Calvin's 500th

This Friday is Calvin's 500th birthday.

Let us face it. In the world of Protestantdom, we are surrounded and circled around by Calvinists and those he influenced. In my country of birth, Lutherans are not even a blip in the radar. You won't find us much in the city. You will find us in the mountains and remote rural places but not in the urban areas. Luther is only known to handful of Protestant pastors there. If an Evangelical pastor there knows Luther, you can bet he is pretty educated.

There are quite a few wise words that Calvin said that I like. I stress the few (LOL).

Have you read his prayers? I certainly come out impressed by his spirituality whenever I read them.

I was reminded of him when I visited Ichabod who featured a couple of things he said regarding the sacraments in connection to Enthusiasm.

Here is an example from Calvin's Institutes:

We must not suppose that there is some latent virtue inherent in the sacraments by which they, in themselves, confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk out of a cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no farther than accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and make us capable of receiving this testimony, in which various distinguished graces are clearly manifested…They [the sacraments] do not of themselves bestow any grace, but they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges, give a ratification of the gifts which the divine liberality has bestowed upon us.

What did Calvin do in the above quote? He weakened the connection of the Sacraments with the HS. In short, for Calvin, the Sacraments may or may not be accompanied by the HS. For him, there is no guarantee that the HS will accompany the Sacraments for sure, the HS is detached from the Sacraments. I have several theories as to what might be going on in his psyche that led him to say this stuff but that is for another post.

What then is the effect of this detachment or lack of guarantee that the HS is with the Sacraments? You cannot look to it. Calvin's ambeguity has a negative effect on the believer in that he becomes at a loss as to where God's promises are located. He no longer has a guarantee that when he goes there, God will meet him there. Hence, the believer may have to look for a zap from above, and they often do, ergo, Enthusiasm.

At least with Zwingli, it was much better, at least with him, you knew he said the Sacraments were mere symbols. You knew where he stood, and he was wrong. Calvin's vague position I believe has led to the chaos we see in Evangelicalism. This uncertainty as to where the HS works and what He uses to supply what God demands (faith) is like being in a ship that has lost its rudder.

Contrast the above with what the BoC on FC, SD XI says about the matter:

Furthermore, the declaration in John 6:44 is right and true, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."However, the Father will not do this without means, but hasordained His Word and Sacraments for this purpose as ordinarymeans and instruments. It is not the will of the Father or ofthe Son that a person should not hear or should despise thepreaching of His Word and wait for the drawing of the Fatherwithout the Word and Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Spirit. However, He works according to His usual way. He works by the hearing of His holy, divine Word. Every poor sinner should therefore attend to the Word, hear it attentively, and not doubt the Father's drawing. For the HolySpirit will be with His Word in His power, and will work by it.That is the Father's drawing. (paragraphs 75-77)

Notice how the BoC leaves nothing uncertain, notice how boldly it asserts the HS is with the Word and the Sacraments. What is the effect of this to the struggling Christian who is in doubt if he has faith? He is assured that he can go to the Word and Sacraments where his faith may be strengthened, increased - he has a guarantee that the HS will meet him there. When he goes to the Word, he is certain, it is God speaking to him. When he goes to the Supper, he is certain, Jesus is pronouncing and giving evidence that his sins have been paid for. Assurance.

Same same but different

My youngest daughter one time went for a holiday in Thailand. When you see her, she is what we call in our language morena, she is a bit tanned and brown. The Thais discovering that she was a foreigner would ask about her nationality and she would reply - Filipina. She said they often responded by saying "same same, but different no"? Meaning, "we are similar racially but different in small respects".

This reminded me of what Steve M of The Old Adam Lives posted on how outsiders view Lutherites.

Evangelicals indeed will find Lutherdudes a "bit religious" for their taste. Considering those rituals, liturgy and stuff, they might even conclude in their ignorance that the Lutherdudes are RCs.

No, not so. So if any non-Lutheran is reading this and having that impression, let me explain by quoting here my comments to Steve M's post.

The problem with people observing Lutherans is that they hear the same words we speak and think we mean the same things as the RCs.

No.

We sound and look the same as the RC but we do not mean the same things when we use the same words. We just look the same, but we are not the same.

We are not the same because we do not mean the same things when we use the words found in our liturgy. The words strike the Lutheran differently when they hit the Lutheran’s ears.

The difference is that those words in the liturgy are wrapped up or are interpreted by the central tenet of Biblical Christianity: justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Our liturgy uses the same words but the words mean different things, so" same same but different".

Look ma, no hands - Filipina pilot

You may not realize this but there are Filipinos that are ashamed to admit they are Filipinos.

Jessica is not one of them and she even wears the Filipina national dress - the Maria Clara when she does her motivational speaking.

I am putting this up here because Jessica, in one interview, attributed her abilities to do these sort of difficult things (let's face it, living life with out arms is a bit difficult and challenging, no?) because of the nature of being a Filipino. In a way I kinda believe that because every Filipino that is born has a twin, called sacrifice/suffering, poverty.

Filipinos are known for being friendly, yet they know that the world and life are not as friendly towards them.

I used to work for Unisys. One time they sent me to Pasadena, California (USA) to work with the engineers there. The engineering manager was so thrilled to meet me and excitedly said - oh we have a Filipina engineer, I want you to meet her. So I did, I went to where her office was and greeted her with some Tagalog words. She spoke back in Spanish saying she did not know any Tagalog. What a load of b.s. Her skin was so brown, her nose was so flat and she wasn't that tall either. Even her name was a dead give away, like Ramos, Garcia or Reyes, one of the famous ones. Her attitude of shame epitomizes the result of colonization. The colonizers taught us we were no good, we were good only to be slaves, for labor. The colonizers have left - or have they really? Yet one thing for sure remains, their cultural imperialism still trickles down to many generations.

So pardon me for giving a shout for Jessica.

We have a saying "Filipino ka, sabihin mo", "you are Filipino, say so".

I am saying so.

Theory of Defection

I have a theory of defection.

It is no longer strange to hear some pastor from here or there defecting to Rome or Constantinople. 

Here is my theory why this thing happens. Well, if you believe people are already saved, they just have not believed it yet, you will defect too. Doctrine or what not won't matter, because if in the end, people are already declared righteous they just haven't believed it yet, what is the problem? It won't make a hill of beans if one moves to Rome or Constantinople, so they do move.

A few months ago, I sat under a lecture by a Lutheran theologian. I was just amazed how he spoke sweetly of Rome. I credit him for being composed at my questions, I challenged him why he hasn't converted yet! I really respect his gentlemanly way of answering my questions, but I was somewhat disappointed at his apparent naive romantic way of looking at Rome. I could have sworn he was a crypto-papist.

The more I read the Large Catechism, the more I am convinced Luther did not believe in this business - all are saved, they just have not believed it yet, or all are declared righteous, they just  have not believed it yet.  One time, one guy was trying to prove to me that God already was treating Abraham righteous because God was already speaking to him. I said Rom 4:3 was the time when he was declared righteous and not before, it was just water off duck's back.

In fact in the Large Catechism, Luther believed that those who do not believe the Gospel are under God's wrath - today, now!!! 

We could have people sitting with us in our churches who could be denying the Gospel, i.e., those who do not trust the Gospel, and are then in God's wrath. In fact Luther referred to them as false Christians.

Here is what Luther said...

Apostle's Creed III

61] This, now, is the article which must ever be and remain in operation. For creation we have received; redemption, too, is finished But the Holy Ghost carries on His work without ceasing to the last day. And for that purpose He has appointed a congregation upon earth by which He speaks and does everything. 62] For He has not yet brought together all His Christian Church nor dispensed forgiveness. Therefore we believe in Him who through the Word daily brings us into the fellowship of this Christian Church, and through the same Word and the forgiveness of sins bestows, increases, and strengthens faith, in order that when He has accomplished it all, and we abide therein, and die to the world and to all evil, He may finally make us perfectly and forever holy; which now we expect in faith through the Word.

---

66] These articles of the Creed, therefore, divide and separate us Christians from all other people upon earth. For all outside of Christianity, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, although they believe in, and worship, only one true God, yet know not what His mind towards them is, and cannot expect any love or blessing from Him; therefore they abide in eternal wrath and damnation. For they have not the Lord Christ, and, besides, are not illumined and favored by any gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Monica tells...

Calvinists to repent.

I got this from Fighting for the Faith radio.

Don't laugh, pretty soon she may even be calling us too to repent of our ideas about pure doctrine and right theology.

But the way things are going, luckily she does not know we even exist, we are not even a blip in her radar.

The Ghost of Rogers/McKim

I said to Jim that in the last interactions, I observe that the responses given against Scriptural inerrancy is a resurrection of the Rogers/McKim proposal.


What is the Rogers/McKim Proposal?

This proposal was formulated by two Presbyterian theologians Drs. Jack Rogers and Donald McKim and is found in their book The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach.

In a nutshell here are their theses, and I summarize these from the works of John D. Woodbridge's, Biblical Authority, a Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal and in his essay at Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, edited by D. A. Carson and himself.

1. That the Bible is infallible for faith and practice but may contain "technical mistakes".
2. That the Bible is infallible in accomplishing its saving purpose, but not infallible for matters such as history, science, and geography.
3. The purpose of God's written Word is to reveal salvation truth about Christ, not for technically correct information about the world.
4. Small errors made by the Bible authors do not detract from the Bible's authority because they are not associated to its form or words but with Christ and his salvation message to which they point.
5. That the above are the central beliefs of the Church.
6. That the present view on inerrancy only began in late 16th century.

Of course, I reject the above.

I am not able to reply in so many words so I will just use some Augustine quotes found in the above works also of Woodbridge:

• I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.
• Therefore everything written in Scripture must be believed absolutely.

On the last point I have suggested that, sure enough we may not know each and every statements being made by Scripture, but when a passage is shown to us with sound interpretation of its meaning, then we are obliged to confess and believe it, even if it may seem "insignificant". For there are really no insignificant words in Scripture. For if each word came from God's mouth, it is utterly significant - Mt 4:4.

Diligent use of means

This thing called "faith" is so highly priced by God yet it is so contrary to human senses. I was just explaining to somebody that faith in Christ is so contrary to what we are wired for, that when I look at the sinfulness of my heart, I am easily convinced that God could not possibly accept me. Our sins are more believable rather than the forgiveness of God in Christ, so much so that since our sins are more real, we are willing and ready to pay for it.

My purpose for the discussion in the last few posts had one main point, to bring confidence in the Scripture; that it is God's Word (it does not contain it, but IS it), that by virtue of it being God inspired, it cannot mislead in any other way even in the minute or seemingly immaterial detail. For if it did, it will put into question the other parts. Of course, I am saying this because I believe the truths of Scripture are interconnected, that is of course a premise I am operating on. If this premise is not true, then of course, you can have an erroneous Scripture. I do not allow for this because I believe all of God's words are not wasted words, they all point to Christ, yes, even that obscure passage in Nahum.


So, coming back to my point that faith being so slippery and easily killed (for the devil wants that faith destroyed), and adding the fact that it is a gift of God such that you cannot create it within yourself, the BoC authors direct the reader to Scripture and the listening of it, specially at a time when a believer is doubting his future destiny.

From SD XI.

76] Moreover, the declaration, John 6:44, that no one can come to Christ except the Father draw him, is right and true. However, the Father will not do this without means, but has ordained for this purpose His Word and Sacraments as ordinary means and instruments; and it is the will neither of the Father nor of the Son that a man should not hear or should despise the preaching of His Word, and wait for the drawing of the Father without the Word and Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Ghost, however, according to His usual order [the order decreed and instituted by Himself], by the hearing of His holy, divine Word, as with a net, by which the elect are plucked from the jaws of the devil. 77] Every poor sinner should therefore repair thereto [to holy preaching], hear it attentively, and not doubt the drawing of the Father. For the Holy Ghost will be with His Word in His power, and work by it; and that is the drawing of the Father.

,