Friday, June 26, 2009

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.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

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.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

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.

Monday, June 08, 2009

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.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

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.