.
If Jesus rose from the dead, which he did, his teaching on the universality of sin must be true. In John 8:24 Jesus said, “if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” Why did Jesus Christ come into the world? Because of sin. The truth is, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ speaks about particular redemption. Jesus Christ died for our sins and raised from the dead to redeem those whom God gave to him. As we said before, Jesus spoke about this in John 6:39, saying, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.”
The resurrection of Jesus Christ means that Jesus Christ defeated all our enemies for us on the cross. We are set free from our enemy, the flesh, which is our body in which sin dwells. We are set free from the law that accuses us. We are set free from the world. We are set free from the devil. Finally, we are set free from death itself.
Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus Christ means that we also are going to be raised from the dead with a resurrection body. In 1 Corinthians 15:20 we read, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” Paul uses the figure of aparchê, which means firstfruit. The agricultural people understood that the firstfruit pointed to the coming harvest. If there is a firstfruit, there will be a harvest, and as the firstfruit tastes, the harvest will taste. In other words, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the guarantee of the resurrection of those united to him by faith.
Our resurrection is guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 6:14 we read, “By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.” In 2 Corinthians 4:14 we read, “[W]e know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.” In 1 Thessalonians 4:14 we read, “We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.” Finally, in Romans 8:11 we read, “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” In these verses we notice that our resurrection is tied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If he rose from the dead, we also will rise from the dead. The resurrection of Jesus Christ in history is the guarantee that his people, who are united with him, will also be raised from the dead with a glorious body.
Not only that, the resurrection of Jesus Christ guarantees that he is coming again as Judge. Jesus himself taught this truth. He is going to come in great glory and meet with Ernest Renan and every other person, believer and unbeliever alike, as we read in Matthew 25. There will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust.
The resurrection of Christ also tells us that there is a place in heaven for us. Jesus said he came from heaven and is going back there. It means there is a heaven somewhere from which he came down, to which he went, and to which place we will also go the moment we die.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ also means that Jesus was without sin. He asked the question, “Who is there to convict me of sin?” It means that Jesus Christ was God/man. It means that he has authority on earth to forgive sins. Jesus Christ alone is able to forgive sins because he died for our sins and was raised for our justification.
If all of these things are true, based on the resurrection of Christ, then this is also true: Jesus Christ said that anyone who repents and believes on him will be saved; if Jesus rose from the dead, then if you trust in him, you will be saved. That should give us great hope.
Also because Jesus Christ rose from the dead, we now have victory over sin, as we read in Romans 6 and Colossians 3. Even now, the power that animates us is the power of the resurrected Christ. In Philippians 3:10 Paul wrote, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection.” We died with him, were buried with him, and are raised with him to live the new life. Now we can overcome all temptation.
Because Jesus rose again, we are regenerated, as we read in 1 Peter 1:3, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. . . .” If Christ was not raised, no one would be regenerated.
Because Jesus Christ rose from the dead, what he said about the devil is true. There is a personal devil, who is the god and prince of this world. Praise be to God, Christ defeated him and his minions by his resurrection . Now if we resist the devil, the devil shall flee from us.
Jesus Christ is coming soon in great glory. Do you belong to him? Have you been united with him by faith? If so, you have nothing to fear. Peace be unto you, he is saying to you even now. But if you do not belong to him, he is coming for a different purpose. He will judge you and say, “Depart from me to eternal punishment!”
[1] Adapted from Friedrich Nietzsche, God is dead quote
The path that John Calvin paved with his radical thinking and desire to accurately portray God’s sovereignty has most certainly not been embraced by all believers. Even so, his work is admirable and his tenacity incredible; he managed to win over many critics of his time and his teachings are still in practice today. The purpose of this article is to describe the teachings of John Calvin.
BACKGROUND
John Calvin was born in Noyon, north- east of Paris, in 1509. Educated at the University of Orleans, at which he studied law. Although initially inclined to a career of scholarship, he underwent a conversion experience in his mid-twenties, which led to his becoming increasingly associated with the reforming movements in Paris, and eventually being forced into exile in Basel. Calvin saw the need for a work, which would set out clearly the basic ideas of evangelical theology, justifying them based on scripture and defending them in face of Catholic criticism. In 1536, he published a small work entitled Institutes of the Christian Religion, a mere six chapters in length. For the next quarter of a century, Calvin worked away at this, adding extra chapters and rearranging the material.
By the time of its final edition in 1559, the work had eighty chapters, and was divided into four books. The first book deals with God the creator and God’s sovereignty over his creation. Book two, concerns the human need for redemption, and the manner in which this redemption is achieved by Christ the mediator. The third book deals with the manner in which this redemption is appropriate by human beings, while the final book deals with the church and its relation to society. Although it is often suggested that predestination stands at the centre of Calvin’s system, this is not the case; the only principle which seems to govern Calvin’s organisation of his theological system is a concern to be faithful to Scripture on the one hand, and to archive maximum clarity of presentation on the other. In 1536, Calvin decided to settle down to life of private study in Strasbourg. Unfortunately, the direct route from Noyon to Strasbourg was impassable, due to the outbreak of war between Francis I of France and Emperor Charles V.
Calvin had to make an extended detour, passing through the city of Geneva, which had recently gained independence from the neighbouring territory of Savoy. On hearing that Calvin was in the city, they demanded that he stay, and help that cause of the Reformation. They needed a good teacher. Calvin reluctantly agreed. His attempts to provide the Geneva church with a solid basis of doctrine and discipline met with intense resistance. After a series of quarrels, matters reached a head on Easter Day 1538: Calvin was expelled from the city, and sought refuge in Strasbourg. Having arrived in Strasbourg two years later than he had anticipated, Calvin began to make up for the lost time. In quick succession, he produced a series of major theological works. Perhaps most importantly, he revised and expanded his Institutes.
As pastor to the French- speaking congregation in the city, Calvin was able to gain experience of the practical problems facing Reformer; Calvin was able to develop his thinking on the relation between the city and the church. In Calvin’s absence from Geneva, the religious and political situation had deteriorated. In September 1541, the city appealed to him to come back, and restore order and confidence there. The Calvin who returned to Geneva was a wiser and more experienced young man, far better equipped for the tasks awaited him than he had been three years earlier. His experience at Strasbourg brought new realism to his theorising about the nature of the church, which came to bear his name. Calvinism is still one of the most potent and significant intellectual movements in human history.
CALVIN’S THEOLOGICAL IDEAS
According to Calvin, the Bible specified the nature of theology and of any human institutions. Therefore, his statements on doctrine began and ended in Scripture, although he frequently cited the church fathers and important medieval Catholic thinkers. He sought to minimize speculation on divine matters and instead to draw on the Word of God. He also urged the church to recover its original vitality and purity. In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin sought to articulate biblical theology in a sensible way, following the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. The four books in the definitive edition focus on the articles “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit,” and “Church.”
On the Father
Knowledge of God is bound up with self-knowledge. In the world and in the human conscience, spiritual demands are manifest. God created the world and made it good. Since the fall, however, humanity, by its own powers, has been able to apprehend God only rarely and imperfectly. On their own, human beings can never achieve a true religious life based on the knowledge of God. In God’s grace, however, conveyed through Jesus Christ as described in the Bible, the Creator resolved this destructive dilemma and enabled humanity to gain a clear view of revelation. Those people who learn the truth about human depravity—that even the best deeds are tainted and none is pure—can repent and depend on God the Father for salvation.
On the Son
Human sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, produces in each person an “idol factory.” All individuals deserve destruction, but Jesus Christ served as prophet, priest, and king to call the elect into eternal life with God. Christ summons the chosen into new life, interceding for them in his atonement, and he reigns at God’s right hand. Calvin took pains to emphasise the continuity of his doctrines with Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds.
On the Spirit
God’s Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, gives power to the writing and the reading of Scripture, to the devotional life of believers, and to Christian growth in Christ (sanctification). It also permits faith that God’s resurrection of the dead will bring the saved into perfection in God’s presence. Any assurance of election to grace is given by the Spirit, and even the condemnation of the damned according to God’s justice works by the power of the Spirit.
On the Church
God’s church and the sacraments are also given in God’s grace for the edification of the elect and the good of the world. The church, one through all time, can be known by the preaching and hearing of God’s Word and the proper administration of the sacraments. Although the true church is known only to God, the visible church is thoroughly related to it on earth. Officers and leaders in the church should be those individuals who try responsibly to follow in Christian discipleship, but their authority cannot depend on their righteousness. The offices should be only those designated in the New Testament. Sacraments (baptism and the Eucharist) should be celebrated as mysteries in which Christ is spiritually present; in the Eucharist, he believed that Christ is present both symbolically and by his spiritual power, which is imparted by his body in heaven to the souls of believers as they partake of the Eucharist.
This position, which has been called “dynamic presence,” occupies a middle ground between the doctrines of Luther and Zwingli. Calvin stressed the sovereignty of God, the nature of election and predestination, the sins of pride and disobedience, the authority of Scripture, and the nature of the Christian life. Calvin shared Martin Luther’s belief in the Bible as the unique rule for the life of faith and the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but differed from his fellow reformer in defending the subjugation of the state to the church. His theology has been recognised as lying in the Pauline- Augustinian tradition; Calvin tried to steer what he perceived to be a middle course between an exclusive emphasis on divine providence and an exclusive emphasis on human responsibility.
Many of the tenets of Calvinism have had profound social implications—in particular, that thrift, industry, and hard work are forms of moral virtue and that business success is an evidence of God’s grace. Since these views helped to create a climate favourable to commerce, Calvinism played a role in the overthrow of feudalism and the establishment of capitalism. Calvinism remains an important strain within Protestant thought. In the 20th century, the influential Swiss theologian Karl Barth placed great emphasis on the Calvinist doctrine of God’s supremacy, beside which all human activity is seen as worthless.
John Calvin’s influence led to a branch of theological thinking called Calvinism. The rigid confines of Calvinism have created many critics. Calvin’s research and knowledge of the Bible were thorough and well thought out; his main desire was to convey the absolute power of God and the supremacy of His Word. Calvinism is split up into five points, which are as follows:
1. Total Depravity. Man alone cannot save himself due to his completely sinful nature. He has no free will and is will always be bound by sin nature.
2. Unconditional Election. God’s choosing of those individuals who would receive His salvation was done by His will alone. The choice was not based on the actions, good deeds, or obedience of anyone. A sinner’s decision to repent is due to God’s election and not the sinner’s choosing to love Christ.
3. Limited Atonement. Salvation was secured for God’s elect only, guaranteeing for them the redemption from an eternity in hell. In addition to this, the elect will receive the faith necessary to accept this salvation.
4. Irresistible Grace. The elect, receive an inward push to accept the Holy Spirit’s call in their lives. God does not depend on man’s ability to accept this gift of salvation for himself, rather he draws sinners towards him and implants such a desire in their hearts. This grace cannot be resisted and thus all of God’s elect will be saved, as it is God’s Will for them.
5. Perseverance of the Saints. God’s chosen people, those redeemed by the blood of Christ and given faith, will be eternally saved. This salvation cannot be lost, nor can it come as a result of the sinner.
These five points creates the framework for Calvinism which are often represented with a mnemonic, using the first letter of each word you come up with “TULIP.” The key element in Calvinism is the belief of predestination, a proposition that is still debated today. One of Calvinism’s leading oppositional views, Armenianism, teaches Free Will, the ability for each person to choose salvation on his own; such opposing views have created quite a debate in the church bodies of many Christians.[1]
The Definition of Calvin’s Predestination
Calvin defines predestination as, God’s eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others.[2] This definition requires some qualification because many of Calvin’s opponents, including Arminius, would not have a problem with this definition. Arminius did not deny predestination, in fact, he believed in it, “I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others.”[3]
The difference is he did not base it on a “divine arbitrary decree”, but upon God’s foreknowledge of man’s merit.[4] Calvin seemed to foresee that there would be people that would argue that God “distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be”[5] Calvin, accordingly, writes against this notion, “by thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere”.[6] Calvin contests that this view of foreknowledge makes man God’s co-worker in salvation, and implies that election is ratified only by man’s consent. This is to make the gravest of errors because it suggests that man’s will is superior to God’s plan, or at the very least, implies God’s plan is partially dependent on man.[7] In refutation of this view, Calvin asserts that “this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth“.[8]
Calvin wisely proceeds to draw exhaustively from Scripture to buttress his argument citing that God chose us “before the foundations of the world were laid“(Eph.1:4a), “according to the good pleasure of his will“(Eph.1:5), in order “that we should be holy and spotless and irreproachable in his sight“(Eph.1:4b). Calvin observes that Paul sets “God’s good pleasure” over against any merit of ours, declaring all virtue in man to be the result of his election.[9] Calvin continues by arguing that if God chose us to be holy, it naturally follows that he would not have chosen us because he foresaw that we would be so.[10] The fact that God chose the elect to be holy also refutes the accusation and misrepresentation that predestination overthrows all exhortations to godly living.[11]
Calvin reminds his opponents that election has as its goal, holiness of life, “therefore, it ought to arouse us to eagerly set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing”.[12] Calvin remarks that Paul afterward confirms what he had earlier said about the origin of our election when he states: “According to the purpose of his will“(Eph.1:5), “which he had purposed in himself“(Eph.1:9). This is to say that God considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree.[13]
To more meticulously deal with the objection by some that God would be contrary to himself if he should universally invite all men to him but choose only a few as elect[14], Calvin draws heavily from the ninth chapter in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Paul writes that before Jacob and Esau were born, or had done anything good or bad “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue . . . the elder will serve the younger“(Rom.9:11,12). Calvin therefore argues that, “rejection does not occur on the basis of works”.[15] He argues that Paul specifically emphasis’s that point by showing that before Jacob and Esau had done anything good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected (Rom.9:13). This is in order to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works.[16] Calvin also reminds us that the apostle Paul writes that God “has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills“(Rom.9:18). “Has not the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for dishonour?“(Rom.9:21).
God is free to determine a purpose for election, but that purpose has nothing to do with man’s desire or effort. Nothing is more clear in Romans nine, “it does not therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy“(Rom.9:16).
Arminius, when citing the difference between his predestination and that of Calvin, declares that he did not base predestination on a “divine arbitrary decree.[17] This is an erroneous evaluation of Calvin’s doctrine because it suggests that God makes his selection in a unusual or capricious manner. Calvin’s argument is only that there is no reason found in us, but that is not to say that God has no reason in Himself.
This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by “God’s eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man”.[18] It should now be apparent that while most bible-believing Christians do in fact agree to some form of predestination they depart on the issue of the basis of this election. Arminians will contend that we are chosen according to foreknowledge of merit[19], while a Calvinist theology maintains that we are chosen “because He has willed it”.[20] Calvin believes that if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, “you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found”.[21]
CONCLUSION
Calvin stands out evidently even amongst a host of brilliant men. He preached to the crowd in Geneva Cathedral, but he later gained the ear of the learned Christian people of Europe, much more than Zwingli, Luther or any other. His work, broadly speaking, was that of underpinning afresh the foundation of the immense Christian edifice, known as the visible church. He sought to restore the Faith in its purity and integrity as it flourished in apostolic days. The success with which his ministry was crowned is remarkable indeed. His influence from the powerhouse of Geneva went far beyond it. The French Huguenots organised themselves on a Calvinist basis. In Holland Calvinism was adopted as the state religion in 1662, and the movement advanced through Europe and reached as far as America when the Puritans settled there.
The Presbyterian and Reformed churches of today know their origin to Calvin’s ministry primarily, as they adhere faithfully to “sound words,” they can rightly claim to be close to the New Testament pattern. However, they must not be high-minded. Like their pioneer in the field, they must rely upon the risen Christ for success, and success, let it be remembered, is not measured by the applause of the world. While Christendom at large is bringing the gospel to disrepute, it becomes us to win back men to the gospel of the sovereign God, who Calvin loved and served.
Calvin’s frail body often suffered from sickness. However, he was not to be restrained. Once when he was gravely ill, a friend found he sitting up in bed and writing a letter. “You need to rest. Put away your work.” “What!” Calvin exclaimed. “Would you have the Lord find me idle when He comes?” and truly, his work – or more appropriately, his Master’s work – continues. Soli Deo sit gloria.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arminius, James, The Writings of James Arminius, 3 vol. trans. and ed. J. Nichols and W.R. Bagnall, Grand Rapids, repr. 1977.
Philip Schaff describes Martin Luther as the greatest figure in the European Reformation, noted particularly for his doctrine of justification by faith alone, and his posting of the ninety-five Theses in October 1517, which is regarded generally as marking of the beginning of the Reformation.[1] The purpose of this paper will describe the teachings of Martin Luther.
BACKGROUND
Martin Luther, a German theologian and religious reformer, his vast influence, extended beyond religion to politics, economics, education, and language, has made him one of the crucial figures in modern European history. He was renowned for his enduring literary contribution of translating the Bible into the German language. In 1507, he became an Augustinian friar and was ordained. In 1510, he visited Rome, where he was shocked by the worldliness. He received his doctorate of divinity and in 1512 was appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Wittenberg, where he was promoted to the position of district vicar.
Luther teachings diverged increasingly from the traditional beliefs of the Roman church. His studies had led him to the conclusion that Christ was the sole mediator between God and man and that forgiveness of sin and salvation are effected by God’s grace alone and are received by faith alone on the part of man. This point of view turned him against scholastic theology, which had emphasised man’s role in his own salvation, and the necessity of the church for salvation. In this consisted the essential break between Luther and the medieval church. He did not deny the role of the church as an instrument of God; what he denied was the widely held belief that salvation was impossible outside of it.
He saw the emphasis on penitential exercises and other good works as unhealthy and even useless for one who could see himself as a sinner justified by God himself. The doctrine of indulgences, with its mechanical view of sin and repentance, aroused Luther’s indignation. The sale by the church of indulgences the remission of temporal punishments for sins committed and confessed to a priest brought in much revenue. On October 31, 1517, Luther posted for debate his 95 Theses. He was fiercely attacked, especially by Johann Eck.
On April 18, 1521, when the 21 year old Emperor Charles V summoned him to Diet of Worms to renounce his views, Martin Luther stated: Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.[2] Martin Luther was declared an outlaw. He was protected by Frederick III of Saxony in the Wartburg castle. There he translated the New Testament into the German language in just six months. He attempted to be a moderate, opposing the Peasant’s War and resisting the more progressive elements of reformation. In 1525, he married a former nun and together they had six children.
LUTHER’S THEOLOGICAL IDEAS
Luther’s theological ideas can be summarised as follows:
Law and Gospel
Luther maintained that God interacts with human beings in two ways through the law and through the Gospel. The law represents God’s demands as expressed, for example, in the Ten Commandments and the golden rule. All people, regardless of their religious convictions, have some degree of access to the law through their consciences and through the ethical traditions of their culture, although their understanding of it is always distorted by human sin. The law has two functions. It enables human beings to maintain some order in their world, their communities, and their own lives despite the profound alienation from God, the world, their neighbours, and ultimately themselves that is caused by original sin.
In addition, the law makes human beings aware of their need for the forgiveness of sins and thus leads them to Christ. God also interacts with human beings through the Gospel, the good news of God’s gift of his Son for the salvation of the human race. This proclamation demands nothing but acceptance on the part of the individual. Luther argued that theology had gone wrong precisely when it began to confuse law and Gospel (God’s demand and God’s gift) by claiming that human beings can in some way merit that which can only be the unconditional gift of God’s grace.
Sin
Luther insisted that Christians, as long as they live in this world, are sinners and saints simultaneously. They are saints insofar as they trust in God’s grace and not in their own achievements. Sin, however, is a permanent and pervasive feature in the church as well as in the world, and a saint is not a moral paragon but a sinner who accepts God’s grace. Thus, for Luther, the most respected citizen and the habitual criminal are both in need of forgiveness by God.
The Finite and Infinite
Luther held that God makes himself known to human beings through earthly, finite forms rather than in his pure divinity. Thus, God revealed himself in Jesus Christ; he speaks his word to us in the human words of the New Testament writers; and his body and blood are received by believers (in Luther’s formulation, called consubstantiation) “in, with, and under” the bread and wine in Holy Communion. When human beings serve each other and the world in their various occupations (which Luther called vocations) as mothers and fathers, rulers and subjects, butchers and bakers, they are instruments of God, who works in the world through them. Luther thus broke down the traditional distinction between sacred and secular occupations.
Theology of the Cross
Luther asserted that Christian theology is the theology of the cross rather than a theology of glory. Human beings cannot apprehend God by means of philosophy or ethics; they must let God be God and see him only where he chooses to make himself known. Thus, Luther stressed that God reveals his wisdom through the foolishness of preaching, his power through suffering, and the secret of meaningful life through Christ’s death on the cross.
AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
Luther’s treatment of Scripture was merely an extension of the medieval understanding. The issues of inspiration and validity of the Word of God changed little, as they passed into Luther’s reforming hands. William of Ockham, a medieval thinker who greatly influenced Luther’s early academic development, argued frequently for the sole authority of the Word as opposed to natural insight or rational ascent to an understanding of the divine. Luther likewise carried forward much of the medieval understanding of the Word without confrontation from his contemporaries, whether Erasmus, the pope, or the scholastics, since all generally held the same presuppositions regarding the basic role of Scripture as a reliable authority.
However, where Luther radically differed from all others was the degree to which he was willing to view Scripture as the ultimate authority. The general understanding had been that the authority of Scripture, though genuine, were supplemented by various elements claimed by the Roman Church. Ockham, for example, although a proponent of the authority of Scripture, presupposed a necessary link between the authority of Scripture and that of the Roman Church. In the preface of his Compendium Errorum Johannis Papae XXII (c. 1334-8), Ockham includes this disclaimer:
If I should have written something in this work which is contrary to Holy Writ or the teachings of the saints, or the assertions of the most holy Church, I submit myself and my words to correction by the Catholic Church – not the Church of malignants, or heretics, or schismatics and their protectors.[3]
However, over time, Luther shed the assumption that a transgression against the authority of the Church implied such against the Word, and visa versa. For Luther, (Sola Scriptura) would become the guiding and primary principle of his reformation. Luther’s first break with the Roman Church came during the Leipzig Debate (July 1519) in which he declared agreement with John Hus, who had been condemned 100 years earlier by the Council of Constance. By rejecting the authority of such councils, Luther had prepared the way for his applications of the sole authority of Scripture. Luther found in Galatians 1:8 that no created being is greater than the Word of God, neither Paul, nor angels, nor any other man.
This, therefore, would also include the pope himself, who claimed to be the sole interpreter and arbiter of the Word. Luther viewed the papal claim as, “the accursed lie that the pope is the arbiter of Scripture or that the Church has authority over Scripture.”[4] Luther elsewhere wrote, “The pope boasts that the Christian Church is above the Word of God. No, this is not true! We must be pupils and not aspire to be masters, for the pupil must not be above his master.”[5] Also, “Years ago all the pope’s pronouncements were called Christian truth and articles of faith, yet this was simply based on man. Then it happened that people sank into the abyss and lost everything that pertains to the Word of God and Christ. Therefore, we must now declare: ‘Pope, council, and doctors, we will not believe you; but we will believe in the Divine Word.” [6]
One of the arguments put forth by the Church to defend its claims to authority over Scripture dealt with the Church’s role in the canonisation of the Word. Since the Church ultimately decided how many gospels there were, and what books were to be included or excluded, the Church therefore, it claimed, was evidentially superior to the Word. Luther attacked this argument by pointing to the fact that one’s recognition or approval of the truth does not imply superiority over it. “I approve Scripture. Therefore, I am superior to Scripture. John the Baptist acknowledges and confesses Christ. He points to Him with his finger. Therefore, he is superior to Christ. The Church approves Christian faith and doctrine. Therefore the Church is superior to them.”[7]
The Church’s use of the Fathers and councils to enforce non-Scriptural elements also fell under Luther’s scrutiny. To these, Luther held the Word as the means of determining their accuracy and applicability. On the need for councillor decisions to be grounded in the authority of the Word, Luther writes, “When anything contrary to Scripture is decreed in a council, we ought to believe Scripture rather than the council. Scripture is our court of appeal and bulwark; with it we can resist even an angel from heaven – as St. Paul commands in Galatians 1(:8) – let alone a pope and a council.”[8]
Luther did believe that much of the councillor decisions did contain truth, but only in so far as they correspond with the written Word. Luther viewed the fathers in similar fashion. Although Luther quotes the fathers frequently throughout his works, he nevertheless holds their teachings up to the light of Scripture in order to determine their truthfulness. This stance caused some to accuse Luther of rejecting all the past teachers of the Church. Luther denied this accusation, writing, “I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred.”[9]
Luther determined to follow the practice of Augustine in these matters, who in a letter to Jerome wrote, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honour of believing firmly that none of their writes has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be truth unless they prove it to me by Holy Scripture or clear reason.”[10] Even the creeds of the Church had to first pass the test of Scriptural authority before Luther would be willing to admit their authority.
Luther did indeed accept the creeds, not because the councils of the Church had accepted them, but because he believed they conformed to the teaching of Scripture. As in the case of Scriptural inspiration and validity, Luther here does not venture far from the medieval Church in its acceptance of the creeds. However, where Luther does distinguish himself is in his understanding of the Church’s significance in all of this. Luther strips papal self-claims to authority and significance from medieval Christianity, leaving a reformed Church, which operates, solely on the principle of Sola Scripture.
Yet, at the same time, it must be pointed out that Luther does not strip medieval Christianity from reformation Christianity. That is to say, Luther does not leave the Church with nothing but the Bible. Much of the tradition and historical theology is affirmed by Luther, and maintained in his reformation of the Church. Although Luther subordinates the Church, councils, fathers, creeds and reason to the Word, he does not in any way seek to remove these elements from playing an active and crucial role in the Church.
Not only did the Roman Church, the councils and fathers fall under the sole authority of Scripture, but also so did the entire realm of human reason. Luther continually exhorted his listeners and readers to elevate Scripture to the point of becoming a guide for living. “Among Christians the rule is not to argue or investigate, not to be a smart aleck or a rationalistic know-it-all; but to hear, believe, and persevere in the Word of God, through which alone we obtain whatever knowledge we have of God and divine things. We are not to determine out of ourselves what we must believe about him, but to hear and learn it from him.”[11]
Scripture is the rule of life for the Church. Scripture allows even the most insignificant of men to discern between truth and error: “A Christian soon smells from afar which is God’s and which is human teaching. He sees from afar that the schismatic spirits are speaking their own human mind and opinion. They cannot escape me, Dr. Luther. I can soon judge and say whether their doctrine is of God or of man; for I am doing the will of God, who sent Christ. I have given ear to none but God’s Word, and say: ‘Dear Lord Christ, I want to be thy pupil, and I believe thy Word. I will close my eyes and surrender to thy Word.’
Thus He makes me a free nobleman, yes, a fine doctor and teacher, who is captive to the Word of God, and is able to judge the errors and the faith of the pope, Turks, Jews and Sacramentarians. They must fall, and I tread them underfoot. I have become a doctor and a judge who judges correctly.”[12] For Luther, therefore, Scripture became the cornerstone of all knowledge of God. The Word provided the sole foundation for both individuals and institutionalised Church.
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
Having thus established Scripture as the sole authority for the Church, Luther then needed to reckon with the manner in which Scripture was to be handled. How does one go about interpreting the Scriptures? Up through the middle ages, the popular hermeneutic employed the fourfold method of interpretation, of which the allegorical method had gradually become the predominant approach. The allegorical method allowed the commentator to seek hidden or deeper meanings in the text by seeking parallels between the passage and either history or concepts.
Inevitably, this led to wild speculations and often-meaningless applications of the Scriptural passages under consideration. Luther likewise initially employed this allegorical method, as seen in his admission, “When I was a monk, I was an adept at allegory. I allegorised everything. However, after lecturing on the Epistle to the Romans, I came to have some knowledge of Christ. For therein I saw that Christ is no allegory, and learned to know what Christ was.”[13] From the time of his understanding Christ through his encounter with Romans, Luther turned to what he referred to as the “grammatical historical sense” or “literal sense”, although he expressed his displeasure with the latter phrase due to its easily being misunderstood and ridiculed by opponents.
On the importance of the literal understanding, Luther writes, “The Christian reader should make it his first task to seek out the literal sense, as they call it. For it alone is the whole substance of faith and Christian theology; it alone holds its ground in trouble and trial.”[14] Luther saw this hermeneutic principle as a means of rescuing the meaning of Scripture from the manipulations of the allegorists and spiritualists. The individual truly interested in the meaning of the text, “should take pains to have one definite and simple understanding of Scripture and not to be a wanderer and vagabond, like the rabbis, the Scholastic theologians, and the professors of law, who are always toiling with ambiguities.”[15]
Yet, although Luther warned against the subjective and ambiguous interpretations of the allegorists and spiritualists, he did not intend to reduce Scripture to mere grammatical sentences. For in Luther’s understanding of Scripture, the Holy Spirit played a crucial role in the interpretive process. Without the participation of the Holy Spirit’s work within the reader, Scripture would yield none of its teachings. The man who approaches the Word armed with reason alone will find a virtually empty book. Luther writes, “He will never smell or taste a spark or a tittle of the true meaning of a passage or a word of Scripture. He may make much noise and even imagine that he is improving on Holy Scripture, but he will never succeed.”[16]
For Luther, no amount of scholarship or rational scrutiny will cause the Scripture to yield its fruit. Since the Scripture has its origin in the Divine, its meaning also resides in the Divine. Understanding of the Word must start with Divine initiative: “If God does not open and explain Holy Writ, no one can understand it; it will remain a closed book, enveloped in darkness.”[17] The Lord “opens and explains” His Word through the work of the Holy Spirit within the reader. The Holy Spirit, being spiritual, rises above reason, thereby allowing the reader to likewise transcend reason and grasp the spiritual Word. In response to the abuses Luther saw in the Spiritualists’ emphasis upon the leading of the Spirit as the ultimate authority for the church, he often stressed the Spirit’s work as limited to correspondence with the Word.
He writes, “The Spirit is given to no one without and outside the Word; He is given only through the Word.”[18] In this way, Luther sought to restrict the Spiritualists to an understanding of the authority of the Word through the working of the Holy Spirit, rather than allowing their claim that the Holy Spirit worked in ways outside and beyond the written Word. In Luther’s understanding, the written Word, through the work of the Holy Spirit, literally confronted the reader with God’s divine message in the midst of the reader’s daily life. The Word was not an intellectual challenge, it was an existential reality. In according with Luther’s conviction of Coram Deo and Christus por me, the Word likewise became the means through which God confronted the individual, and the individual experienced the will and Word of God.
Luther writes, “Experience is necessary for the understanding of the Word. It is not merely to be repeated or known, but to be lived and felt.”[19] It is this way that Luther states that Scriptural message must “inculcate” or “drive home” Christ to the believer. The Word becomes the vehicle through which the individual meets Christ.
CHRIST AND SCRIPTURE
The Christocentrism of Luther’s Christian experience and theology also becomes the central pillar to his understanding of Scripture. As seen above, Luther’s personal encounter with Jesus Christ came through his interaction with the Epistle of Romans. It was through the Word that Luther came to know the Lord Jesus. Luther saw in the Word the divine direction to the Christ. He writes, “The Scriptures begin very gently, and lead us on to Christ as a man, and then to one who is Lord over all creatures, and after that to one who is God. So do I enter delightfully and learn to know God. But the philosophers and doctors have insisted on beginning from above. We must begin from below, and after that come upwards.”[20]
In the believer’s pilgrimage to faith, the Scripture provides the sufficient guidance, which, if believed, will surely lead the individual into saving faith. Even matters of faith which seem to the mind of man most difficult to grasp become manifest through the sufficient provision of the Word: “If you can humble yourself, hold to the Word with your heart and hold to Christ’s humanity – then the divinity will indeed become manifest.”[21] Not only does Scripture lead to Christ, but, for Luther, is “concerned only with Christ when you see its inner meaning, even though it may look and sound differently on the outside.”[22] The entire message of the Word is Christ. Luther often employed the analogy of Christ being the central point of the circle of Scripture, around which everything in the Bible revolves.
In this way, Luther sought to point to Christ as the central message of the entirety of Scripture. This became a significant factor in Luther’s turn from purely allegorical interpretations to the “grammatical historical sense”, for he believed the former often merely concealed the true message, namely Christ, within a passage. During a sermon in 1515, Luther warned, “He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to the source, that is the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the centre.”[23]
Christ is the centre of not only the New Testament message, but also of the Old. This seems to have been a conclusion that was not widely presupposed by Luther’s audiences, who saw in the Old Testament a simplistic and rustic series of stories inferior to the gospel of the New Testament. To this sentiment Luther writes, “I beg and really caution every pious Christian not to be offended by the simplicity of the language and stories frequently encountered there, but fully realize that, however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments and deeds of the majesty, power and wisdom of the most high God.”[24]
Through the understanding that Christ is the message of the Word, Luther finds in the Old Testament fresh and exciting new significance: “Everything becomes new in this Christ, even the prayers of the dear patriarchs, because they call upon this very same Christ, who has now come and fulfilled what they believed and looked for. Now Scripture and the Psalms ring just as new on our lips, if we believe in Christ, as they did when David first sang them. In brief, from now on Christ wants all variation and disparity removed and everything unified, so that, as St. Paul declares, there will henceforth be but one God, one church, one faith, one prayer and worship, one Christ (Eph. 4:4-6), ‘the same yesterday and today and tomorrow’ (Heb. 13:8).
To summarize, God will hear and acknowledge only what is presented in the name of Christ.”[25] The continuously Christological perspective, which Luther takes toward the Scripture, resulted in what has come to be known as his incarnational understanding of the written Word. Rather than employing theological or philosophical terms to describe the Christocentric dimension of the word, Luther consistently uses Christological terminology. Luther drew deliberate parallels between Christ as the incarnation of God, and the Scripture as the incarnation of God as pertains to His Word and will, between the Word made flesh and the Word written. Luther referred to God’s Word in Scripture as “inlettered, just as Christ, the eternal Word of God is incarnate in the garment of humanity.”[26]
It is in this way that Christ is the message of the entirety of Scripture, and that any true understanding of that message must first come from the initiating act of God. Through the Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit, the reader is brought into an encounter with the centre of revelation, Christ Jesus. For Luther, God incarnate in the written Word is the object of faith through which the believer is justified. George concludes, In this way the formal principle (sola scriptura) of the Reformation is determined by the material principle (sola fide): Justification by faith alone based upon the grace and work of Christ alone is the key to understanding God’s revelation in Scripture alone.
CONCLUSION
From the overview above, it is clear that Luther’s understanding stemmed in part from an extension of medieval understanding, as pertains to the inspiration and validity of the Scripture for the Church. Luther also developed his understanding of Scripture from experiential factors, as seen in the profound impact his personal conversion had upon his understanding of the role of Scripture in the believer’s life and the authority it provided over matters of faith. Luther’s view of scripture was, however, predominantly guided by Scripture itself, providing him with a foundation upon which he built the resolve necessary to withstand the Roman Church. Scripture testified to itself in the matters of authority, the role of reason, the necessity of the Spirit in understanding, and the papal claims to exclusive interpretation. The Christological teachings of Scripture also formed the basis for Luther’s incarnational understanding of the written Word, through which much of his theology was unified and solidified.
It is clear, therefore, that by opening the Word, and encountering the truth therein, by the grace of God, Luther unintentionally started on the pathway leading to reformation. Although Luther was undoubtedly a great orator and thinker, Scripture alone is found to be the basis upon which Luther’s theology stands. A clear and unhindered reading and contemplation of the truth offered throughout the preceding centuries in Scripture provided Luther with the profound content and determination which is witnessed in his reformation efforts. Luther’s teachings can be summarised as follows:
Humankind is entrapped in the ancient temptation to play God (Genesis 3:5), violating the first of all divine commandments, “You shall have no other gods.”
Liberation from this original sin comes through faith of at least two people … one who tells another of Christ as the source of freedom from sin, and one who, so addressed, affirms faith in Christ alone.
The Christian life is one in which, though we are sinners by nature, we are at the same time saints by God’s grace and love. The Christian life is lived in two realms that belong equally to God, church and society. This calls for Christian commitment to education, fair economic practices, and a life of mission to the ungodly. Therefore, the church is born again and again, vigilant against the sin of idolatry (playing God) and confident that trust in Christ alone (justification by faith) is the only source of freedom and salvation. The Christian thus freed is called to serve all God’s children in the world.
[1] Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church. Volume VII: Modern Christianity, The German Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994)
[2] John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1980), 155
[3] A. Skevington Wood. Captive to the Word: Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture, (Britain: Paternoster Press, 1969), 120
It appears that we live in a land of great inconsistencies. Laws and rights only are enforced when it suits those in power and status. We speak of a democratically elected country where the people are those in power. However in recent years that power has been slowly eroding. Thus leaving the people with no ground to stand on and thereby falling into the mercy of those political strategists who intend to implement another means to dictatorship. Take for example; if a group/person rejects the statement that, “homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle.” Such groups are classified as narrow-minded and inciting to hatred. Muslims, Christians and Jews will definitely not believe that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle based upon conscience and doctrine. Yet they are forced to tolerate the strangeness of same sex couples adopting children, pouncing as if normal on our television channels, and even kissing in public; all in the name of equality and freedom of expression. In addition, Christians or Jews; they are not given the same treatment, for to say that homosexuals are an abomination to their God would be intolerant, inciting hatred and even imprisonment. So my simple and yet profound question is: “Why do Muslims, Christians and Jews do not have equal freedom of expression in comparison to our Homosexuals mismatches?” Such religious groups are not homophobic but the society we live are Theo-phobic!
We should be given equal rights to say what we believe and not be marginalised. It is religion that is the victim and those following will be the “casualties of war”
Article 10 protects your right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to hold and express opinions yourself as well as to receive and impart information and ideas to others.
Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for the maintaining of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
There are literally dozens of groups of individuals who engage in bizarre sexual behaviours and who have mental conditions known as paraphilias or behaviours known as fetishes. These include Coprophagia individuals who get sexual satisfaction from eating faeces; Klismaphilia individuals who are sexually aroused by enemas; Pederasty-male homosexuals who enjoy having sex with children; Sadomasochism-individuals who derive sexual pleasure from receiving or inflicting pain upon others; Diaper fetishes adults who get sexual pleasure from wearing diapers and wetting themselves; Necrophilia individuals who are sexually aroused by viewing or having sex with corpses.[1]
All of these behaviours could be considered to be “sexual orientations” and many of the individuals who engage in these behaviours are working to have their peculiar sexual behaviours declared to be normal in psychiatry and in the culture at large. At a symposium sponsored by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in San Francisco on May 19, 2003, two psychiatrists presented a paper arguing for such deviant sexual behaviours as Paedophilia, Sadomasochism, as well as other Gender Identity Disorders to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The presenters were Drs. Charles Moser from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco and Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa. Both groups lobbies national governments to remove Sadomasochism as a mental disorder from psychiatric guidelines.
Sociologists refer to groups of individuals who engage in bizarre sex practices as “deviant subcultures.” With the success of homosexuals and transgender in organising as pressure groups to normalise what has been considered abnormal behaviours, other groups will feel empowered to do the same. Paedophiles, for example, have found allies in academia who support adult/child sex. In 1999, the University of Minnesota press published Judith Levine’s book, Harmful to Minors, which argues that adult/child sex is not necessarily a bad thing. The foreword to her book was penned by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders.[2]
In addition, the deviant homosexual subculture has fuelled efforts to normalise adult/child sex and to lower the age of sexual consent. Mary Eberstadt’s article, “‘Paedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered,” details the close linkage between homosexuals and the paedophile movement. Eberstadt observes that the reason why sex with boys is being openly debated today is that it is driven by “certain parts of the gay rights movement. The more that movement has entered the mainstream, the more this ‘question’ [of adult/child sex] has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm into the public square.”[3]
Online Underworld of Individuals
Paedophilia and Sadomasochism are just two of many sexual orientations that may eventually be normalised in our society. The sad truth is that because of the pervasiveness of the Internet, many sexually confused and mentally disturbed individuals are finding mutual support in forums and chat rooms. They are reinforcing their mental illnesses instead of finding the help they need to overcome these sexual perversions. Author Carl Elliott details this dangerous social trend in “A New Way To Be Mad,” published in the December, 2000 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Elliott describes a bizarre online underworld of individuals who suffer from what is called “Apotemnophilia.”
These individuals “feel” like they should not have arms or legs. In essence, they wish to have their arms or legs amputated in order to “feel” normal. One amputee said: “My left foot was not part of me.” Is Apotemnophilia a “sexual orientation,” a paraphilia, or a fetish? Whatever the psychiatric diagnosis, the fact is that this is a serious condition that must be treated, not given societal approval. Yet, we may not find much solace in so-called mainstream psychiatry. Fortunately, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is providing a voice of sanity in a world that seems to have gone insane.[4]
[1] Carolyn S. Schroeder.Assessment and Treatment of Childhood Problems: A Clinician’s Guide, (New York: Guilford Press, 2002)
[2] Judith Levine. Harmful to Minors: the Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)
[3] Mary Eberstadt. Paedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered, (The Weekly Standard, January 8, 2001)
[4] Paul Van de Ven. Facts & Figures: 2000, (Wales: National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, 2001), 20
The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages or even more so.[1] Medical associations are also promoting somewhat similar messages. [2]
Promiscuity
Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes that the Gay liberation was founded on a “sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,” and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a “communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.”[3] Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticises, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.[4] By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than six partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent reported having about four partners per month in 1984.[5]
From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.[6] Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.[7] The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics. According to the data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.[8]
This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners. Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences This is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.[9] The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.[10] A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.[11] As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.[12]
A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.[13] Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases [STD's] cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men. Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men.
However, there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.[14] Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.[15]
Physical Health
Unhealthy sexual behaviours occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet, the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behaviour is uniformly unhealthy. Although both male and female homosexual practices lead to increases in Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Male Homosexual Behaviour
Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women[16] not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. The list of diseases found among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming, some of the diseases are: Anal Cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli, Microsporidia Gonorrhea, Viral hepatitis types B & C and Syphilis.[17] Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.
Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, and retained foreign bodies.[18] The impact of the health consequences of gay sex is not confined to homosexual practitioners. Even though nearly 11 million people are directly affected by cancer, compared to slightly more than three-quarters of a million with AIDS.[19]
Female Homosexual Behaviour
Lesbians are also at higher risk for STD’s and other health problems than heterosexuals.[20] However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity “to draw the lion’s share” of medical attention. However, it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,[21] and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behaviour is without recognised pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.
Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.[22] Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men. [23] Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.[24] Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.[25] Consequently, the lesbians’ median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.[26] The study “demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports.”[27]
Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.[28] In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.[29] Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.[30]
In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as “crabs,” genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.[31] Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.[32]
Mental Health
Psychiatric Illness
Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among self professed gays and lesbians.[33] Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.[34]
Reckless Sexual Behaviour
Depression and drug abuse can lead to reckless sexual behaviour, even among those who are most likely to understand the deadly risks.
Shortened Life Span
The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life. An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.[35]
Monogamy
Monogamy for heterosexual couples means at a minimum sexual fidelity. The most extensive survey of sex in America found that “a vast majority [of heterosexual married couples] are faithful while the marriage is intact.”[36] The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year.[37] Moreover, the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.[38] Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in gay and lesbian relationships.
Cultural Implications
There is an African proverb that states, “Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” The societal implications of the unrestrained sexual activity described above are devastating. The ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage, always defined as male-female, has been a fence erected in all civilisations around the globe.[39] Throughout history, many people have climbed over the fence, engaging in premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex. Still, the fence stands; the limits are visible to all. Climbing over the fence, metaphorically, has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the breachers themselves. No civilisation can retain its vitality for multiple generations after removing the fence.[40]
Now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.[41]
If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia? The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for gay and lesbian rights.[42] In addition, some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.[43] Lesbian social critic Camille Paglia observes, “history shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualised, always tends toward decadence.”[44]
Social approval of gay sex leads to an increase in such behaviour. In 1993, Newsweek reported that the growing media presence and social acceptance of homosexual behaviour was leading to teenager experimentation to the extent that it was “becoming chic.”[45] It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behaviour. Identification with a gay and lesbian community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. To point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to society in general.
[1] Becky Birtha. Gay Parents and the Adoption Option, The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, See Internet source: www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, Make Room for Daddy – and Poppa, The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi- 0203240463mar24.story
[2] Ellen C. Perrin. Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, (Pediatrics, 109(2), 2002), 341-344
[3] Gabriel Rotello. Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, (New York: Penguin Group, 1998), 112
[4] Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg. Homosexuality’s: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308, Table 7
[5] Leon McKusick. Reported Changes in the Sexual Behaviour of Men at Risk for AIDS, (San Francisco, 1982-84) – the AIDS Behavioural Research Project,” Public Health Reports, 100), 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month.
[6] Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men – San Francisco, California, 1994-1997, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, (CDC, 48(03): January 29, 1999), 45-48
[7] This was evident by the late 80’s and early 90’s. Jeffrey A. Kelly. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behaviour Among Gay Men in Small Cities, (Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: November 1992), 2293-2297; See also, Donald R. Hoover, et al. Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men, American Journal of Epidemiology, (134(10): 1991), 1190-1205
[8] Paul Van de Ven. Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey, (National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences: The University of New South Wales, 2001), 20, Table 20
[9] Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, (New York: Penguin Group, 1998), 43-46
[11] Donald R. Hoover. Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men, (American Journal of Epidemiology- 134(10), 1991), 1203- Figure 3
[12] Basic Statistics, CDC – Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. June 2001). (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
[13] Catherine Hutchinson. Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics, (Archives of Internal Medicine, 1991), 511-516
[14] Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women, (Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5):2000), 347
[15] James Price. Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behaviour by Women’s Sexual Orientation, (Journal of Community Health, 21: 1996), 89-105; See also, Daron Ferris. A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia, (The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6), 1996), 581; C. Skinner, J. Stokes. A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians, (Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4), 1996), 277-280
[16] The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) published a press release entitled, Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Health Care Providers; See Internet source: (www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710gaythings.html. July 17, 2002), the list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepatitis Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and Anal Papilloma.
[17] Anne Rompalo. Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men, (Medical Clinics of North America, 1990), 1633-1645; See also, Anal Health for Men and Women, (LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/) ; Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men; See Internet source: LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.
[18] Anal Health for Men and Women; See Internet source: (LGBTHealthChannel: www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth); J. E. Barone. Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum, (Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics: 156(4): April 1983), 453-457
[19]Cancer Control & Population Sciences, (National Cancer Institute; See Internet source: www.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/prevalence, April 2002). In 1999, the Cancer Society estimated 1,221,800 new cancer cases and an estimated 563,100 cancer related deaths, Cancer Facts and Figures; See Internet source: www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/F&F99.pdf, 1999), 4; in 2000, the ACS estimated 1,220,100 new cancer cases and 552,200 deaths from cancer, Cancer Facts and Figures, (www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F00.pdf; 2000), 4; in 2001, estimated a total number of 1,268,000 new cases of cancer and 553,400 deaths, Cancer Facts and Figures; See Internet source: (www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F2001.pdf, 2001), 5; This results in an estimated growth of 2,041,200 new cancer cases over the past three years and an estimated 10,941,200 people with cancer as of January 1, 2002. In 2001, there were 793,025 reported AIDS cases. Basic Statistics, CDC – Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention; See Internet source: (www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm, June 2001)
[20] Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers; See Internet source: www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html, July 17, 2002), The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health.
[21] Robert T. Michael. Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1994), 140-141, Table 11
[22] C. Skinner, J. Stokes. A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians, (Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): Abstract 1996), 581
[23] Katherine Fethers. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women, (Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76 (5): 2000), 345-349
[24] Katherine Fethers, et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women (Sexually Transmitted Infections ,2000), 345-349
[29] Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton. Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease, (Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1995), 1402-1405
[30] E. H. Koumans. Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda, (Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): May 2001), 292-297; See also, R. L. Sweet. Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient, Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Genecology, 8(3): 2000), 184-190
[31] Kathleen M. Morrow. Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women, (Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4(4): 2000), 159-165
[33] Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum. National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care, (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 1994), 228-242; See also, Richard C. Pillard, Sexual orientation and mental disorder, (Psychiatric Annals: 18(1), 1988), 52-56; See also Mubarak S. Dahir, The Gay Community’s New Epidemic, (Daily News, June 5, 2000), See Internet source: www.gaywired.com/story detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1.
[34] Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf. Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, (Archives of General Psychiatry: 58(1): January 2001), 89 and Table 2
[35] R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee. Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men, (International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 1997), 657-661. Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death, (CDC News Release, October 10, 2001); See Internet source: www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.
[36] Robert T. Michael. Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1994), 89
[38] Marcel T. Saghir, and Eli Robins. Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, (Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973), 57
[39] The existence of limited homosexual relationships in primitive cultures, or even extensive homosexuality in declining civilizations, such as those cited by advocates of same-sex marriage, does not challenge the existence of a prevailing norm. See, for example, William N. Eskridge, Jr. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 2
[40] Joseph D. Unwin. Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour, (Oxford University Press: Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, 1935 reprint), 18-19
[41] For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc; See Internet source: (www.ncsfreedom.org)
[42] The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections. 1992 (Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91), 175.
[43] Judith Levine. Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002)
[44] Camille Paglia. I’ll take religion over gay culture; See Internet source: (Salon.com online magazine, www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/ paglia/gayculture.htm, June 23, 1998)
[45] David Gelman. Tune In, Come Out, (Newsweek: November 8, 1993), 70
When you became a Christian, you died to your old life and were raised, as it were, with Christ to a new kind of life. This is your new life of discipleship in which you follow Christ. But this new life is not automatic. Your life does not automatically start showing the “fruits of the Spirit.” When God places the desire in your heart, you still must carry through, take the next step, and do what God has asked you to do. The bad news is that we do not always take this next step; we stumble and fall by doing what God has asked us not to do. The good news is that God is ready to help. We believe that God is our Creator and that he is all-wise and all-good. This means that he determines what is right and what is wrong, and that his judgments are always for our good.
To use a metaphor, God has shown us the middle of the bull’s-eye. When we shoot the arrows of our lives and miss the mark, when our attitudes and actions fall short of what God has asked of us, this we call “sin.” Sin starts with temptation, with the enticement to miss the mark. But there is good news. Temptation is not sin. Some of the thoughts that flit through your mind are luring you to sin, but they are not sin. You do not have to give in to temptation. God is faithful and has promised to always give us a way to move through the time of temptation without sin. God is on our side. He wants us to gain mastery over temptation and helps us do so. But what should you do if you give in to temptation? Confess; agree with God whole-heartedly that you were wrong and he is right. Practically speaking, we should confess early, confess often, and confess fully. And it is helpful to confess to our Christian brothers and sisters. The power of sin is usually snapped when it is brought into the light. When you do confess, you can be assured that God will fully forgive your sin, no matter how horrible it is and no matter how often you have done it. And when you are forgiven, you are cleansed and can enjoy the freedom that comes only through confession, forgiveness and cleansing.
When you became a Christian, you were aware that certain things were happening. Formerly you had been separated from God, not in relationship with him, but then you repented. Formerly you were dead but now you are alive. But much more happened, even if you were not aware of it. Before conversion, did you know that it was God drawing you to himself, helping you understand your guilt and emptiness? In conversion God rescued you from the kingdom of darkness and brought you into his kingdom of light, forgave your sins, acquitted you from all guilt, freed you from all condemnation, redeemed you from the tyranny of sin, made you holy, made you into a new creation, adopted you into his family, made you a citizen of heaven and gave you the gift of his Holy Spirit to live within you forever as a helper and a guarantee that you would receive the inheritance that God has promised. With all this, it should come as no surprise that changed people will live in a changed way. Of course your life is going to be different; it cannot possibly be the same because you are not the same.
The Bible uses many different ways of discussing this new life. Jesus says that we become his disciples, which means that we are his followers and learn from him. Conversion is an important first step in this new life. The Bible also talks about the “fruits of the Spirit.” “Fruits” stands for the changes that God’s Spirit is going to accomplish in your life, changes like love, joy, peace, patience, etc. Do not be frightened about these changes. God is not standing there with a frown, demanding that you be perfect. But he will give you the desire to change and then the ability to do so. This change is not automatic; you can fight him, but why would you want to do that?
Another metaphor that the Bible uses to describe followers of Jesus is that we are the “salt of the earth.” Life is going to be different; you are going to be different. Things are about to change in your life.
The most famous passage in the Bible is in the book of John, Chapter 3, Verse 16. This is how God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life and not really die. Let us look at the different parts of this verse. “This is how God loved the world.” God is the starting point. He created the world and loved the world, but the people he created decided to rebel against him (which the Bible calls “sin”), and the consequence of that decision was separation from God, and eventually death. “He gave his one and only Son.” The good news is that God gave his Son to die on the cross so that his death would pay the penalty for your sins and forgiveness could be made available. This is possible only because Jesus is not only the Son of God, but is God himself. (This can be confusing, and we will talk about it eventually).
It is also possible because Jesus was fully human, and only the sacrifice of a human being can pay the penalty of human sin. “So that everyone who believes in him.” God’s offer of salvation is for “everyone;” it is not limited to any group. But salvation is only for those who believe in Jesus; Christianity not a philosophy or a religious organisation. It is a personal relationship with God, made possible by what Jesus did on the cross. But it is not enough simply to believe certain truths about God. The faith that God requires is a faith that trusts not in itself but trusts in Jesus, that he is who he says he is and that he did what he said he would do.
This means that we can do nothing to earn God’s favour, but simply receive his free offer of forgiveness and salvation. “Will have eternal life and not really die.” Followers of Jesus may physically die, but not really die, for they live with him forever in heaven. But Jesus also wants us to count the cost before we decide to follow him. While salvation is free, it means that Jesus is our new master, and part of following Jesus is becoming like him.
Posted by Brendon Naicker 
Posted by Brendon Naicker 
Posted by Brendon Naicker 
