Because of the blood Christ shed at Calvary, believers enjoy the eternal rewards of these central truths:

Propitiation. This word means an atoning sacrifice—specifically, the influence or effects of the death of Christ in appeasing divine justice and gaining divine favor. Our sin is forgiven, as the wrath of God was fully vented on His own Son at the cross. Even God’s chastisement for sinful behavior is motivated by compassion.

Redemption. Literally, this refers to a transaction in which some item or person is exchanged for payment on a debt. Spiritually, it indicates the price that Jesus paid on the cross to free every person from slavery to sin. To “redeem” us, Christ paid the debt we owed—His shed blood paid the penalty of death and ransomed us from sin and evil. We have been delivered from the kingdom of Satan and placed into the kingdom of God.

Justification. This term, which means the act of declaring someone righteous in the eyes of God, is made possible only by the crucifixion. Through Jesus, the believer’s past, present, and future sins are totally washed away (Eph. 1:7-8). What’s more, all guilt is removed and replaced with the righteousness of the Savior. Christ’s death released us from the sentence of death, and by God’s grace, we are no longer guilty before Him.

Reconciliation. This describes the act of restoring harmony between humanity and the Father. The cross made a permanent change possible between a holy God and formerly alienated, sinful humanity. Once enemies, God and man are now friends.

Sanctification. This word is defined as the life-long maturing process that begins when a person trusts in the Savior (Heb. 13:12). A believer is set apart from the rest of humanity for the purpose of becoming Christlike. Through discipleship, testing, and teaching, God “drains out” our old selves and pumps the life of Jesus into our hearts and lives.

As grateful as we are for the blood Christ shed on the cross, you and I can be even more thankful that our Savior didn’t stay there. He not only paid the price for our transgressions—He rose again! Jesus’ sacrifice made it possible for us to enjoy the exquisite delight of union with Christ and also to experience the abundant life He promised

If the purpose and pinnacle of the gathering of the church is for the people to hear one man give a sermon, then why shouldn’t we just listen to the very best men via teleconference or even recording? We hear all the time that the problem with the church is that we need more and better expository preaching. With all love to my friends who preach and in full recognition of my own limitations in preaching, I would say that you get a much better expository sermon from Piper or MacArthur than you get from virtually any senior pastor in any local church in America. If the goal is to hear a solid, expository sermon why not get the best sermon you can get? Better yet. What if you broadcast Bob Kauflin every Sunday morning on a tape delay “leading the worship”? What is the difference between Bob on video and a guy up front telling you what songs to sing? Bob is going to give you a “better”, more polished and professional song leadership. The accompaniment will be on key, the singing will be perfect, the songs will be properly vetted. How about we film Ligon Duncan praying and reciting 1 Corinthians 11 over a huge pile of oyster crackers and pallets of grape juice? Then we could ship portions out to churches observing the Supper that week and splice in the footage of Duncan blessing it prior to passing around the platters.

For most Christians in traditional churches on a Sunday morning, they are primarily sitting and watching. Does it really matter if they are watching a guy in-person on stage or Mark Dever on a video feed? I think taking the traditional model of evangelical church life to a logical extreme, why not do this? Just think, we could take up the offering and put it into the bank and then the central church could sweep the money into one big account and distribute it. That is how mormons do it. Instead of squabbling about carpet colors at the local level, let a regional super senior pastor figure it out. For those of us who are Reformed, we could break it down regionally. Albert Mohler could get the south, MacArthur everything west of the Mississippi, Piper the Midwest and Northeast and Dever could run the east coast. We could appoint under-under shepherds in smaller areas, Steve Lawson in Alabama, Kevin DeYoung in Michigan, etc. No more boring, wandering sermons. No more butchering of “A Mighty Fortress is our God”.

I think this idea has real promise.

Mormonism

If Joseph was prophet, seer, and revelator, how could he have gotten the Book of Abraham (published as the “Pearl of Great Price”) so wrong? He claimed it was written by Abraham’s own hand. Modern scholars and Egyptologists (some hired by the church) have discovered that the papyrus is nothing more than a pagan funerary document on preparing the dead for the afterlife. And, if the church is headed by real “prophets, seers, and revelators,” why did it have to hire scholars to translate the papyri in the first place?
If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, why did many of his specific prophecies not come true? The bible teaches that one false prophecy makes a false prophet.
Why did “prophet” Brigham Young say by way of revelation that black men were never to hold the priesthood until after the Millennium because of their spiritual unworthiness and “prophet” Spencer W. Kimball give them the priesthood in 1978? Did God change His mind (again)? Did Joseph Smith not know this “decree of heaven” when he ordained a black man to the priesthood?
Why did Joseph partially “translate” the metal plates found in Kinderhook, Illinois proclaiming them to be the ancient writings of a Lamanite, when in actuality the plates were a hoax, made and buried locally by men seeking to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud?
Why was the church buying forged documents purported to be written by early church leaders from Mark Hoffman in the early 1980’s? This alleged church history proved to be embarrassing to the church. How come Gordon B. Hinckley didn’t know as an “agent for God” that the documents were fraudulent

Other religions will bring you to God. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam — they’ll all eventually bring you to God. Mormonism, Christian Science, paganism, animism, and Roman Catholicism will bring you to God. Every practitioner of every religion created by man and/or demon will, by that religion, be brought to God.

But none of those religions will bring us to God as “Father”!

They will bring us to God as Judge.

Roman Catholic church

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.
Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Or, how about this one?

“On this account it was,” says St. Bernard, “that the Eternal Father, wishing to show all the mercy possible, besides with giving us Jesus Christ, our principal advocate him, was pleased also to give us Mary, as our advocate with Jesus Christ.” “There is no doubt,” the saint adds, “that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God; that, by virtue of his own merits and promises, he will and can obtain us pardon and the divine favors; but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason it was necessary to assign us another advocate, to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence, and this advocate is Mary, than whom we cannot find one more powerful with his divine majesty, or one more merciful towards ourselves.” The saint says, “Christ is a faithful and powerful Mediator between God and men, but in him men fear the majesty of God. A mediator, then, was needed with the mediator himself; nor could a more fitting one be found than Mary.” (Liguori, The Glories of Mary, pp. 195-196)

Don’t grieve for me, for now I’m free
I’m following the path God has laid you see.
I took His hand when I heard him call
I turned my back and left it all.

I could not stay another day
To laugh, to love, to work, to play.
Tasks left undone must stay that way
I found that peace at the close of day.

If my parting has left a void
Then fill it with remembered joy.
A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss
Oh yes, these things I too will miss.

Be not burdened with times of sorrow
I wish you the sunshine of tomorrow.
My life’s been full, I savored much
Good friends, good times, a loved one’s touch.

Perhaps my time seemed all too brief
Don’t lengthen it now with undue grief.
Lift up your hearts and peace to thee
God wanted me now; He set me free.

The new "papal encyclical" Caritas in veritate or "Charity in Truth" from Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope Benedict") has garnered some attention and a lot of concern for the language it uses.Granted, I am not all that interested in theological ponderings from Joseph Ratzinger and I am even less interested in his economic theories. Much of the encyclical is filled with flowery pronouncements and reiterations of prior papal declarations, sprinkled liberally with quotes like this:It is an expression of the prophetic task of the Supreme Pontiffs to give apostolic guidance to the Church of Christ and to discern the new demands of evangelization.That reinforces the misguided notion that the men who style themselves “popes” somehow speak for all Christians everywhere. Regardless, there are some useful statements within this declaration. Certainly he is right that charity and love play a central role in the Christian life and all too often both are missing from those who claim the name of Christ. We all certainly need to reflect on our lack of charity, our failure to express love to those around us as Christ expressed love to the unlovely, i.e. redeemed sinners.Where I have grave reservations is where Mr. Ratzinger applies how this should be practically lived out.There are numerous statements that exhibit an misunderstanding of basic economics, like this one:On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.Intellectual property rights in the private sector provide protection of investment, especially in health care. It is not like a new drug springs forth ready for market after an afternoon of brainstorming. The process is extremely competitive, very expensive and new drugs have limited protections before they become available for generics, so even a breakthrough drug must go through exhaustive regulatory hoops and then the clock starts ticking toward the day when the drug is able to be replicated as a generic. It is precisely because of patent protections that companies are willing to invest enormous sums of money that lead to life saving drugs. People have these drugs that save, extend and improve lives because of the right to intellectual property. Another example:The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.Quite to the contrary. Rerum Novarum was written in 1891 when basic workers rights were absent. Today, we see the collapse of venerable institutions like General Motors and Chrysler and the crippling of Ford because of, in large part, these very same workers associations.The words “redistribution”, “solidarity” and “exploitation” appear often in the encyclical and are not chosen by accident. When he writes: “What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.”, one is forced to wonder how this is to happen, who is decide how much is to be redistributed and who is to receive these resources.The strongest statement comes in this paragraph (emphasis added):To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations.Did you catch all of that? A centralized international authority with the power to ensure "security" and enforce "compliance". I am sure all of the end-times types are jumping all over this, but this is not a sign of the coming "rapture", it is a sign of a dangerous call for international authority over U.S. property and resources.
In the end, Christian charity is expected of Christians but nations are not Christian. They may contain many Christian citizens who are bound to demonstrate love and perform acts of charity not as a condition for but as a result of their salvation, but nations are not and should not be expected to behave in “Christian” ways. Even with that in mind, what Mr. Ratzinger proposes is not only economically unsound, it also misinterprets what the Bible teaches about charity. What he is proposing: wealth redistribution, class warfare, socialism/communism, authoritarian centralized international government are not the signs or the enablers of charity and love. Wealth seized by force or the threat of force is not charity. When the early church sold their belongings and gave the proceeds to the apostles, they did so freely and out of love for one another. A central international authority reallocating resources from "rich" countries to "poor" countries is not only doomed to failure, it is also foreign to what the Bible speaks of in regards to Christian charity.Caring for the poor is noble but centralized governments and wealth distribution do not lead to positive economic equality but instead lead to shared misery. To expect countries and companies to behave in a Christian fashion is foolhardy and unrealistic, and ultimately is counter-productive. If Mr. Ratzinger is truly concerned for the poor, he should be encouraging the free market not calling for centralization. It is the free market, capitalism for lack of a better word, that has led to unprecedented increases in the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people. True, it has not been equitable but that is not a fault of free markets but of totalitarian governments. Without the free markets we would certainly have equity, but it would be equitable poverty and misery. (As a gratuitous cheap shot, if he is so concerned about the poor, maybe the Vatican can sell of some of its treasures and use the proceeds for hunger relief?)Why do I care? I reject Joseph Ratzinger's claims as the "Vicar of Christ" and I see his office as contrary to Biblical teachings and an invention of men. His opinions to me are irrelevant and hold no authority or sway. So why does this warrant the attention of Christians? Many people outside of the church see Mr. Ratzinger as representing Christians, and I am sure that this encyclical will be put forth by some as a defense of socialism. Many Christians also don't recognize the unBiblical nature of the papacy and the use of Scripture quotes and "God talk" may confuse some people. Finally, anytime someone misrepresents the teaching of Scripture, it warrants a response.
So take my thoughts for what they are, my thoughts, and tell me what your thoughts are. Is Mr. Ratzinger correct? Is this who kerfuffle irrelevant? Is this encyclical a veiled call for one world government and socialism?