Extra Nos

CEOs hiring us?

2012-01-17T14:45:00.004+11:00

Hmm, apparently international CEOs love graduates of my Alma Mater. I looked at the result of the survey conducted by the New York Times and for once, my university out does Melbourne Uni. This is unexpected because Melbourne Uni leads all Australian universities. My missus works for them as a Research Fellow.

Melbourne Uni ranked, last time I looked 31st around the world according to QS rankings; but my Monash ranked only 60th around the world. In 2010 it was 45th, now it even dropped back.

I spoke to a fellow graduate whose specialty is in Philosophy of Maths, he said "Man, there is no hope in me getting any tenured or fixed term position, ever. I think I will be forever doing sessional teaching here or there, doing adjunct work all the time".

I am happy for those who got hired, but that does not work for my philosopher friend and for me a maths logician. Last time I spoke to a CEO (of a very well established insurance company) was when I was a manager just prior to starting my studies. I asked him (through my boss) if he would give me just 1 day a week to study with no pay, he said," we have no need for PhDs here". Anyway, he was not an international CEO, maybe that is why.

Jesus' baptism is good news

2012-01-08T14:17:00.003+11:00

I was just thinking of this today and this truth got hammered again to me, that the Baptism of Jesus is Good News to us.

Mark 1 has this:

⁹And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
¹⁰And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
¹¹And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I highlight the verse that got nailed to my heart once again, in the baptism of Jesus, God said this about his Son. Now this is Good News.

Now based on our batting average, there is none who could ever please God. This should be clear as light and obvious to us by now. So in the vast sea of humanity, no one could ever please God. Yet, there was one who came and in him God is well pleased, Christ, God's Son. It is Good News to me because I know I fall short in pleasing God and so I can not come to God using my own credentials. However, I can come to God through Christ's merits not mine. He pleased God for me, as a gift.

Theologians have argued that John was right, Jesus need no baptism yet fulfilling all righteousness, Jesus subjected himself to John's baptism. This, theologians have argued, was Christ's way of uniting himself to humanity.

He was baptised for me, and in my baptism I was united to him, to the one in whom God is well pleased. My baptism clothed me with Christ, the one who pleased God for me (you), as Romans 6 suggests. That is Good News and something to praise Christ for.

Ethan does some maths

2011-12-28T20:04:00.002+11:00

This is a scene in MI3 where Ethan Hunt does some calculation on using a pendulum sling to get to another building.

I am quite impressed with the production of the MI series, it competes well with James Bond. This new one is as good or even better than MI3.

Sometimes Christmas

2011-12-24T10:46:00.004+11:00

Sometimes I am ambivalent about Christmas. It makes me both happy and sad. Sometimes it makes me sad when I think of those people who do not have a family they can share it with.

Christmas can be the loneliest time of the year for some people. Some would rather that it disappears as quickly as it came. I do not blame them. Christmas is no longer defined by Christ but by the shopping center so, if I were just on my own, with nobody, no friends, no family to spend it with, I would rather it goes quickly as it came. Knowing this, we have invited several strangers to dine in our home.

When I was kid, what really made me happy with Christmas were not the toys, it was the festivity in my parent's home. It reminds me of all of my extended family, my uncles and aunties and cousins busying themselves with the preparation. That was really the fun part because as they prepare, they all talk about things with their joking and kidding around. The of course you smell the food.

It reminds me of my granddad and most of all my grandmother. She was the master cook of our clan. Christmas in my home was the time my grandmother Martha would cook those special Christmas meals I never get to taste except - well, except during Christmas. She was our super cook.

Since we celebrate Christmas in the eve of Christmas, the whole day is spent cooking and so preparing for the meals start off early. Then come midnight, our "noche buena", we all sit together and eat what grandma cooked. It was well, just so swell. Then it won't be complete if we did not have that traditional cocoa drink (pictured here) with our sweets, our much loved famous sweetened purple yam (pictured here).

That chocolate drink comes in small round pieces called "tablea". My grandma would boil it and churn it with a churning stick shown above. She would slow cook it and as it slowly boils she would patiently church it and churn it.

I taught my wife how prepare and drink "tablea" the way I learned it from grandma Martha. Drinking "tablea" then has been passed on to my children. So tonight, just as it is warm when we drink it, it also warms my heart in remembering with fondness my grandparents who indirectly taught me that the fun part of Christmas togetherness that it brings.

In the end, only God could be an atheist

2011-12-19T14:35:00.002+11:00

I heard something like this stated by Dr. Bob Morey. It is a funny statement but there is ring of truth in it.

Have you noticed how these neo-Darwinian atheists, when pressed to the wall, back track and plead ignorance as to whether they know or do not know if there is a God? Most of these atheists are functioning agnostics, they got a problem with their method of doing epistemology.

So if no one knows if there is a God or not, then the only person who can be an atheist is God (which of course he ain't an atheist).

Bored Again (synodic?) Lutherans?

2011-11-29T09:07:00.003+11:00

Earlier in my blogging career, I used to read the blog of a young Lutheran guy who has been blogging longer than I can remember. I have not wondered off to his blog for many many years so I got curious, I went and visited. He seemed to be tired of the same old same old type of preaching he hears from pastors of his denomination. He was asked, if he leaves Lutheranism, what tradition would he consider? He said

If I leave Lutheranism, I will probably stop going to church entirely.

I am just thinking, well, if the pastor believes the Gospel should predominate, like Walther did, then I am ok, you are ok, so what is the problem? Nothing. So, life becomes boring.

The BoC says the Law and the Gospel should be preached equally, I read that as saying neither one should predominate.

I am typical Walther critic so here I go....

Preaching the Law I believe is the problem. There are those who preach it with the idea that you can do it. That is a problem.

Then there are those that, well, do not preach it all, following Walther's theorem, the Gospel should predominate. This theorem believes that the man in the street is already taken in by the Law. This theorem believes that man admits already that he is a sinner. This presupposition is not correct.

This is not true. The man down the street, does not believe he is a sinner. This is one of the blunders of Walther. In fact, according to Romans 1, people deny or suppress this truth.

I read once Luther even said, he needed to go to the Scriptures to make him believe he is a sinner.

After leaving Pentecostalism, I joked of Andre Crouch's song Christ is the Answer, famous in Pentecostal circle. Well, I said with the others, if Jesus is the answer, so what is the problem?

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-25T08:09:00.002+11:00

To my USA readers, thank you for your continuing visit to this blog.

I appreciate your coming and reading the posts and the comments.

God bless you as you celebrate Thanksgiving Day.

My wife and I treated ourselves last night for a good turkey dinner. We wanted to join family members in the US in counting the blessings God has done. It is important not to lose track of them for if we do, we will fail to see God's hand in our lives.

My daughter-in-law is from Florida, USA and we will have another get together in their home tomorrow.

Gross: Kilcrease calls Leyser and Hutter heretics

2011-11-20T18:32:00.003+11:00

I do not wish to distract readers from the previous post so please click here while I deal with the sweeping statements below.

At the Intripid Lutherans' post on Some Musings on the Article of Election, I quoted Polycarp Leyser to the post of Pr. Paul Rydecki. He then asked for more details on the quote. I have since answered his query but before that Jack Kilcrease had this comment directed to me...

The quotation is part of the reaction against the doctrine of particular election that occurred at the University of Wittenberg 20 years or so after the Formula of Concord. This is when Leyser and Leonard Hutter invented the inuitu fidei heresy. Bear in mind that many of these folks were students of the students of Melanchthon, and essentially revived a version of the Philippist heresy of synergism. The Formula of Concord upholds the orthodox Lutheran understanding of the divine election taught by Luther in "The Bondage of the Will." For a good summary of the history of the controversy over election in early Lutheranism, see the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Choice-Election-Wittenberg-Theological-Method/dp/0802829228/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321716121&sr=1-5

Now, LPC will likely say something about "psychological Calvinism." My question (which I guessing he will probably ignore it based on his general rhetorical style), is this: 1. How is it that you can reject particular election when it is taught by Luther and the Formula of Concord? This is not a matter of debate, but well attested by all modern scholarship on this subject. 2. How can you reject particular election by God's eternal decree when it is explicitly taught by the Bible (Romans 8, Ephesian 1, etc.)? 3. If salvation does not occur by particular election, does it not follow that we are ourselves partially the cause of our salvation either by the preservation of our faith or by our cooperation with grace? Does this not then abrogate solas christus, sola fidei, and sola gratia?

----

Here is my reply:

Jack,

Firstly, I admire your boldness and I am amazed that you accused Polycarp Leyser, a person who was one of those who drafted the Formula of Concord, and Leonhard Hutter, a person known as Luterus Revivivus (Luther reborn) as heretics! I have searched the Internet for any suggestion of this but all I came up with were high praises for these old orthodox Lutherans. But, where did you get the idea that they were heretics? Where else but through the work of a Missouri professor himself? That is just so obvious. If I were you I would have cited an author who had no dog in this debate.

I am amazed as to how far Missouri-ambigo-psycho- Calvino-quasi-Universalists would go to malign those who disagree with Walther's teachings.

You must believe that Stellhorn ,who quotes them in Errors of Missouri, must be a complete idiot to cite reputable heretics to aid his arguments against the Election doctrine of Missouri, no?

Jack, I do answer questions of people that can be taken seriously. In answering you, I do not imply you are such a person but I am extending kindness. For for by the first part of the comment above, I have every reason not to take you seriously once again. So I am being kind.

You asked...

1. How is it that you can reject particular election when it is taught by Luther and the Formula of Concord? This is not a matter of debate, but well attested by all modern scholarship on this subject

This is a straw man, I never said I reject particular election en toto or per se. What I do refuse to do is to talk about election without regard to items 1-8 of FC, Solid Declaration, XI, paragraphs 15-22 as suggested by the BOC paragraph 24. The BoC says that each of items 1-8 is an ordination of God, or decreed by God. The problem is that you are operating in a non-Lutheran paradigm in thinking that when faith is mentioned anywhere, it means faith must have been a work of man. That is why you have this straw man. I quoted Leyser to Rydecki and you jumped the gun. I quoted Leyser to blunt the possible sharpness on thoughts about particularism.

2. How can you reject particular election by God's eternal decree when it is explicitly taught by the Bible (Romans 8, Ephesian 1, etc.)?

This question is so Calvinistic, and reminds me of my former self.

I believe the BoC teaches single predestination and so does the Scripture. However, I have no evidence it is teaching single unconditional election. In fact there is strong evidence the Scripture teaches single conditional election as does the BOC. Proof: Scripture says, those who believe in Christ are saved, those who disbelieve in Christ are damned. The BOC does not want you to speak of predestination with out the other ordination of God, items 1-8 as stated in FC, SD, XI.

I say this because single unconditional election amounts to double predestination, it logically follows. Further, it logically follows that one can never be lost. Yet the Smalcald Articles teach that one's faith may be lost. If single unconditional election where true, then it is unthinkable that one's faith can ever be destroyed, yet the BoC warns of this. Further, the BoC teaches that the Holy Spirit's work in the means of grace can be rejected, but then one must accept therefore irresistible grace, the I in TULIP if one talks about unconditional election without regard.

3. If salvation does not occur by particular election, does it not follow that we are ourselves partially the cause of our salvation either by the preservation of our faith or by our cooperation with grace?

Not true, this presumes the fallacy of false dilemma. When Jesus says to Jairus - be not afraid only believe, was he then teaching Jairus that he can believe on his own? This is absurd since the Bible teaches faith is a gift of God lest anyone should boast. The problem is that you are following the straw man of Walther who taught that when faith is demanded, and when faith is mentioned, that must mean a thing controlled by man. The Bible calls my faith in Christ as being authored by Christ, so why should I fall under your paradigm and call my faith my own doing? Are you not a Lutheran? Well Lutherans do not believe that faith is the work of man, but is produced by the HS through the means of grace, so by your question, you already fell under the straw man of the Reformed.

Does this not then abrogate solas christus, sola fidei, and sola gratia?

No, it affirms it the right way.

---

The term In Tuitu Fidei, does not mean in view of faith itself. Stellhorn says this was coined by Hunnius, but it was a short hand phrase for this - in view of the merits of Christ embraced and held fast in the end by faith. They did not mean naked faith as your straw man generators make of it.

Hutter, the man you say was a heretic, but was considered Luther Reborn known for his orthodoxy, was very sensible and very simple in his logic. I will summarise his argument for you.

Do you believe you are justified through faith? If so, then you should believe that you are elected through faith too! Why? It is because there is no justification with out faith. Since, there is no justification with out faith, there is no election/predestination with out faith too, for the two are correlative to each other. You can not have justification with out the other, election. For what is election without justification? That is meaningless. If one is through faith, the other is through faith too. Hutter was being ultra reasonable in his logic. Romans 8:28-30 says that.

Oops, my mistake, you describe yourself as UOJer par excellance. You do not believe in JBFA, like the heretics you called such as Leyser and Hutter, rather you believe in justification without faith, my bad.

At any rate this is what Hutter says about Calvinising Lutherans like you and your idol Walther. That is safe to say right? You have not found anything about Walther to question right? I quote from Stellhorn...emphasis mine....

It is a horrible blindness or instability of mind that will not recognize the same condition and relation of faith in the article of election, especially as it is established that faith, is not to be considered the source or foundation of election or of justification, but only the organ apprehending that true and only fountain of election and justification, God's gratuitous grace prepared for us in Christ

Lastly, may I have a question? You should also be able to affirm this summary statement below, right? I expect you should agree, but I do not wish to misrepresent your position so I want to hear it from you verbatim, you would agree with the statement below, correct?

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.

Why ex-Calvinists fall for Walther

2011-11-19T11:13:00.005+11:00

One will notice that ex-Calvinists becoming Lutheran get attracted to C. F. W. Walther.

Why is that the case?

Because most ex-Calvinists becoming Lutherans had the sad experience of being burnt by Calvinists teachings. You can read about their testimonies in the Internet. However, in their excitement to hurriedly know Lutheranism, rather than scrutinising the Book of Concord and going through the Scriptures evaluating if the Confession complies with Scripture, they are coached instead to read C F Dubya's works. The light starts to burn specially bright when they get to read how C F Dubya hated Calvinism.

Calvinism is not just confined to TULIP, but it is a whole world view, a paradigm, a spirit of doing theology. It is no mystery but it is well documented in history books that Lutherans have had issues with Calvinists as well as Zwinglians alike.

Where I came from, we have a funny saying, it is not the cops who hate thieves, but fellow thieves themselves.

Of course, when Lutherans read of Walther's critique of Calvinism, the Lutheran hears him singing their refrain. Walther did not like Calvinism, but his paradigm in collapsing atonement with justification and in his belief in unconditional election, makes him a psychological Calvinist himself. What is a psychological Calvinist? It is someone who operates in Calvinistic paradigm without realising or being conscious of it.

Unfortunately, only a few well educated and astute American Lutherans can see and recognise this in Walther. Those that protests and who point this out are ganged up, bullied and hurriedly shut up.

My sincere advice for former Calvinists or anyone from another denomination studying Lutheran theology, do not go to the works of the Lutheran Fathers first, rather go to the Book of Concord. Read it with your Bible open, read it critically and match what it says with Scripture because if you don't you will be floating in the air, still a Christian, but without a confession.

Tid bits, the Trinity and Walther's Huberism

2011-10-25T22:35:00.004+11:00

Some tidbits and links:

The pastor's wife is pastor too?

2011-10-21T20:14:00.003+11:00

There is a very curious practice of Pentecostals here. By default the pastor's wife is automatically called "Pastor" too! I know I blogged about this many years ago but at that time it was not that rampant but now this practice is all over the place. How strange that the pastor's wife is called pastor too. Having ministerial training is not required; except she probably speaks in tongues, sees visions and could claim God speaks to her directly etc. If you think of it, there is no known portion of church history where the ancient church followed the same practice, you only find this in Pentecostalism. Now that means it is suspect but you would probably get called a dead religionist for pointing this out.

Hitler's reaction to Dawkins not debating Craig

2011-10-17T16:36:00.002+11:00

I got to give it to the guy who compiled this, this is really funny and excellently done.

iThankYou2 Steve

2011-10-09T10:15:00.006+11:00

Steve Jobs was born Lutheran. We do not know if he maintained a Christian faith in his death, there have been news that he became a Buddhist. However, we have to be fair and as a person who works in education. science and technology I must pay tribute to his visionary genius. He had my wife and my kids in mind when he was designing his products. My sons and daughters use a Mac and I recommended the Mac to the missus for her work sometime 8 years ago. All of them are hooked on Apple products and the wife could not use anything else since then.

I am a free ware ideologist so I normally use my Linux at home and in my net book but as I am typing today, I am using a MacBook I rebuilt a few months ago, my daughter's Mac. It had a busted screen and hard disk so I decided to repair at least the disk and use as a desktop too.

I encountered Mr. Jobs ideas sometime 25 years ago when I played with Lisa. He was ahead of his time and his products today excel in extreme ease of use and no fuss operation.

When I recommended the Mac to my missus 8 years ago, I was aware of the pun geeks did on the Macintosh - Machine Always Crashes If Not The OS Hangs, and I did get called for help by the missus when the Mac behaved this way. However, Apple really did a good job in moving to Unix. It is a much stable OS and I have fun at times on the command line.

Steve saw something, he created products for the "can not be bothered generation", that was his genius, his insight and that involved courage to do what was right for the customer though it seemed unorthodox not in the mainstream at that time. I believe this is the reason why though his products are a bit on the high end, he still had very loyal customers. He designed the products for them in mind.

Thanks Steve for doing that.

I guess he is just one busy coward

2011-09-15T17:32:00.004+10:00

He says he won't debate you if you are not a Bishop.

I guess he won't debate me then because I am no Bishop whatsoever.

Besides he says he is busy.

Could that be it, or he just turned yellow?

My crisis of faith (as an atheist)

2011-08-28T12:34:00.003+10:00

This is a continuation of an old post How I lost (my atheistic ) religion. So kindly read that post to get a sense of what this post is all about.

In that old post, I shared how I transformed from being an atheist to a theist (but note not yet a Christian). Note that there, I did not abandon atheism because I saw some bad or evil atheists. At university where I became an atheist, I belonged to a philosophy club and in that club there were only two kinds of people, atheists and agnostic, there were no one in between. I aligned with the former because I thought the latter were wussies. Anyway all of them were congenial friends - we hanged out, played chess everyday after lunch, went to talks together etc etc.

Anyway, it was not because of anything that atheists did that made me abandon my atheism, it was because of the external observation of nature or creation and the philosophical truth that something can not come out of nothing, ex nihilo, nihil fit. One might say that this was an incident of general revelation described in Romans 1:19-20. As I said, when I agreed with the assertion "there must be a God", i.e. a Creator, my life became internally disturbed than when I was an atheist. This truth disturbed me and so I went the library and soaked my self with books about other religions and philosophies - they were Confucianism, Taoism, Budhism, and a bit of Hinduism. Note that Christianity was not in the list. I reasoned, no, I will not be satisfied, I owe myself the truth, I must get to the very bottom of this.

All of these religions, as in others, discuss some truth that is conducive and attractive. They all promote moralism etc. I was not satisfied with Confucianism because it did not make sense as to why I should comply with Confucius' idea of a gentleman for its own sake. It did not give authority - for example, he says, we should honor our ancestor. Ok but when you ask Confucius' why? His answer would be - well it is bad, you are not being a good gentleman, so I comeback and say - well so what, what is it to you, why should I follow your dictums, you are not God are you? So his moral pronouncements are not unassailable.

As to the other three, I had a problem with their mystical and vague pronouncements. For example Lao Tsu made mention of The Ultimate Reality but in practical terms, how does one touch that or get a hold of that or relate to that etc.? What did that mean? Such terms I found to be operationally absurd and unfeasible. As to Budhism, well it is a non-Creationist religion and so did not answer my premise of God as being Creator of these things I could see which are bigger than me and too awesome in its beauty and variety. Besides Zen Budhism is just as paradoxical and absurd in its teachings so same thing. Budha wants me to meditate to reach nothingness, a release from my selfishness, and be part of everything etc etc.

So I went back to the Roman Catholicism of my parents, the one that I was brought up in, after graduating from university. I went back to the practices - novenas, masses, confession, penance etc. After a while I would go to confession and the priest would give me my penance, like pray 100 Our Fathers, 50 Hail Mary's etc. I found myself playing a game of doing a deposit of these (i.e., do the penance in advance) so that when I did go to confession, I would deduct my deposit of prayers from the required so I just pray the balance. Why? Because right after doing my religious labour, I was intending to reward myself when I got out, that is paint the town red. I remember going out of church, saying hmmm, paying for my sins seems trivial, I do the penance and it is fixed, but how long do I do this, this is tiring and what if I die in this state? In actuality it was not fixed. One might say, clearly my faith was in those works prescribed by the church.

This went on for a couple of more years and my watching TV got me pegged to a revivalist preacher. He went to my city (in Manila) and one evening I, together with my wife went to the meeting. I did here the Gospel in that meeting some 30 years ago. I can relate more on the few things he said along with his methods which may easily be criticised must be corrected, but that night I did understand the portion on why Jesus died on the Cross, that he died on that Cross as payment for my sins, as a free gift, because I was a sinner never being able to pay for my sins in front of a Holy God. I heard the priest always saying Jesus died, Jesus died, but it was only on that day did I realize, it was for me and my sins. I, along with my wife, left that auditorium, assured that God would accept us not on account of our works but on account of the sacrifice and bitter suffering of His Son.

The journey as you know, those of you familiar with this blog, did not stop there.

With regards to the religions or philosophies I have studied - they bring up pertinent issues but the way they answer the issues leave gaps in between. Below are my summaries and of course I am being simplistic and practical in outlining them here (I can not conduct a treatise on these):

Confucianism lacked authority for its moral precepts whereas Christianity answers that premising the moral precepts from the revelation of God, the ultimate authority and sovereign.

Taoism says we lost equilibrium with the world, with the cosmos and our being; the aim is to practice certain things to capture that equilibrium. Christianity on the other hand surmises that we have no stability because we lost our anchor or relationship with God but He provides Christ to give us peace sending the Holy Spirit in his name. Peace is a by-product of faith in Jesus' Gospel.

Buddhism is correct in identifying selfishness as the source of suffering and advocates meditation as way of saving ourselves from ourselves. Christianity identifies sin as the source of our troubles and the solution is to be forgiven through the suffering of Christ paying for our sins. Christianity teaches that we have a saviour who saves us rather than us doing a doit yourself salvation.

Hinduism, well it has many gods but again, philosophically who and what was the source of such divinity? Christianity on the other hand says there is only one true God, Jesus is his Son and he has won peace for all mankind through his bitter death and suffering. Thus only one God needs to be appeased, such peace, Christ has won freely for every human being and God grants this peace through faith in Christ's name.

Psalm 119:160.

Old Lutheran Theology of the Cross

2011-07-30T14:19:00.006+10:00

Having some down time because of ill health ( I seem to be copping a lot lot of health issues lately), I flipped through my CD stacks and found a CD audio book from the work of Martin Moller (1547-1606) entitled Preparing for Death. It is a series of devotional expositions with prayer at the end of each topic. It is said that this was his contribution to the Lutheran Ars Moriendi (art of dying). I got it many years ago but never bothered to listen, so I decided to lend an ear this time.

I have been researching on this pastor. I am aware he was not without controversy. I do not of course have access to other things he wrote, and so my only source of evaluating him is that CD audio book. My teachers in uni taught me never to rely on secondary sources but this is all I have of him. He was not university trained, but I am so impressed by the richness of his Scripture quotations - with a couple of quotations from Deutero-Canonical books like Sirach and Tobias, here and there. The other that impressed me more was his theme of bringing the reader back to faith, bringing the reader back to the promises found in the Word of God. I often blurt that faith is a problem. I know certainly it is in my life. Jesus recognized this problem in people too. The CD was like good medicine.

Moller's Theology of the Cross does not leave you depressed but in triumphant hope in God. That impressed me. I imagine Moller as a pastor was not only someone who would simply listen to you and that was it, not even exposing his opinion. If what he was came through his work, then I would say he seemed rather the type who would stir up your faith, counselling you by Scripture to hope in God's Word, that might involve either a rebuke or a pat in the right direction.

If the Internet is used as a gauge to judge new Lutherans of today, and if Moller was typical of old Lutherans then, the old Lutherans are quite far in their spiritual life than that of the new Lutherans of today. The old Lutheran Theology of the Cross does not leave you in despair, but that does not seem to come out strong of new Lutherans today.

In this regard, I find the theology of old Lutherans from hymns like this of Samuel Rodigast - Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, Whatever God Ordains is Right (Good) - different on how they carry in life, their Theology of the Cross. Theirs leave you with a smile in the midst of the storm.

Whatever God ordains is good:

This truth remains unshaken:

Though sorrow, need or death be mine,

I shall not be forsaken

I fear no harm,

For with His arm

He shall embrace and shield me;

So to my God I yield me.

Only for the brave

2011-06-23T12:53:00.003+10:00

...and probably for the truthful and the not so fanatical. See the post here.

Don't bother, we'll just do it ourselves

2011-06-09T13:16:00.004+10:00

I am a committee member of my state chapter of the IEEE-CS. Last week, we hosted Mr. Edwin Black, the author of this book to talk about the ethics of technology and how it is important today. Technology can not be ethics neutral and it should not be just a matter of commerce.

Anyway there were a few of us who took the author to dinner. It so happened that I sat beside him and so we chatted a bit. Mr. Black comes from a Jewish background and so my mind went back to the time when I was taking my Religious Studies degree 20 years ago, when one of my subjects was OT Judaism.

As we chatted about the Holocaust, I was reminded by one quip from someone I heard a long time ago of how Jews have abandoned their belief in God due to this tremendous suffering that they have experienced in WWII.

Many people criticize Pentecostalism's wealth and health prosperity doctrine saying that this is a sure fire way of making people atheists. While there is truth to this observation, this is not the only source of why people become atheists. One source is turmoil in life and unspeakable suffering. Life hurts. That quip I heard a long time ago goes along these lines...

"Where were you God when all of these were being done to us? Thanks very much, don't bother, from now one, we will just do it ourselves".

That seems to be the prevailing attitude of Israelis today.

As I thought about this, many statements of Jesus came to my mind as I relate to my own sufferings. For example...

John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

I am glad Jesus said this but I have not fully comprehended all of this. The tribulation part is very obvious; it is the part about being of good cheer because he has overcome the world that I want to learn how.

If you are reading this

2011-05-22T21:17:00.002+10:00

You did not get raptured either.

...

If there is anything to be learned, it is the end of the world --- of false prophecies, hopefully.

Faith Receives

2011-05-15T15:23:00.006+10:00

I was reading my Bible last night and I so happened to be at Acts 10:

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. ³⁹ And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they^[e] killed by hanging on a tree. ⁴⁰ Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, ⁴¹ not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. ⁴² And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. ⁴³ To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

I was arrested by these words as I recalled how the BoC spoke of how faith receives as well. For example in AC, XX

28] It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29] And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works

So I started to meditate on this for a bit - faith receives, faith receives, faith receives.

Hmm, the object of faith is Christ but what is received is the forgiveness of sins.

My mind went back home and I reminded my self of how in my home culture, whenever there is a wedding, it is customary for the bride and groom to give their guests a small souvenir, a small giveaway so to speak as a token of appreciation of their coming. The above picture is a sample of that.

So how do the guests receive the souvenir? They simply turn up at the wedding - go through and witness the ceremony and eat with the bride and groom. The receiving of the souvenir is the effect of being in the wedding.

I should not stress too far the analogy but in the wedding scenario, the guests focus their attention on the wedding - on the bride and groom but that results in getting a gift. I thought the analogy somehow was appropriate and useful.

To know the man, ask his wife

2011-04-28T11:14:00.005+10:00

This is not me. That is the picture of mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel.

What Einstein did for Physics, Gödel did to Mathematics and Logic.

Gödel identified himself as a baptized Lutheran. Many academics are embarrassed to admit that Gödel might have been a true believer.

When people make claims that Gödel was a secret Christian, people in academia are quick to dismiss and make appeal to his biography how he denied this or that. You see, academia does not allow a man with a great mind to be a Christian as well.

Gödel wrote his mathematical proof for the existence of God. I suspect he did not publish it while he was alive for fear of being persecuted. However, it is in God's good providence that it was kept waiting until he passed away.

I pointed out in some Internet discussion of his Christian leanings and right away I was presented with disclaimer etc. etc.

It is funny that his wife Adele testified that her husband, while alive, would read the Bible every Sunday morning. That is why I said to the nay sayers - hey forget what this professor or official biographer wrote, if you want to know the man, ask his wife.

Lastly Gödel's quoted statements presupposed a Christian understanding of reality.

He said... "I only believe in apriori truths".

Well, where do you find apriori truths? How else if not from God who first declares them? Apriori truths are only found when God defines or declares them.

Weak on sanctification

2011-04-17T16:02:00.003+10:00

And they seem to be proud of it too.

I went to a country church a few Sundays ago. There was a fine elderly gentleman who greeted with me and sat beside me all through the divine service. After the service, they had fellowship over coffee/tea. We got to chat at length and I got the chance to speak to him of my journey. This fine Christian man, now retired used to work for a prominent publishing company. He said he took care of the religious publishing division of the company and he got to read a lot of theological stuff. If I am not mistaken, he even explored for a time, other denominations outside the Lutheran Confessions too. So after hearing of my journey, he asked me with much concern - "do you not consider Lutherans weak on sanctification"? I said, "yes, I do, and I am perplexed by it because you would think that the one strong on justification would have been strong on sanctification too". It seemed my gentleman host has been bothered by this too and did not know what to do with it. See another one bothered about this too.

Over the years, I have heard Lutherans in the Internet proudly said of themselves - weak on sanctification. Mind you they do not say this with shame, they even boast about it. Like one time, I heard a pastor said that when he is amongst some Baptists - the more he would drink beer in front of them, so he could show them how free he is. I suppose the man wants to purposely offend.

1 Cor 10:⁹ But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. ¹

It is one thing to admit one is weak on sanctification but sad about it, versus saying one is weak on sanctification and boast about it too. I would say the first one is coming from a repentant heart, the second one I suspect is coming from an anti-nomian bent (either consciously or unconsciously).

Can do theology...again

2011-03-30T08:55:00.003+11:00

I was bored so I tuned in to a Christian radio station here last night.

It was a litany of teaching one after another of how-tos. There is such a flood of this and the sinful nature in me seemed to have been at ease believing I am such a great guy I can do it in my awesomeness.

What I heard was...How you can do it, how you can have a better life now, how you can be moving forward and upward, how you can be succeesful, how you can rise above like an eagle and hover over those turkeys below etc.

So I am sold that Christianity is about being successful. It is not about trusting God in the middle of sacrifice and suffering. It is about being in the world and being of the world too. It is about having your best life now and having more of it in the next.

That is so so marketable.

I was still bored after listening.

Does this sound familiar?

2011-03-25T00:06:00.004+11:00

Church Mouse has been blogging on Rob Bell.

According to Bell...(emphasis mine)

“Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for.” (“Velvet Elvis,” p 146)

I know a lot of people (Waltherians) who will or at least should agree with the bolded words. Except they will say that people in Hell have been indeed forgiven but they are in Hell because they did not accept the forgiveness...etc.

Me: err, hump, so they have been forgiven and have not been forgiven? So now since, the Cross everyone starts forgiven and only gets un-forgiven due to unbelief? What was the first forgiveness for? So there is a second forgiveness? I am confused.

What is happening with Bell? My analysis is that like the others I am protesting against and they hate me for it- he is equating the atonement with justification (which is forgiveness of sins). Since everyone has been atoned for, everyone, so he thinks, has been forgiven.

That is obvious

2011-03-21T16:48:00.003+11:00

Of course, any philosophically based religion can easily posit God is Sovereign. There is no genius needed for that, even Islam knows that. That is pure intuition.

In maths, we call that assertion - trivial.

However, that is not the great thesis of Christianity.

Myths

2011-03-05T20:07:00.003+11:00

...I mean myths propagated by some (even so called Lutherans).

That if a Lutheran stresses faith and promotes it, he is being a Calvinist. This misunderstands old Lutheranism. This is the fallacy of false dilemma.
That if a Lutheran stresses faith he must be looking at faith as a form of works. Jesus and St. Paul enjoined people to faith, did they consider faith as a form of works by their admonition to believe? This is the fallacy of a category mistake.
That if a Lutheran stresses faith it will lead him to being robbed of his assurance of salvation. So what is the solution? Promote the doctrine of psycho-quasi Christianized Universalism? More category mistakes and false assumptions.
That a Lutheran's assurance of salvation is never shakeable. Really? Only if he is a Universalist. If it can never be shaken, why would the BoC make you run to the Word and Sacraments?

Food for thought, from Luther's Galatian 4 Sermon...

As before said, they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not understand that it is our sole justifier. To accept as true the record of Christ–this they call faith. The devils have the same sort of faith, but it does not make them godly. Such belief is not Christian faith; no, it is rather deception.

13. In the preceding epistles we have heard that to be a Christian it is not enough simply to believe the story of Christ true–the Cain-like saints possess such faith–but the Christian must without any hesitancy believe himself one to whom grace and mercy are given, and that he has really secured them through baptism or through the Holy Supper. When he so believes, he is free to say of himself: “I am holy, godly and just. I am a child of God, perfectly assured of salvation. Not because of anything in me, not because of my merits or works, am I saved; it is of the pure mercy of God in Christ, poured out upon me.

Where Walther went off the rails.

2011-02-10T10:00:00.007+11:00

I have been reviewing my BoC for my devotions and I have been re-reading some of my annotated portions when I stumbled on something that is making me continue my critique of the statement made by Walther found in the last post, found below.

One of the big difference between Calvinism and orthodox Lutheranism is in the area of the Means of Grace. Ex-Calvinist who become Lutherans hammer on the difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism on the Lord's Supper and this is true.

However, IMHO, the difference starts before that. It really starts on what Lutherans mean by the Means of Grace. Firstly, what do Lutherans mean by this? Well, these are objective means that God uses to create faith and sustain faith in the life of a believing sinner. These are the Word and Sacraments (Baptism and Supper). Lutherans believe (or I think they should) that God, though he is sovereign, has bound himself to these Means for our assurance of salvation.

Talking about God being Sovereign is talking about God in the abstract. Now that Jesus came and we have the Scripture we cannot talk about God in the abstract anymore; because God has made things now concrete, Jesus came, died for our sins, rose again and now seats at the right hand of God.

Yes in the abstract, God can do anything to save a sinner, but now that Jesus has come, we cannot talk now of what God can or cannot do, rather we should talk about what will he do! God won't violate his means, so that we may not be in doubt where we might find him. For if God violates his means of grace, then we are no longer with an anchor as to where we are guaranteed where we may find him. This opens the door to Enthusiasm and mystical experiences.

In Calvinism, for example, they consider reason or the mind as a means. For example, some Calvinists I have read say that God illumines reason and uses it for man to find him. In Lutheran concept, this is not objective and it is not considered by Lutherans to be God's means of grace. Why? Because in Scripture, God is seen by the Lutheran to be binding himself to Word and Sacraments only. In our relationship to God, the Lutheran is not to go anywhere apart from Word and Sacrament to find his forgiveness, which is life and salvation.

Let me now come to the statement of Walther found in the post below.

If Walther was correct, then that baby over there just recently delivered, had his sins already forgiven. Then Dr. Ichabod (and others like him, like the late Pr. Vernon Harley) is correct in his critique and opposition, for this means that God forgives sins without the Means of Grace. Seriously the statement is quasi-universalism.

If God has already forgiven the sins of that baby, then what is the need for the Means of Grace? For Baptism of the baby? None.

Then there is also one thing that is also serious about Walther's words. Walther's statements violate the teaching of the BoC and contradicts it and I quote: Solid Declaration, I (Original Sin).

31] Because of this corruption(original sin), too, the entire corrupt nature of man is accused and condemned by the Law, unless the sin is forgiven for Christ's sake.

The emphasis is mine.

If sins have been forgiven without the Means of Grace why would the BoC say the above quoted text? Waltherian Lutherans in effect have an irrelevant Means of Grace.

Truth is, as far as the BoC is concerned, no one is forgiven unless the Means of Grace has been applied and believed.

Back to the hole.

Walther's Synergistic Quote

2011-01-25T21:25:00.003+11:00

I thought that I should bring up to people's attention this famous Walther quote (HT. Ichabod) . It seems appropriate to discuss this since Ichabod is featuring Rev. Harley's papers.

I highlighted in bold the synergistic - decision theology presentation found in this quote from the lips of C. F. W. Walther...

"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is—faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."

C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection—The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978, p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.

---

Hmmm, so you must accept by faith that you have been absolved and if you do, then you are. Then, if you don't, you ain't.

To quote one of the kids in our clan...Wah???? Wah????

Anyway back to my hole.... see youse later...

Collapsing under stress.

2011-01-17T10:32:00.003+11:00

I was reading Genesis 22 the other day.

Then I imagined what if what happened to Abraham, happened to me. What if I was Abraham and God told me to sacrifice my son?

I would probably have my ulcers flare up, and I would probably have fainted under stress.

I wish people would stop trivializing the faith of Bible characters.

What happened to Abraham was not a simple matter, it was a very excruciating experience.

I would have been a nervous wreck if God told me to do something like that.

(I am still offline, I thought I would give something for you to think about).

3rd Use and Last Post

2010-12-31T17:18:00.002+11:00

For now.

I have been spending time with my closest family friend. We made our way to Queensland and we encountered towns flooded by the rain, which is another adventure by itself. Anyway we got to talk about Scriptural topics. He is a businessman who has experienced failure and demise and now he is on the comeback. He has been meditating on the Book of Proverbs and have found it a wonderful treasure of God's wisdom, which got us to talking about the 3rd Use of the Law. I have encountered people who know about this use of the Law, it is found in the BoC here. However, though they do lip service on it, it is virtually nothing in their operation of the Christian life. Listen how they speak of the Law, they speak of it as something evil. That is a clue that the person is functioning without the 3rd Use of the Law. The mistake of modern Evangelicals is that though they have the 3rd Use of the Law they tie this up with salvation, hence, pietism. The error of Waltherians (those who follow Walther and Co.) is that due to the emphasis on 2nd Use of the Law, things become virtually antinomian.

Last Post:

Dear friends,

I wish to thank you for your continued use of this blog. I have to attend to pressing duties like facing some trying times. I am facing some heavy artillery fire and need to focus my attention on this. This could be my last post and won't be posting for many days to come. However, I will be commenting in the usual places where you normally find me.

May I say how I appreciated your patronage through this 5 year period of blogging. I would appreciate your prayers for me and my family.

God be with you all.

LPC

BM on Wedland's 1951 paper.

2010-12-16T09:29:00.007+11:00

This was kelmed at Ichabod. The red emphasis are mine, but the rests are BM's.

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Introduction to WELS DP Beckman's Guilt-Free Saint...":

(W)ELSian Ernst Henry Wendland quotes an appropriate warning, by the Ohio Synod's Kirchenzeitung in its May issue of 1905, to everyone who teaches and defends the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification in his essay, Review of Common Confession Article VI-Justification given to the Biennial WELS Convention at DMLC, New ULM, MN in 1951

Reconciliation and personal justification are thrown together (by Missouri), so that nothing is left of an individual justification by faith. According to Missouri’s new teaching the whole world is justified, in fact, already when Christ completed his work of redemption. A different justification, which takes place when man comes to faith is not present according to this teaching. Thus the central teaching of Scripture and of the Lutheran church is destroyed. (2) According to this new doctrine of justification is already completed without faith, before faith ever enters into the picture. Faith limps behind. Man should only believe in a justification already completed a long time ago. Thus Missouri destroys the Bible teaching of a justification by faith. (3) It is no longer true according to this new doctrine that God first justifies in the moment that a sinner comes to faith. No longer - faith, then justification; rather centuries ago a justification of the whole world - now believe this! We shudder at this sin against everything sacred! God preserve these blinded creatures, who prate so about the clarity of Scripture, and condemn vigourously everything that doesn’t suit their fancy. Now through their own blindness they have fallen so deeply into the night of error! God have mercy upon the poor people who are no longer hearing the central teaching of Scripture, but rather a miserable fallacy, a poor figment of man’s own invention (Lehre u. Wehre, Vol. 51, p. 385 ff.) Page 3

E.H. Wendland goes on to clarify the heart of UOJ and dismisses Missouri's Brief Statement as too ambiguous in regards to declaring the whole unbelieving world forgiven, justified and righteous by God's divine verdict.

"Now we come finally to the Common Confession, where this doctrinal divergence has been supposedly resolved. As we approach it we naturally ask, “Will it contain an unequivocal statement on objectivejustification? Will it rule out the thought that faith is first necessary before any justification of God’s part is possible?”

We read: “By His redemptive work Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; hence, forgiveness of sin has been secured and provided for all men. (This is often spoken of as objective justification.)”

We readily agree that this first sentence is a statement which sets forth the Scriptural truth of universal redemption. We cannot say that there is anything unscriptural about it, as far as it goes. But we certainly cannot agree with the following parenthetical statement, that this sentence adequately and unequivocally covers objective justification. As a matter of fact, we cannot find the essential characteristic of objective justification mentioned at all, the fact that God “has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ” (cf. Brief Statement). “Secured and provided” do not convey the thought of an outright grant, declaring man as acquitted before the bar of God’s justice. Perhaps they can be interpreted in that light by members of the Missouri Synod. But they can just as well be interpreted by the American Lutheran Church to uphold their old position, that although God has secured and provided forgiveness of sin by the redemptive work of Christ, He does not actually justify or declare the sinner to be righteous until the first spark of faith is kindled in his heart. The ambiguity of the Common Confession’s definition of objective justification is so evident that we cannot see how it can be accepted as a final settlement of the old controversy.

"http://www.wlsessays.net/files/WendlandJustification.pdf

Note the new URLs for essays. The old links will not work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Many think that this controversy is rather new. Actually it has been going on for 100 years now. It is interesting that one has to skim through the works of UOJ defenders to mine the quotes of anti-UOJers. The above is an example.

A lot of people consider me a poor soul, someone to be pitied, someone to be sad for, why?... because I have casted my lot against UOJ. Thanks for people's sympathy.

Gonna Fly Now

2010-12-11T17:56:00.002+11:00

I interrupt our regular programming for this fantastic rendition of Gonna Fly Now - theme from Rocky, arranged by Maynard Ferguson and played as a tribute to him.

They say that Maynard may have been the greatest trumpet player of our time. I wonder if Joe would agree.

Anatomy of a politician

2010-12-09T09:24:00.005+11:00

The anatomy of a pastor-politician, that is. I am compiling a list but the ideas here are not original to me, some ideas are from the missus.

The approach is sociological, rather than theological.
Counselling is psychological rather than doctrinal.
Accomodates everyone, opposses no one.
Takes the cue from the Synod not from Scripture or the Confessions.
Theology is only incidental not intentional.
Keeps the gate of status quo.
Vague conviction.
Sits in between.
When challenged to back up his statements with Scripture he asks you if you know Greek. [BM]
Unity is based on compromise [GJ]
The Vicar of Bray [MH]

If you have something to add let me know.

Seriously, the prophetic pastor who calls you to repent and believe the Gospel is really your friend.

Embouchure, coming back

2010-12-03T14:57:00.003+11:00

Seems like. Been practicing again, and I can sense it is coming back. I left my hobby of trumpet playing when I did the doctorate, that was some 6+ years ago. Some part of life seems to be coming back. I took the hobby as a way of relaxing and having a bit of artistic engagement. So I would turn on the CD - play the minus one and belt out a tune from Duke or Chet. It was fun.

Now, I am having a bit of time for it. The missus proded to me to pick up my trumpet again.

This reminds me of my talk last month when I was in Spain attending a conference. I was sitting with a mixture of PhD students and professors all from various countries discussing the idea of doing PhD. We all concluded that one must be a little bit crazy to do this, specially if you do something in the field of mathematical logic or theoretical computing (which I did). You got to be extremely out of your marbles to attempt this. You have to be a bit odd with some loose screws to go through the process of not having a life. Because that is what you are going to experience while you are writing your thesis, you ain't got a life. You may also pass up some opportunities for good employment. That thesis becomes a ball and chain on you.

All of that said, I do feel I got some edumacation.

Why go to church?

2010-11-25T08:07:00.005+11:00

When eventually what you hear is that I am ok, you are ok, he is ok, she is ok, we are all ok...

When I was in Charismania, we loved to sing Andre Crouche's song "Christ is the Answer".

To which a quick quip comes, if Jesus is the Answer, what is the Question?

So if I hear from the pulpit that I am ok, you are ok, he is ok, she is ok, we are all ok, even your dog is ok... so what is the problem? Nothing. Everything will pan out OK.

As we say here, you'll be right, mate.

So what is the church for? The world already says to me, we'll be right mate and I hear that in the pulpit too, so church is obsolete, no?

Why we need Dr. Ichabod

2010-11-19T18:31:00.002+11:00

Dr. Ichabod is the type of author, blogger that keeps me sane in Lutherland. I am not kidding. Let me explain.

Prior to coming to Wittenberg, I was in a Lutheran list-group some 5 years ago or so, and in that list-group there was a free exchange of ideas. Some orthodox conservative, some confused, some liberal, some having denominational identity crises etc. The free flow of interaction there impressed me. I came away concluding, hmmm, these people are not cultic, they are not a bunch of fundamentalist fruit cakes, Lutherans are honest and willing to follow where evidence leads them. I am happy to be named like them. That is what I thought about Lutherans.

The presence of Dr. Ichabod says that there are brave Lutherans out there who are willing to follow where ever the evidence (as per God's Word) leads them. Because if I look at Internet Lutherland, minus Ichabod, I will come away getting the impression that this is some exclusive club of pastors that feather their own nest, not perhaps in terms of money, but in terms of influence, i.e. a clique and thus a cult. The mark of a cult is that dissenters are eliminated, they are marked and avoided. Also, if blogdom is an indication, I will get the impression that Lutherans are mindless-herd-following people, they got no one who checks where the herd is going.

You might disagree with Dr. Ichabod, but it will do you good to read him, even if his style does not conform to yours. Onion skinned folk need to thicken a bit when they wonder off his blog, for he pulls no punches. In the end, your friend is the one who loves you in truth, rather than the one who loves your feelings. In fact, if you do not like him, the more you should read him. If you are from a different school, you should read him for proper scholarship demands that you read your critics, he could be giving you good service if by listening you adjusted what he found what is weak about you.

Let me suggest something, do not start with his posts, start with his sermons first. First you got to see the guy's pastoral nature, then you can read the posts. When you do, you will get a proper context of why his style is that way. This is the problem with people I know who criticize Dr. Ichabod to me. They read the posts but never bothered to read or listen to his Sunday videoed Divine Services.

Lastly, though the Synodical pastors do not like him, for people like me who come from outside the family, a refugee who has seen quite a bit, it is Ichabod who gives a good name to Lutheranism to me. For there are lots of Lutheran pastors out there receiving accolades, yet they do not behave like Luther, far from him, who was willing to stand alone. So I wonder why they call themselves Lutherans when they appear to be scared.

Just sayin...

Re-hearing Law and Gospel

2010-11-11T09:27:00.002+11:00

The BoC says these two - Law and Gospel are to be urged upon Christians. Just been thinking about this in my quiet moments.

It is so right for me to hear this again and again. I just noticed that if I don't, I could wind up thinking that my sin is much greater than the sacrifice of Jesus that paid for it, and this is wrong.

Our souls do hunger to hear again and again, the good news, the beautiful true story of Jesus and his love.

Knuth another Lutheran Scientist/Mathematician

2010-11-06T15:38:00.005+11:00

I thought I would be slowing down but I got so inspired by this talk of Donald Knuth at Google, that I must blog about it. May more mathematicians and scientist, come out of the "closet" and declare themselves, yes I am a believer in Christ and yes I am a Scientist.... He is neutral at the moment on creationism but he also doubts evolution. Overall there are still items of his faith understanding that needs more robustness and needs more development. Frankly, it will be quite remarkable to find a Scientist of today that has the stability and solidity of faith in the confessional sense so I am cutting him some slack. They walk on shoes that have a pebbles embedded inside.

Interpreting the Lamb

2010-11-03T12:39:00.002+11:00

Blogging will be slow and sparse and will be like that for some days to come. I am busy with lots of writing projects and courseware development. So dear friends, I hope you excuse the gaps in between posts.

So I was sitting in my hotel in Valencia, Spain when I started on re-reading the Gospel of St. John. I do not know how many times I have done the rounds on my New Testament but counting does not matter anymore. So I get to this passage...John 1:29

²⁹ The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

I have encountered people interpreting the highlighted phrase to mean that sin is no more, i.e., to mean that Jesus' death has done away the presence of sin in every individual of the world.

Now, is this what the passage means? Interesting that those Bibles that have cross-referencing points to Hebrews 10: 4 for this... ⁴ For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Again, in 1 John 3: 5 we have this: ⁵And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. In context this points to the ritual of the Atonement. What the lamb or goat receives is the sin of the world and in its body receives also the punishment for the sins of the world, that is why it dies or is killed.

If sin is no more, why do I still see it in my life and in the life of others? Rather, the punishment for it has been done and received in Jesus' body as the recipient of God's Holy Wrath. The taking away is the punishment for our sins. It is not the elimination of its presence; for why would I need to confess during the absolution each Sunday if I did not I realize it in my life?

1 John 1:8; If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us . Clearly this Scripture verse is against those who say that by virtue of Jesus' death sin is no more. Indeed at Jesus' return we will no longer see the presence of sin but until then, John the Baptist's testimony should be interpreted to mean that Jesus takes the punishment meant for the world due to its sins. Those who do reject the offering of Christ have their sins without cover and the wrath of God on it still remains.

Faith fallacies of mega proportions

2010-10-19T15:21:00.003+11:00

Faith always gets denigrated now a days. Either you hear how it is cr*p, or if not that, you hear it misrepresented and maligned. Sometimes when I hear people speak about it, I get the impression they hate it. Yeah, they hate something Jesus marveled at and commended in people's lives.

I often hear the following fallacies on saving faith:

1.) In order to believe in something, that something must already have occurred else faith has nothing to cling to.

Have you heard of this reasoning? I hear this all the time. This is a rationalistic view of how faith is depicted in the Bible and it is so erroneous. In the Bible, such as the case of Abraham, people believed in what God says not because God has already brought it about but because of who God is, the only person worthy of our trust. Biblical proof of this in Hebrews 11 where men of faith looked at the promises of God that went beyond their time with respect to fruition.

For example, if I say to you, I shall meet you tomorrow at such a time and place, has that event - that is me, being there, already occurred in order for you to believe or turn up? No. I tell you, the basis of your belief in me is based on what kind of character I am. The basis of you believing my words is backed up by my reputation of being reliable. Now transfer that idea to God.

Abraham, believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Abraham believed in many future promises that God gave to him. There is something non-trivial about this phenomenon of believing God, that is why when one does believe, it is always a miracle - a work of God. For faith in God's promises is not something you can easily come by.

2. Another fallacy is - well, do you believe ENOUGH?

This is a red herring. It is like asking your maths teacher to tell you the four sides of a circle. How much faith do I have to believe that Jesus died for me? Can I believe more and enough that Jesus died for my sins? This question which is asked, by surprise, surprise - fellow Christians, denies what Jesus taught about faith as big as the mustard seed. The question only arises if there is a doubt that Jesus did not die for you but the Bible says he did so how much do you have to believe this? This question is not even valid to ask. For the question is not about believing enough, the question is - did he or did he not die for you? The answer has only two possibilities, yes or no.

I am finding it hard to be nice with such people who throw these fallacies around.

Guess who falls for this fallacy? They are people like me who came from Evangelia or Charismania. Having been burnt to dust by the preaching of the Law they throw the baby with the bath water and hang on to the words of Walther and Pieper rather than the words of Scripture and the Confessions. They become another pawn of the cult called repeat-after-me.

New Verb

2010-10-13T21:43:00.003+11:00

New words are coming up ... here is one found at Luther Rocks, who has been rocking the boat lately. Go to Joe's blog here. Then at Dr. Ichabod's too found here. The word is about the art of deleting comments which was demonstrated by a commenter here at Extra Nos a few months ago.

JBFA in Luther's Rose

2010-10-05T14:30:00.006+11:00

I was in my son's church the other day and I took a tract produced by my synod that explain's Luther's rose. The tract was the explanation of Luther about his seal.

I was amazed at the words of Luther (note for Lutherans: that means how un-UOJ the words are). My admiration for his Biblicism and dogged understanding of justification rose another level. To use Wesley's words - it strangely warms my heart.

Here are the words which he penned and addressed to Lazarus Spengler:

Grace and peace from the Lord. As you desire to know whether my painted seal, which you sent to me, has hit the mark, I shall answer most amiably and tell you my original thoughts and reason about why my seal is a symbol of my theology. The first should be a black cross in a heart, which retains its natural color, so that I myself would be reminded that faith in the Crucified saves us. "For one who believes from the heart will be justified" (Rom. 10:10^[2]). Although it is indeed a black cross, which mortifies and which should also cause pain, it leaves the heart in its natural color. It does not corrupt nature, that is, it does not kill but keeps alive. "The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17^[3]) but by faith in the crucified. Such a heart should stand in the middle of a white rose, to show that faith gives joy, comfort, and peace. In other words, it places the believer into a white, joyous rose, for this faith does not give peace and joy like the world gives (John 14:27^[4]). That is why the rose should be white and not red, for white is the color of the spirits and the angels (cf. Matt. 28:3^[5]; John 20:12^[6]). Such a rose should stand in a sky-blue field, symbolizing that such joy in spirit and faith is a beginning of the heavenly future joy, which begins already, but is grasped in hope, not yet revealed. And around this field is a golden ring, symbolizing that such blessedness in Heaven lasts forever and has no end. Such blessedness is exquisite, beyond all joy and goods, just as gold is the most valuable, most precious and best metal.This is my compendium theologiae [summary of theology]. I have wanted to show it to you in good friendship, hoping for your appreciation. May Christ, our beloved Lord, be with your spirit until the life hereafter. Amen. ^[7]^[1]

Dr. Luther, I do appreciate it my friend, the emphasis are mine.

Goedel's Theorems and Christian Philosophy

2010-09-30T09:56:00.002+10:00

What Einstein did for Physics, Godel did for Mathematics. However, what the latter did in his proofs has more application in philosophy, and specially Christian Philosophy.

One of Godel's Theorem which affect arithmetic is that (in lay man's terms) there are things that are true, or there are statements that are true but there is no proof of it. There are true statements in a system that have no proofs in that system. So how does it apply to Christianity?

Well this applies to the idea of God. Think about it for the moment. That means faith in God is plausible, to say the least. In fact, Godel had a mathematical proof for the existence of God but it only got published posthumously. He knew he would be persecuted if he came out of the closet as a Christian believer (incidentally his biographers say he was Lutheran). He knew other issues would cloud his mathematical involvement and he would be carried out to other debates had he made noises.

At any rate, one of the things that came around his theorems is the matter of consistency.

Many people think that if a system of belief is consistent, that means it is true! Not so in mathematics. So when I hear Islamic apologists criticize the Bible for alleged inconsistencies and they claim that the Qu'ran has not got them, who are they trying to impress? One does not have to have divine intervention to have a system that is consistent. Mathematicians are doing that for centuries now. I think the Calvinists should listen to this too. Consistency does not imply truth necessarily. However, truth implies consistency.

Hence, I dare say, the Word of God is true and therefore consistent. Jesus says so. Think about that once again.

Then there is also the RC apologists who is able to prove many things from Catholic dogma, as if this is a tower of strength. This is false notion too. For in mathematics, if your system is able to prove any statement under the sun, something is wrong, it is inconsistent. For a system to be consistent, there must be statements it cannot prove or pry on. The sophist motto is ex falso quod libet. From a contradiction prove anything. If you are operating on this mode, watch out your system of belief has a contradiction and that will compound more confusion.

Concordian thinking, at times, pleads ignorance, which is a good thing and a correct thing to do. Go only so far as Scripture. Because, fools rush in where angels fear to thread.

On the other hand, if we plead ignorance in all things, well... I think this not Christian either.

Houston, I have a problem

2010-09-20T10:04:00.003+10:00

I have a problem. The Law is not being preached.... at all.

1. The Law is not being preached as if I can do it (wrongly).
2. The Law is not being preached so as to condemnsme (rightly).

Hence, it is not even preached a.) wrongly, or b.) rightly at all.

That is a problem.

If you do not see I problem with that, I certainly do, because there is nothing for Christ to die for.

From BoC, SD V.

15]
And the Apology says: To a true and salutary repentance the preaching of the Law
alone is not sufficient, but the Gospel should be added thereto. Therefore the
two doctrines belong together, and should also be urged by the side of each
other, but in a definite order and with a proper distinction; and the
Antinomians or assailants of the Law are justly condemned, who abolish the
preaching of the Law from the Church, and wish sins to be reproved, and
repentance and sorrow to be taught, not from the Law, but from the Gospel.

I am skeptical of Walther's thesis when he says in (p. 25) Treasury of CF W Walther, Vol. III that the Gospel should predominate in the preaching. Some pastors, because they are Walther fans, implement this to the point that the Law is subtly heard or not even heard at all, or hurriedly hushed away. But what do you expect? That is what you get as an effect of UOJ.

I disagree with Walther, for the BoC says the Law and Gospel should be urged side by side, hence equally.

Hawking is obsolete

2010-09-17T10:02:00.003+10:00

Read a commentary here.

Hawking may be an insightful physicist but he is poor at philosophy. So where did M-theory come from? Where did gravity come from? It is the thing that prevents the physics of the big and the physics of the small from integrating.

Just this morning, I opened my Bible and read the words of Jesus. I put down my Bible with the thought of praising Christ, I could not desribe what I experienced inside me, perhaps the best word to describe it is Life (His words). So I thought of praising Him for what I received, in my internal prayer, I felt no words could describe the gratitude in heart that I wanted to express to him. His spiritual blessings and the praise due to Him are beyond human words.

I like what one guy said, how could Jesus be dead, I just spoke to him this morning.

Pop Cohab

2010-09-13T10:50:00.003+10:00

Cohabitation that is. It seems that this stuff is not only practiced by young people, it is true for old people too. In where I am, it seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Where I am, I am made to feel embarrassed that I asked something personal, like - "Oh, is this your spouse"? "Are you married, have children"? How could I be so narrow to even use the word "married"?

When I was growing up, cohabiting was an exception rather than the rule. Today, in the place where I was born, it is becoming to be in vogue, I see and observe how they think, I got cable connection to Manila. Now where I am living, it is the way things are, it is the rule rather than the exception.

Has this really made things better? Today young people involve in it are more insecure and find less meaning in life, they were taught to make common what is supposed to be sacred. So is it any wonder they are messed up in their minds? Perhaps they even got this from their cohabiting parents too.

What prompted this in my thinking? I was going through my devotions daily reading again for the nth time Epistle to the Hebrews...Heb 13:4. Try not to clobber me with the Pharisee card, it is not about that...and I will try not to call you an anti-nomian...

⁴ Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Updated:

Imagine if you are a pastor and you have cohabiting folks in your congregation and everyone in the membership knows about this. Would it not be so tempting for the pastor to say nothing, since, these people might go away and attendance will drop, and possibly the giving will drop too? It is a hard choice, and I pray those who want to be true to God's word might call them to repent.

Often times we know what we must do, we just lack the courage to do it.

Ambrosiaster Quote

2010-09-06T10:28:00.002+10:00

For some reason, I picked up my copy of volume NT VI (Romans), of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, edited by Gerald Bray. Here is what Ambrosiaster said about

Romans 5:18...
¹⁸ Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Some people think that because the condemnation was universal, the acquittal will also be universal. But this is not so, because not everyone believes. Commentary on Paul's Epistles

Actually, some believe that the acquittal has already happened and was universal.

So far I have not come across any one suggesting this Church Father was a heretic.

My other blog

2010-09-01T18:56:00.002+10:00

http://unpocologico.wordpress.com/

The above is my other blog I started a few weeks ago. It is my logic blog. I had to switch to Wordpress in this case because it supports math symbols very easily.

Thank you Jesus, my Lord, for letting me enjoy a few things you have given to us your people, to preoccupy ourselves, until you return or you take us home, whichever comes first.

Luke 19:13.

Luther on Works

2010-08-29T20:52:00.003+10:00

Paul Althaus is considered to be the authoritative Luther scholar around. I got the following Luther quotes from his book The Theology of Martin Luther. Listen to what Luther says about the role of works...

True faith is not idle. We can therefore, ascertain and recognize those who have true faith from the effect or from what follows. WA 39I, 114; LW 34, 183

Works are a certain sign, like a seal on a letter, which makes me certain that my faith is genuine. As a result if I examine my heart and find that my works are done in love, then I am certain that my faith is genuine. WA 10III,225.

Love is evidence of faith and gives us firm and certain confidence in the mercy of God; thus we are commended to make our calling certain by good works (II Peter 1:10). WA 39II,248.

Works assure us and bear witness before men and the brethren and even before our own selves that we truly believe and that we are sons of God in hope and heirs of eternal life. WA 39I, 293.

I went to Althaus' book after I listened to some pastor being interviewed. Clearly, according to Althaus, Luther considered the certainty of salvation as partially dependent on this new obedience. It is sad when Lutheranism is portrayed by its own adherents as if it was antinomian. Luther, the name from which the denomination got its name, was none of that.

What Theologians can learn from Computer Scientists

2010-08-23T08:46:00.002+10:00

I am a multi-lingual individual, I speak C++, Java, SQL, Perl, TCL, PHP, Scheme etc. ( all programming languages, LOL).

In programming languages, they have a concept called "reserved words". When you program, the programming language (any one of them!) allows you to name your own variables, constants, class names and function names. You are allowed to go for it! However there is a caveat, you are not allowed to use the programming language's reserved words. These words are solely for the use of the programming language because its semantics is locked in. You are not allowed to use these reserved words for your naming of variables, constants, class names and function names.

For example, in Java, if you say this...

int return;

Java will trap you and won't move further in its analysis of your code (hence, we say it won't compile). The reason is that you have used the reserved word return to name your integer variable. That word is reserved for Java. You did something illegal.

I think the Bible does the same. Right now I can identify a couple of words that are "reserved words" by Scripture. One of them is "justification" and the other is "predestination".

The Bible exclusively uses these words in reference to believers in the Gospel of Christ only. It does not use it any other way.

If you can identify some more, let me know.

Theology of Pronouns

2010-08-14T11:09:00.003+10:00

I am just thinking out loud. I just noticed something.

Scripture uses pronouns such as "we", "us", "our". Getting this wrong spells the universe of difference and can slide you down to errors of mega proportion.

1. Type I error: When Scripture uses "we/us/our" to refer to human beings collectively, but one interprets it as a reference to believers. With this error, no one could ever be a believer and the Scripture can never be availed of for comfort.

2. Type II error: When Scripture uses "we/us/our" to refer to believers, but one interprets it as a reference to human beings collectively. With this error, everyone is a believer and whatever Scripture says, nothing matters, since every one is a child of God hence, comforts the one in their sins.

In my study, Old Lutheran JBFA (repeat I mean BoC JBFA teaching), gets the above correctly and delineates between the two ways Scripture uses the above pronouns. I may be called biased but honestly, the BoC is a respectable document. I would prefer to read it second to the Scripture and I even prefer to read it rather than the works of Synodical Fathers. One should stop circling the wagons.

My Turn

2010-08-11T08:14:00.003+10:00

It is my turn to do a public seminar. No, it is not formally a public lecture which Australian universities, following the British tradition, constantly offer and I enjoy attending.

I am to give a small talk about my proposal for the use of a particular technique in the field of agent technology for people researching in AI and Agents. Though this is a seminar addressed to the academics in the that field, in Australia, it also functions like a public seminar. It is free for people to attend if they are interested. It does not matter what their background might be, it is offered free to any who might just fancy to listen. At the end of the talk, it is customary for the presenter to give 15 minutes for question and answers and this is where things get interesting. Since it is a type of public gathering, you would not know where the questions would be coming from and so I expect to be taken to the barn for a bit of whipping, i.e. my ideas will be challenged and put to the test in a cordial and gentlemanly manner. In this process, either my ideas or the questioner's ideas get taken seriously or simply dismissed as the prating of a fool.

It is not for the sensitive and the big ego.

Some of my blog readers (who formerly got me in their blog roll now no more) do not understand why I do not consciously moderate the blog. It is because it is in that spirit of public lecture that this blog is being run.

What Theologians can learn from Mathematicians

2010-08-04T18:32:00.003+10:00

Theologians of the systematic kind (you know who) love to do deductions. The problem is that in their business of deduction, they have hidden axioms which may not be axioms at all.

Mathematicians on the other hand are not legally allowed to make deductions if the step does not conform to a deduction rule or is not supported by an axiom. So what are axioms? They are propositions that are self evidently true. For example in human logic, P v ~P (P or Not P) is an axiom (now to mess up your mind a bit, there is one logic system where this is not an axiom, think about the implication of that for a moment). This is evidently true, right? It is obvious a thing cannot be white and not white at the same time, etc.

Good Systematic Theologians stay with their axioms and proper exegesis. The axioms in systematic theology are gathered or sourced from Scripture. This is why I find it astounding when a systematic theologian does not do exegesis first, but rather wants me to go by rapid conceptualizations and make deductions from there. Statements in Scripture are axioms because God defines them to be God's Word and God's Word is true.

From what I have seen good Lutheran theologians stick close to their axioms(Scripture), and those who don't, ergo, are bad. For example, the BoC refuses to conclude there is double predestination though it affirms that God predestines believers. Logically the BoC may be thought of as strange in this regard. However, the BoC refuses to go the deductive route of asserting double predestination because the word "predestine" is only found in reference to believers and never in connection with un-believers. Hence, they are staying close to the statements of Scripture, their axioms. It just sound and responsible scholarship to be that way.

Needing philanthropic help

2010-07-28T18:29:00.004+10:00

My research paper got accepted in an international conference to be held this October 2010 in Valencia, Spain. The conference is about Knowledge Engineering and about Ontologies in computer science. Unfortunately since I am now out of my university, there is no travel money for me. Besides, my faculty is hard up with cash. Having only 1.5 days of work does not help me much so I am looking for some generous patron who might support and give me a travel grant. I have a handful of philanthropic groups to approach but I need more, so should you have some ideas, I would be grateful if you pass them on to me.

Lastly, I am surprised that the book Concordia The Lutheran Confessions: A readers edition of the BoC released by CPH has been challenged and LC-MS is revoking its doctrinal review certificate. I am not sure what this means. Does it mean we can get our money back? I got my worn out Tappert version, this red BoC has served me well.

[update]

I read it first at Ichabod and the LC-MS article is found here. Apparently this is not news anymore. However this is news to me because when I got mine from a stockist in 2008, they still sent me the 2005 edition that did not contain the corrections.

BTW, if you know of some philanthropists, I would appreciate your letting me know of them. We do not have a lot here.

Apol. XII, 60

2010-07-22T08:09:00.003+10:00

My pastor gave me a little booklet called Before God and The World, Selections From the Confessional Writings of the Lutheran Church, Elvin W. Janetzki. It is a nice collection of BoC paragraphs arranged topically. For example, on the topic of God as Creator you will find all paragraphs related to that topic.

As my favorite is Justification and so I went there and I read Apol XII:

60] When the adversaries speak of faith, and say that it precedes repentance, they understand by faith, not that which justifies, but that which, in a general way, believes that God exists, that punishments have been threatened to the wicked [that there is a hell], etc. In addition to this faith we require that each one believe that his sins are remitted to him. Concerning this special faith we are disputing, and we oppose it to the opinion which bids us trust not in the promise of Christ, but in the opus operatum of contrition, confession, and satisfactions, etc. This faith follows terrors in such a manner as to overcome them, and render the conscience pacified. To this faith we ascribe justification and regeneration, inasmuch as it frees from terrors, and brings forth in the heart not only peace and joy, but also a new life. We maintain [with the help of God we shall defend to eternity and against all the gates of hell] that this faith is truly necessary for the remission of sins, and accordingly place it among the parts of repentance. Nor does the Church of Christ believe otherwise, although our adversaries [like mad dogs] contradict us.

I got to the bolded words and I got reminded of what Pieper said...

"I would eliminate faith as a requirement that makes justification true. That would be making faith a work of mine." Franz August Otto Pieper, A Final Word, http://www.franzpieper.com/

I am confused. I do not know about you, but Pieper has a lot of explaining to do.

Interview

2010-07-15T12:39:00.002+10:00

Today I was on the phone answering a phone survey. It was a long interview about my opinion on what is happening in the country and the world. Not often do I get interviewed. However, some of the questions were already loaded. For example, one question was "what is the reason why we are experiencing these great upheavals in our weather". The question already presumes this to be a fact.

Most of the question had something to do with government policies on the environment and on taxes. I understand market survey companies chuck in other questions along the way that solicit information for their other clients, in this case I think it was from the mining and petroleum industry.

I was happy to be solicited for information.

Speaking of interviews, I wonder if people like me would ever get interviewed by Issues Etc.

With my position on certain issues? Not a chance. What do you think? LOL.

Sermonating

2010-07-13T09:31:00.006+10:00

Prior to being Lutheran, I was in a state of confessional confusion and confessional dearth. While I was in this state of confessional wilderness I worshiped in a Presbyterian Church, faithful to the Westminster Confession though I myself could not get myself to sign on it. BTW, I listen to these so called Confessional Lutherans in the blog world talk about Calvinism and they do not know what they are talking about. Mainly because they are repeat-after-me-sem-prof pastors they are not trained to think independently or question what is being taught them. They do not even go check the sources.

At any rate in that Presby church, the pastor is a fine preacher. He does exposition of the text, very well done I might add. Lots of it, more than 20 minutes of exposition. Unfortunately, you are left with Law.

Now I listen to these so called Confessional Lutheran 8 minute sermons, you do get often Law and Gospel, but they do not have a text! They often do not refer you to the text they are preaching from, hence, no exposition. Well of course, if the pastor believes (wrongly) all ARE already SAVED, they just have not believed it yet, what is there to say? He winds up saying - "hey people you are already saved, what are you hanging around here for? Go home! Peace be with ya!"

So-called Confessional Lutherans actually do not like the style of Luther. Luther preached long and tons and tons of Scripture and exposition I might add. Just look at the Large Catechism, it was an entire series of sermons. I think this is the problem, they like to learn sermonizing not from Luther but from some cutesie homiletics theory. It really boils down to not believing the Word will do its job. They want quick and easy results. No wonder, Lutherans are looking no more in their own church. Those who are afraid to leave just suffer and become just like a boat tossed, they are still in the cage but they are malnourished and wobbly.

Theological Fallacy II

2010-07-06T09:41:00.005+10:00

[Updated]
Dedicated to my USA readers who just celebrated their 4th of July.

There is a common notion that in order to believe in something, that something must exists a priori. Although in human interaction and in some cases this is true, it is not true in all cases. Another corollary to this is that in order for a promise to be true, the content of that promise must, a priori, already be a reality. To make it more concrete, UOJers teach that in order to believe you are justified you must believe that your justification has already occurred. Otherwise, so the reasoning goes, faith has nothing to grab a hold on. Take a look at this example comment by Dr. Kilcrease here, the emphasis is mine for your attention.

So, to speak the gospel, you must make a promissory statement and a promissory statement presupposes a reality that's already present. If it's faith that does the justifying and not the reception of justification, then we're not speaking the word of the gospel as a promise-since faith must trust in an already existing reality that is completely fulfilled

I suggest that this type of reasoning or assumption is flawed. It misses the nature of faith and has misunderstood the nature of a promise. This is also reasoning not Biblically but philosophically. Philosophy, let us face it, is often based on observation not revelation.

Let me give an example. If I say to you I will be there in our meeting tomorrow and I will be on time, does that mean tomorrow has already come so that you can believe me - my words and actions? The answer of course is "no". What does it take for you to believe me? I suggest what you need from me so you can believe my words is my character. Am I a person who is known for integrity, is my word my bond? Isn't that what you need from me to believe that what I say, I will do? You do not require the existence of tomorrow, a priori, to believe me, right? Now transfer that notion of character to God who does not lie. We can then see why faith is precious to God.

Furthermore, the notion that in order for faith to grab a hold on something, that something must already exists, does not take faith as a gift. It does not take faith as an entire creation from nothing to something. This "a priori existence thinking" makes faith like it is just a matter of rearranging the furnitures in a room. The furnitures are already there but they are just not in the right places. Scripture does not speak of saving faith in this manner. Rather it speaks of faith as a creation through the Means of Grace i.e., the preaching or proclamation of the Gospel Romans 1:16-17. Faith is creation ex nihilo just like God created the Universe. The Gospel in the BOC is designated an offer. Namely AP XII, v.29

And this contrition takes place in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God, because the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, to convict of sin, and to offer for Christ's sake the remission of sins and righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that as regenerate men we should do good works.

As a counter example of why I believe the "a priori existence" notion is false, I give Hebrews 11:

¹³ These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. To believe in the promises of God, that is to see them afar of and yet be assured of them and embrace them is to have a faith whose author is not man but Christ, the author and finisher of faith.

Discussing Justification is always a good thing for in the discussion we get a clearer understanding of where faith is anchored, where it should rest.

Dr. Jackson says it well when he says

Wondering out loud is not permitted in the synods. I believe doctrinal friction is a positive factor in creating doctrinal clarity - as evidenced in the Formula of Concord.

Justification by faith, like subnet masking, is learned rather than taught. Going over every issue is essential in sorting out the Biblical truths.

Discombobulation.

2010-06-30T08:55:00.005+10:00

LutherRocks taught me a new word - discombobulation, a fantastic word to describe what is happening. I repeat his comments in one of the posts he mad here and which was featured by Dr. Ichabod due to my lack of time. I thank Joe for making the arguments for us more concrete. I inserted my comments in red.

Lito,

You make a great testimony regarding this that is hard to argue against.

Before I ran across Ichabod almost two years ago I never heard of UOJ. As I have studied this it doesn't serve scripture well by interchanging justification with atonement[absolutely]. And the more UOJ is defended, the more discombobulated it gets and I don't believe this is good for the body of Christ. (For example the WELS pastor Buchholz' paper) The Gospel is simple as Jesus meant it to be; so simple a child like faith is saving faith. Now if you understand when a proponent of UOJ speaks of UOJ he means the atonement I can live with that as long as that's what he means; although it is not prudent use of the English language[correct, it is because it is not accurate to do so anyway]. To me, and it always has been, Christ died for the sins of the world and makes it possible for salvation but this is only received through faith[correct, in fact in the BoC it is called an "offer"]; hence cometh justification, righteousness and sanctification. I cringe when I read point #1 under Justification in 'This We Believe' in the WELS[not just WELS but the other US synods too. In fact we have one small synod here outside of LCAust who has similar statements].

"1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18).

To me what is said contradicts scripture as the passage says at the end of the point...yes it is one act of righteousness and it is justification but it says it brings life; it makes it available; it does not justify before faith. It has become my opinion that the way WELS[not just them but those who propound it in general] uses Romans 5 it is taking it out of context. In the very first verse of Romans 5 Paul says therefore since we have been justified by faith so it is already in context. He is talking to believers already[correct, and when you get to Romans 5:18 etc, that is already in view]. I think it would go far to throw out this term 'UOJ' and do some re-writes[agree, as you say, it does not promote health in the body of Christ].

Now does all this UOJ contribute towards CGM? I don't know[in the sense that the Means of Grace, the pure Word of God is not taken seriously as a way to bring unbelievers, then it does]. I suppose that is fodder for another blog post. I do know that we constantly fight against our sinful flesh and the enthusiasm that we can partake in our own salvation and that of others. This is most certainly not true.

Peace,
Joe

You'd better be good to me, I could give you a job

2010-06-23T21:17:00.003+10:00

Life is so fantastic. Everyday I get tons of email of these lovely people who wanted to give me money and make me a millionaire. I am counting, if I really pursued their kind gesture, I should out do Bill Gates' billions by now. The only thing that kept me from being a millionaire is that lots of money is not everything for me. Geeks are very poor when it comes to this sort of thing like money.

Look at the number of church programs I could have helped if only I accepted the many millions of dollars people wanted to share with me. I mean, some people have these monies being left behind by their loved ones hidden somewhere and these families are more than happy for me to have their inheritance. What did I do to deserve all of this love?

Other times a lottery group would say they picked my ticket. That really puzzled me because I do not buy lotto tickets. Take this organization here who wrote to me...

Re: Notification of your payment new arrangements.

This is to inform you that the officials have scheduled your payment of US$1.5Million through Western Union Money Transfer. This method of payment had been

designed by the officials to avert fraud perpetration or stoppage of your funds anymore.

So you should be advice to re-confirm your information below: YOUR FULL NAME, DIRECT TELEPHONE NUMBER, CURRENT ADDRESS, and CITY COUNTRY.

Also send the details to the WESTERN UNION MONEY TRANSFER OFFICE IN BENIN REPUBLIC for you to start receiving your money immediately. And you should note

that the maximum amount you will be receiving every day is ($5,000,00USD) with install mental of US$2,500.00 twice on daily basis and you will be receiving

each copy of the Western Union Money Transfer Slip with the details which that will enable you to cash your money from any western union office in your

city.

You should therefore be advice to re-confirm your information to MR PETER JODAN of western union money transfer office in Cotonou Benin republic to the

E-mail address on his contact details below:

Contact Person; MR PETER JODAN.

Western Union Money Transfer Office.

Tel; 00229 99 44 18 63

Contact Email; western_union_o@w.cn

Who knows, this might be what Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer called "abundant life" Jesus promised, no? Watdayatink?

Cotonou Benin republic? This is the first time I have heard of this nation, where in the world is that?

How do you like it?

2010-06-17T10:57:00.004+10:00

I just noticed there is a new template design. I am experimenting.

So to my friends, and to those who do not wish to be my friends, since this blog is just as much as yours so to speak, could you take a look if this is pleasing to read. Is this template easy and comfortable to read? Or does it hurt your eyes.

Let me know.

BTW, I am on the run lately, looking for proper work. I am maxed out on software engineering. I did it on and off for 20+ years I like to do something else. I really like to teach now, so have been busy looking for tenured positions, hence blogging will be slow.

LPC

Theological Fallacies I

2010-06-14T19:31:00.006+10:00

[Updated]

Now I confess, I am not a theologian by training. My training is in Maths and Philo and in Biblical Languages. However I read often and I do research. As you know Dr. Jack Kilcrease wants to engage non-UOJers on UOJ. Because of lack of time on my part I will post a series of replies mainly I offer my critique on what I see are his fallacious arguments. Please note I am directing my comments to the arguments and not the person or the persona. We are human beings we can always fall into bad or unsound arguments. I or anyone else can be taken by our own blind spots. That is why in Scripture it says in the multitude of counselors, there is safety.

I expect him to disagree with this post. Let you be the judge if my critiques are reasonable/fair or not. Let me know for my own correction too.

In the comments to me found here, Jack says

But if a sin is paid for, why is not forgiven? I would suggest that it is. I mean, if you deny that payment=forgiveness, what sort of ontological status does the payment have? To clarify: If a sin is "washed away" then how can it still be around? Did Jesus only potentially make a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, which we then activate via the means of grace?

There are a couple of fallacies here

a.) Begging the question. He assumes what must be proven by definition. If it is to be a valid it is to be grounded on Scripture but in this case he did not say what Scripture warrants this assumption, just by deduction. Hence a type of hand waving.

b.) Faulty use of deductive method. Between deduction and explicit statement of Scripture we are to go for the latter whenever possible. I believe the BoC did this in its doctrine of single predestination. The BoC refused to conclude that since there is predestination of believers to eternal life, there must be predestination of unbelievers to condemnation. Hence, it refused to go the double predestination route. Why? Because predestination in Scripture is never used in connection with an unbeliever, always when you find this word it is always connected with a believer. Also reliable conservative theologians (for example Rolland Wallace) have said that Scripture writers were very purposeful when they use a word, they were carefully chosen and never haphazardly used. This makes sense and Scripture also teaches this about itself- it complies with what Jesus said - Luke 16:17. Every WORD was breathed by God literally speaking.

c.) Faulty Assumption. Jack asks if sins are washed away how can it still be around? Attempting to do a reductio or proof by contradiction the reduction does not work. Proof by contradiction only works if you get a contradiction in the end. Yet is there a contradiction? In his mind there must be (which he assumes)! Hence for the question, to reply to this, I will do a WWJS on this i.e what would Jesus say? John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." Why would Jesus say to the pharisees they will die in their sins if Jesus will be wiping them away by atonement before they believed? Did not Jesus intend to pay for their sins in the atonement? Of course he did. But why did Jesus say this, if these pharisees are at foresight forgiven in status by his impending atonement without reference to faith as Jack enjoins, why say sins will remain? Incidentally, notice, the language, remaining of sin and wiping away sins are at logger heads as concepts. Yet Jesus said if they do not believe their sins remain! That means Jesus must have been telling us what forgiveness constitutes (my suggestion), which something Jack understands differently from Christ.

d.)Jack then says Did Jesus only potentially make a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, which we then activate via the means of grace To answer this, I offer an analogy no matter how imperfect; consider a creditor there in the US who is exacting payment from me. I owe it U$100 and I wrote a check payment and mailed it. The creditor's clerk called me and asked for my payment saying "pay us what you owe -- U$100". What if I replied, but I paid you already, I wrote a check, I paid for the stamps and mailed it, so stop hassling me. Stop hounding me, my debt is wiped off already according to Jack, payment = wiping away/ forgiveness. The clerk says "you still owe us, the check has not arrived", and I replied "you should not say I still owe you, I paid already, for payment is the same as forgiveness it is the wiping away (Dr. Kilcrease said payment = forgiveness/wiping away) the books". The clerk insists (for if I were him I would) - "you may have written us a check but unless it gets to my desk, you still owe us". What if I followed Jack's logic once more, and said "hey don't you know my debt is already wiped away, for I paid you"! The clerk (for if I were him would) says "you may have paid us but unless I hold the check in my hands, no matter what you say, the sheriff will be at your door, comprende?"! Now is the clerk within rights to continue to hound me? Was he within rights not to deduct U$100 from my account statement? Was he within rights on record to let that balance stay at U$100, even though I have paid? Of course he is within his rights! Get the picture? I hope so.

This is similar to the situation to the means of grace. The HS is the deliverer of this check and uses the means of grace to deliver the gift God has given to us, so unless the gift is received, the Law will still hound us, and hound us to death. This complies with the wrath of God in John 3 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

From the BoC (copied from Ichabod):

"These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and are eternally saved." Formula of Concord, Thorough Declaration, III. #10. Of the Righteousness of Faith before God. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 919. Tappert, p. 541. Heiser, p. 250.

"For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us. Therefore sanctifying is nothing else than bringing us to Christ to receive this good, to which we could not attain ourselves."The Large Catechism, The Creed, Article III, #38, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 689. Tappert, p. 415. Heiser, p. 194

Hence, unless the gift of atonement is received (and this is by faith in Christ) no one actually gets freed from the Law i.e. justified or forgiven. Why do I object to calling atonement as justification? It is because Scripture does not do this. If I held to UOJ terms and concepts (for concepts are carried by the term) there will be a justification/forgiveness once at Atonement (which Jack equates with Justification) and then once again at point of Faith.

Notice at Ichabod how UOJ position does a double talk which I find hard to appreciate. Jack says there...

So, yes, God in Christ did forgive the whole world as a result of the cross and the empty tomb. I will interact with him on that basis, if I enter that sphere by faith. It is how God has actualized himself in relationship to the world "in Christ." Nevertheless, realm of the law persists and therefore "God external to Christ" persists as law, hiddenness and wrath.

So B. Meyer is correct in his critique of UOJ, it does see the world as both forgiven at the same time in God's wrath! This is an absurdity and not a paradox as Jack wants us to believe. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, the Scripture says over and over. It does not say God has already forgiven the whole world. Forgiveness is reserved only for those who believe this dying for the sins of the world.

This double talk was repeated about my atheist friends... when I asked Now is that atheist down the street who is denying God confessing so, forgiven? Jack says:

The atheist is forgiven from within the sphere of God in Christ, but because of his unbelief he remains within the sphere of God external to Christ. He remains within law, wrath, and hiddenness, and consequently interacts with God not preached and therefore does not receive that forgiveness.

This IMHO double talk is blatant sophistry muddying the waters by using artificial categories of "sphere etc". Notice that Jack does not want to declare plainly that atheist forgiven, he knows full well that the atheist is not in Christ. Yet he wants to be redundant by his first sentence. Of course someone is forgiven if that person is in Christ, but the whole world is not in Christ, so how can that atheist be forgiven, the person is not in Christ! In summary, by that statement, the atheist then is forgiven in Christ but since he is not in Christ, he is not forgiven #?!?! Which is which? Am I being unfair in unpacking that answer to my atheist question? So where is the UOJ evidence or assertion here? So this is UOJ doctrine?

This is where American Synodical Lutheranism I say is different; whereas exegetes of all sorts including Lutherans/non-Lutherans and non-Americans ground justification on the atonement (hence not equal though definitely related), and whereas they view Justification to be the effect of the Atonement, American Synodical Lutheranism make atonement = justification, thereby making cause and effect the same. IMHO, this is where UOJ is peculiar than the rest of known Biblical scholarship I am aware of.

This is where I believe UOJers and non-UOJers differ. The question to decide is which one portrays the Biblical data accurately?

I am so sorry for the long post, this is what happens when I do not have much time, as you can appreciate. My personal needs made me always on the run.

LPC

Meyer on Kilcrease.

2010-06-13T22:39:00.002+10:00

Dr. Jack Kilcrease of Theologia Crucis has been trying to engage us on the subject of UOJ and is not succeeding. He thinks we are a bunch of high school kids that do not know what terminologies nor concepts mean. Arrogance? He is being ignored - the reason? He does not have any passage from Scripture where the concept may be found and examined. All that is needed to do is to demonstrate from Scripture of God forgiving people without reference to faith - to demonstrate that someone got forgiven by God be they believe in Christ or not, be this an OT or an NT passage. IMHO Dr. Francis Pieper and Pr. Jay Webber are more sensible. The two knew that to enjoin others to believe you must be able to demonstrate the teaching from Scripture. They gave the most possibly strongest Scripture to back up UOJ (though they failed), mainly citing from Romans where Justification is pointedly discussed. I honestly admire them for this.

I am featuring Meyer's reply to Jack. Incidentally, I notice that Jack replied here and I am closing it to move the thread here. I got this already ready to post so as not to waste the posting here is Meyer on Kilcrease....

Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
It is not a red herring. You ignore the context of my argument. You are reasoning from the perspective of God.
Here's the deal. For me to take your arguments seriously you need to stop appealing to specific language and start talking about conceptualities.

You've said this many times in the discussion on your blog site:
Jack said, BTW, quoting me million Bible verses and Confessional quotations will not some how overwhelm me. Defining our terms correctly and then debating actual conceptualities is a more meaningful way to respond.
One that I would highly encourage.
JUNE 9, 2010 9:45 AM

Jack, you reject God's Words in preference to what your reason deducts as concepts. You do not take God's Word for what it says but pervert it. That's why you confess:
This is why Luther says that we are already forgiven before we repent in the LC. JUNE 10, 2010 8:32 AM

Christ declared in Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

I post this here because what you have written on your blog serves as a testimony to the contradictions and sophistry of UOJ. That is of great benefit that you and many other people in the Lutheran Synods have been convinced that in order to confess Justification, as you falsely claim God does, you need to declare UOJ in it's fullest, in the glory of it's conceptualities. This will cause the clergy to stop feigning a confession of Justification by Faith Alone as the Scriptures declare and Confessions confirm but expose the false gospel for what it really is.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Rejecting Christ's righteousness as clearly declared in His own Words you've gone about to establish your own way to righteousness as He says in Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

continued...

Jack, you've claimed that Luther taught the forgiveness of sins before repentance and faith worked by the Holy Spirit, outside of and without the Word.

Note here that in the BOC under Luther's Smalcald articles Luther declares the Chief Article of Christian faith:

Note in the Smalcald articles that Luther quotes common UOJ proof passages (all have sinned and are justified freely …) and having done so immediately makes the declaration in point four that faith alone justifies us. This is all in context and shows that Luther's confession and that of the BOC is that in Christ all sins are paid for - the Atonement. That all righteousness that avails against sin is in Christ and never apart from Him. That is the result of the Atonement. That Christ is everything. We are only in Christ through faith and thus are only forgiven by God through faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the gracious gift of the Means of Grace.

Part II, Article I: The first and chief article.
1] That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.

2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.

3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f

4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.

5] Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.

Jack what you confess and UOJ teaches is condemned by the BOC here:
Part III, Article VIII. Of Confession.
3] And in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word, in order that we may [thus] be protected against the enthusiasts, i.e., spirits who boast that they have the Spirit without and before the Word, and accordingly judge Scripture or the spoken Word, and explain and stretch it at their pleasure, as Muenzer did, and many still do at the present day, who wish to be acute judges between the Spirit and the letter, and yet know not what they say or declare.

10] Therefore we ought and must constantly maintain this point, that God does not wish to deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. 11] It is the devil himself whatsoever is extolled as Spirit without the Word and Sacraments.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys

In Christ,
Brett Meyer

I listened and got bored

2010-06-08T08:11:00.007+10:00

Last weekend, we went for our favorite past time, country joy ride even though though there was rain in some parts. I thought to maybe inspire us, I powered on the car radio and I tuned into a regional Christian radio station here called Rhema FM. I got bored.

The station played as usual contemporary gospel music by local and international artists. In this station, the music rather than preaching predominates. I got tired of listening to these mushy songs. They suck.

Lets be frank, these Christian artist/musicians like to sell their CDs, no? So they cater to pop-Christian culture, what did I expect? Don't get me wrong, I have heard of good recent contemporary hymns and I would use them if I were to do worship service. However, these Christ centered, Cross focused contemporary hymns are rare. They also do not come from seeker-sensitive groups so you really have to do hard labor to smoke them out. Sound theology in contemporary hymns is like finding a needle in a hay stack.

So as I listened to these songs played by the station, I went through several emotional upheavals. First I felt numbed by these yucky Christian songs. Then I got bored. After that I got depressed. Finally, to fight back, I just listened to get entertained. It worked.

I realized I was using the radio station improperly. So now I found something I can use the radio station for, if I want to be entertained, I will tune in, then check out.

Intrepid Lutherans

2010-06-02T22:45:00.004+10:00

Over here it is not unusual to have granny flats. It is a type of bungalow where a member of the family can stay with you but not with you. Well they are sort of staying with you in that they are in the same compound but not in the same roof.

What has this to do with granny flats? Well Christians and in particular most Lutherans, treat doctrine like a grandma living in a granny flat. She is there but nobody dares to bring her into conversation. She is ignored but everyone knows she is still alive. She is just avoided. No one talks to her, no one talks about her.

I am glad that some WELS folk have decided to blog about what everyone in WELS knows but no one bothered to talk about. I congratulate the people at Intrepid Lutherans for being so bold to face up and debate issues that matter to them the most.

In a way, I see this as analogous to recognizing that grandma is out there in the granny flat, now what are we going to do about her?

Good on Intrepid Lutherans, I admire their courage. I hope they produce a lot of meaty discussions. I made it a point to read the blog daily.

The Journey Has Begun

2010-06-01T12:25:00.005+10:00

I confess I have been treating myself out lately since graduation. Being tied to my dissertation for some 6-7 years, I felt I am entitled to some rest and recreation. It took a lot out of me. One of my classmates said he just wants to turn off the brain and do nothing, trying to take it in, figuring out what it all means. I am the same.

For example, I am so amazed at Australia. Where do you find a country which encourages you to take higher degrees? Where do you find a country which not only will give to you an education, but will also pay you for doing it? That is right. Your first degree (like a Bachelor's) is covered by a type of study now and pay later plan. When you graduate and get work, that is the time you pay them back through the taxation system. There is also financial assistance like Austudy for those mature students taking their first degree. Of course if you go for a Master's degree you will have to pay but not when you go for a Doctorate. The laws may have changed but in my case as a citizen, I got a university scholarship (this is how they paid me) for 3.5 years, tax free, then on top of that, I paid no cent on my tuition fees. I do not even recall paying amenities fees unlike when I was back home. So what else did my uni do for me? They gave me a computer, an office, paid for my stationaries, gave me travel allowance for conferences, paid for my books, gave me of course free library access, free printing and internet access. Then to help me get additional income, they gave me paid tutorial work. I met a friend the other day, he does not have a scholarship since he wanted to do it part time, yet he is not charged any tuition fees for his Doctorate program (in another uni). Tell me, is this a good country or not? So I am humbled by these and I thankful to the Lord for these blessings.

By the way, just for information, mathematicians around the world are involved in what is called the "maths genealogy project". It is a type of database that tracks the educational pedigree of the mathematician, i.e. who was his/her teacher, which university graduated the person, the person's dissertation etc.

Sometimes I wonder what my new journey might look like. I am sometimes afraid that as I journey on, I might fall into the ditch of weasel talk as I have seen others fall into the hole unable to climb back up. If you do not know what I mean, let me explain it by example, consider this statement:

The set theoretical and logical definition of procedures for
assembling algebraic constructions in mathematics, and the
constructions themselves, are normally considered to reside in a
universe of discourse, which is neutral and abstract from any
computational implementation. Recent work suggests such discourse
exhibits implicit notions of computation, which are rooted in tree
based formalisms divorced from abstract denotational environments. In
particular, it is argued such discourse has a sequential nature, and
is asynchronous and recursion oriented.

Hehehehe, you got that? Right. That is clear isn't it? There you go, that is weasel talk or weasel words. What apparently sounds so sophisticated and deep is nothing but bull dust.

Moving forward (now that is a weasel term), now that I am ready to be a change agent (another weasel word), I shall now engage new challenges using emergent and transformative technologies that deliver high impact to the betterment of communities (more weasel words).

My prayer in short, may the Lord deliver me from the sin of obfuscation.

credits: Pr. Greg for post title.

Polo

2010-05-26T11:51:00.004+10:00

My friend Noel of Port Hueneme, CA wrote to me of the passing away of his great dog, Polo.

He had Polo for many years and Noel being single, had Polo looking after his apartment. The missus and I met this dog when we visited Noel in 2005. For an Australian Shepherd dog, he was quite big for his size. One thing I appreciate in Australia is that Australian dogs are smart. Polo was smart and well trained. I remember Polo holding his water until he was allowed to get out of the apartment. Luckily for Noel, he got a Labrador called Petra a year before Polo passed away.

I have not bothered having a dog since I lost my last one - P.D. in 1998. He was a kelpie-cross, a mongrel for sure, but he was smart and he would learn new tricks and commands simply by association or instinct. The kids and I remember a lot of times we had with P.D., the many times he made us laugh.

Anyway, this is to honor Polo, a faithful friend and a blessing to Noel. Polo was simply a great human being.

It is official, the journey is over, for now.

2010-05-21T10:23:00.009+10:00

It is now official. I am now a certified quack doctor, too LOL. I wrote about this project here.

They graduated me last night.

I read somewhere that anyone who specializes in pure maths must be a little loco or winds up that way. I knew there was something wrong with me when I accepter my Uni's scholarship 7 years ago.
The trip has not been easy. There were several moments when I felt very close to aborting the project. Also, I do not know why, but looks like whatever I write attracts controversy. What can I says, such is (my) life, to quote Ned Kelley.

Last year my Prof and I wrote a paper based on my research. We submitted it to 3 international conferences. All the blind reviewers rejected the paper. They did not understand it. Then we submitted it to another international conference which turned out (we did not know at that time) to have a much lower pass rate. The reviewers were a lot more stringent. Not only did they pass our paper, they even gave it the Best Paper Award.

The same happened when examiners examined my thesis. One wanted it resubmitted, the other one loved it and wanted it passed with his suggestions. This needed a third opinion, an adjudicator had to be consulted to resolve the dead lock. They got a heavy duty professor from Cornell University to re-examine the thesis. I had to write a defense. He came back passing the thesis without any modifications required. He also somewhat chided the negative examiner for his opposition and also the positive one, for his suggestions. The professor believe the thesis should have been judged on its own merits and not what people might do had they been writing the (my) thesis.

Well that is what happens in academia. Some might find your work an absolute junk or the greatest thing since slice bread.

I thank the Lord it is over and for his answering the prayers of those who prayed with and for me. Thank you to those of you who prayed.

My soul blesses the Lord.

I end with the motto of my uni : ancora imparo, I am still learning.

Does it have to be bad, because I am no good?

2010-05-19T07:17:00.003+10:00

Theologians consume words. They are the building blocks of theology. I am no theologian, I do however listen to them and I read what they write. I consider pastors to be professional theologians.

Often I hear some pastors describe the Gospel as "trumping" the Law. Now, I think I know what they are saying, they are implying that mercy triumphs over judgment. Put it this way, let us say they are possibly implying that.

However, trumping sometimes carries the notion of trashing or overriding and a layman might get the impression that the Law is a bad thing, something that must be despised, rejected. When that happens, one has become an antinomian.

Hmmm. Is something bad because it makes me feel no good? How can an evil thing condemn another evil thing?

Reading St. Paul's letters, I could not say that he ever ones hinted that the Law is bad thing. His words do not go there. Read Rom 7:7, 12.

It does not serve well if one gives the impression that since the Gospel has come, the Law must be condemned. Rather St. Paul speaks of sin that is to be condemned, not the Law. St. Paul repeatedly said that the Law is good.

For sure, I am condemned by the Law, but though it condemns me, it is a very very good thing for it makes me run to the Gospel such that Christ might shelter me, cover me with his righteousness and shield me.

So does it have to be bad, because I am no good? Nope.

Godel - yours truly, your hero

2010-05-16T14:33:00.003+10:00

The missus keeps reminding me that people with a sense of humor are smart people.

Thanks to Pr. Greg for this.

Some tips on Scholarship I

2010-05-10T10:46:00.005+10:00

I may not be an ordained minister today, but I was before. Also, I had university training, a so called graduate degree in Religious Studies where I studied the original Biblical languages - both classical and Koine NT Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Early Judaism. For my Ancient Greek training, I am proud to say I studied under this professor here.

Below are a few things I learned from my studying, not in seminary, but in a university:

You must never plagiarize, instead give credits for your quotes.
You must go to the source documents, eliminate hearsay.
You must listen/read your critics or those that have views contrary to yours.
You must practice critical thinking.
You must spot logical fallacies in yourself so as to correct them, and spot fallacies in others so as not to be lured by them.

This is just a nutshell list. If you have some suggestions to add let me know.

It is my hope that the readers find the above points something they can use in evaluating the merits of the arguments found in the posts and comments in this blog.

Using Chemnitz to help doubting Christians

2010-05-08T09:18:00.004+10:00

HT: Ichabod here.

"We must note the foundations. For we are justified by faith, not because it is so firm, robust, and perfect a virtue, but because of the object on which it lays hold, namely Christ, who is the Mediator in the promise of grace. Therefore when faith does not err in its object, but lays hold on that true object, although with a weak faith, or at least tries and wants to lay hold on Christ, then there is true faith, and it justifies. The reason for this is demonstrated in those lovely statements in Philippians 3:12: 'I apprehend, or rather I am apprehended by Christ' and Galatians 4:9: 'You have known God, or rather have been known by God.' Scripture shows a beautiful example of this in Mark 9:24: 'I believe; help my unbelief.'" Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 503. Philippians 3:12; Galatians 4:9; Mark 9:24

"Therefore God, 'who is rich in mercy' [Ephesians 2:4], has had mercy upon us and has set forth a propitiation through faith in the blood of Christ, and those who flee as suppliants to this throne of grace He absolves from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation, and by the imputation of the righteousness of His Son, which they grasp in faith, He pronounces them righteous, receives them into grace, and adjudges them to be heirs of eternal life. This is certainly the judicial meaning of the word 'justification,' in almost the same way that a guilty man who has been sentenced before the bar of justice is acquitted." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 482. Ephesians 2:4

"For we are not justified because of our faith (propter fidem), in the sense of faith being a virtue or good work on our part. Thuse we pray, as did the man in Mark 9:24: 'I believe, Lord; help my unbelief'; and with the apostles: 'Lord, increase our faith,' Luke 17:5." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 506 Mark 9:24; Luke 17:5

We need to say something.

Notice what Chemnitz is doing here. He sets forth why faith justifies. What is it about Christ that we are to trust about, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the one who is holding on to Christ as propitiator through his death at the Cross. Notice too what Chemnitz did not do that Walther and Pieper did. Chemnitz did not say - you are saved to believe (contra Walther). Nor did he say (contra Pieper) - "I would eliminate faith as a requirement that makes justification true. That would be making faith a work of mine".

None of these.

Not just a war on words

2010-05-05T11:31:00.003+10:00

Brett Meyer:

Luther's Works 33, 25.

"If I were to strangle someone's father and mother, wife and child, and try to choke him too, and then say 'Keep the peace, dear friend, we wish to love one another, the matter is not so important that we should be divided over it,' what would he say to me? This is what the fanatics do to Christ, the Lord, and God, the Father, and to mother church and the brethren with their rejection of God's Word while at the same time claiming it for themselves."

http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/drpreus.htm

Why faith gets a bum rap?

2010-04-29T10:47:00.004+10:00

I noticed that Dr. Ichabod blog about how faith becomes a four letter word here.

Yes, I wondered about this phenomenon of making faith a foul word.

I came from a Charismatic background and I know how the concept of faith has been abused in that circle. For example, faith is seen as a force. Prosperity teachers spoke of faith that way. It is like an infused stuff. Since they have been influenced heavily by Arminian Evangelicalism, Charismatics in general believe that everyone has faith, even the pagans and it is just a matter of exercising it or not. It can be turned on or off. Though my Charismatic friends may affirm it is a gift, it is not really in practice.

Take now a look at Pieper said about faith:

"I would eliminate faith as a requirement that makes justification true. That would be making faith a work of mine." Franz August Otto Pieper, A Final Word, http://www.franzpieper.com/

This is the type of overstating the case that gives faith a bad rap.

Really Dr. Pieper? What about Mk 16:16? Peiper makes a non-sequitur fallacy, aside from what Dr. Maier pointed out in his paper - a tertium non datur fallacy too.

Indeed faith is a requirement, a condition! However, it is a condition that God meets for you the sinner by creating it in you through the Word and/or Sacraments. He does not give this gift without using means. It does not drop from the sky and zaps you neither is it something inside you such that you must pedal in your own steam to generate it. Like the Gospel - faith is EXTRA NOS. From the outside it comes to you. That is the payload of the Gospel (sorry for my little unsanctified way of saying it).

So a few observations I make from say Eph 2:8-9 and Heb 12:2

It is a gift from God not internal to us.
It is not a work, you cannot work it such that you can produce it.
The author of your faith in the Gospel is Jesus
It cannot boast and if it can, then it is not the faith spoken of by the Bible.

I think what was happening during Walther's time and Pieper's time was that they have been surrounded by revivalism which uses faith like a tool and they wanted to correct this abuse. However, this wrong should have been corrected through the the Scripture of which the BoC expounds well specially on faith. It cannot be corrected by going off the other way.

Oops I criticized Dr. Pieper, a UOJ proponent. That is a no no.

One thing I notice with Pentecostal preachers and pastors. The moment you question the pastor, immediately the pastor gets offended and also his members too get offended with him and so watch out. They will no longer be your friend. You will be shunned like the plague. What can I say? Words like "immature and insecure" come to my mind.

I notice this type of behaviour is present amongst UOJ pastors too. They are quick to say that the anti-UOJers are wrong, they are quick to fly off with remarks of heresy and false doctrine etc. It is a type of bullying if you ask me. So what happens? Instead of people getting closer to the truth, having dialogue, the situation becomes a political play on people's affections.

My case in point is Dr. Maier's paper. That paper was written in a scholarly manner and I have found it to be well argued and well researched. His exegesis was not even peculiar. Yet did anyone take his thesis and work with it? Nope.

Is the Christian served well in this way? I doubt it.

Some Tips to the Calvinist Becoming Lutheran

2010-04-24T10:12:00.004+10:00

If you were like me, I was a Charismaniac Calvinistic Evangelical - who had no confession. Deep down inside I knew the problem was this - what should I confess? Because frankly, my confession at that time came from the kitchen. It did not come from the study room.

If you are one of those who walked the same path as I did, here are some tips for the trip, based on my experience.

Don't start off reading some Lutheran theologian like Walther and Pieper. Not that they do not have useful things to say, and not that one can not learn from them, but the issue for you is not what this or that theologian said. Because at the end of the day, you will not be signing your name on the books they have written. At the end of the day, you will have to sign your name to a confessional statement.

I know, I know, some give you the impression that Walther's and Pieper's books etc are part of the BoC, and they appear as if they have signed thier names on the Synodical Father's books. But let us be honest, their books are not part of the Book of Concord.

Most Calvinists who turn Lutheran almost invariably become a fan of the Synodical Fathers, they get loved and get considered to be their hero. For after all why would a Calvinist read a Lutheran theologian if in the first place, he/she did not have anything already bothering the conscience? Mind you these Fathers do have a lot to say about the perils of Calvinistic theology. They pinpoint well the ills of Calvinism. Saying they are anti-Calvinists is an under statement. So for a Calvinist who is already sad about the uncertainty brought about by that theology, reading the Fathers seems like having a liberator releasing you from the jail of mental anguish, and depression, the misery induced by uncertainty . Their reputation of being anti-Calvinists are so strong amongst (what is called - repeat-after-me) Lutherans that a Lutheran questioning these Fathers is immediately branded - guess what - a Calvinists! (I wanted to say I laugh my ___ off, but this blog is rated G).

There was a time when I was bothering more with some books other than the BoC, finally I slapped myself in the head and I said - you must go through the process. The process is the BoC first! Is the Lutheran confession Biblical? That is the question on the table. I said to myself I have no right reading this or that book if I have not answered the question about the BoC. That is why today I do not have lots of books authored by Lutheran theologians. I got delayed by the BoC. I have a few but not a lot.

So as you read and listen to say Issues Etc. never forget to take the Bible in your left hand and take the BoC on your right. Then start scrutinizing what the BoC says compared to Scripture. Spend time doing that. For my case I went to the heart of the whole thing - Justification like that found in the Apology Article IV. I would also read what the BoC says on Original Sin, Repentance, Free Will, Election etc. I cannot part with my Tappert BoC because it is heavily annotated with my notes, incidentally the red covering has turned to white, due to handling.

Why do I say go to the BoC first? Because IMHO if we do not go to the Confession, then we will be repeating the mess we found ourselves in and then all over again. It is again sailing through the high seas with a ship that has no rudder. Also when controversies explode, and they will, you will not know where to stand. You will have a pastor dictating to you and ruling over your conscience. So we are back again, in the same mess.

It is a great shame, if someone can quote what the Synodical Fathers said, but that someone does not have a clue as to what the BoC said. It is a great shame too is to endorse the BoC and not have read it. That would be terrible too.

Let me share with you what the late Reformed theologian H O J Brown said. He said that between Calvinism and Lutheranism, Calvinism has produced more heresies than Lutheranism (but who knows, it may be catching up). You can read this in his book - Heresies. Brown was impressed that when the BoC came out 8,000 pastors and thelogians signed it.

One more thing. Whereas in Calvinism, you see regional confessions, you won't find that in Lutheranism. In Calvinism you have confessions like Heidelberg, Belgic, Helvetic, Westminster, Savoy Confessions. Notice how many confessions there are? You have none of this in Lutheranism. There is no such thing. It does not matter which country you come from, if you cannot in good conscience endorse the BoC as correct exposition of Scripture - then you are not a Lutheran (at least not Confessional that is).

Lastly, where does the BoC shine? In its exposition of Justification By Faith Alone.

God bless.

Filipinas by Trio Los Panchos

2010-04-20T16:46:00.003+10:00

Continuing on with some more cultural postings. I am featuring Los Panchos.

When as a boy who wandered around Manila (in a section called Dapitan to be exact), I heard of the songs on the radio made popular by the Los Panchos. Quizas, quizas, quizas. Amapola. Sabor a mi. It was in the 60s and I was too young to understand of course the enjoyment experienced by the grown ups around me. Searching around the web, I discovered that this Mexican group (actually one is from PR), composed a song about Filipinas. Another Indio (what the Spaniards called us) blogged about it here.

This is my translation of the song which I gave to my children (I would appreciate corrections of course):

Filipinas, mi madre adorada
Filipinas, my adorable mother

Del mundo admirada, por su resplandor
Admired by the world, because of its splendor

Filipinas, mi novia encantada
Filipinas, my enchanted sweetheart

La tierra que ofrece respeto y calor
The land that offers courtesy and warmth

Filipinas, princesa de oriente
Filipinas, princess of the orient

Tú eres la estrella que orienta mi amor
You are the star that guides my love

Filipinas, la tierra de mi amor
Filipinas the land of my love

Tus hijos te adoran
Your children adore you

Te ofrecen la sangre de su corazón
They give you the blood of their heart.

Mexico y Filipinas, hermanas nacionales

2010-04-17T19:43:00.002+10:00

Only in the last year did I realize that the two countries were very very close. It was the missus who told me about this. I was shocked to hear that Filipinas and Mexico were like one country separated only by the seas. She highlighted this to me as part of her research into the effects of colonization to a country's psyche and education. I knew the Spanish soldiers that went to Filipinas were first assigned to Mexico, but I did not realize there was more to that. Our history books never spoke of this very close relationship with the Mexicans. I hope the few Filipinos who visit this blog may get to realize what their history books neglected to tell them.

As a tribute, here is Thalia, a Mexican singer, singing a Filipino song when she was in Manila - "I am here".

Muchachos, no sabía que estábamos como hermanos.

Why Piper invited Warren - Jonathan Edwards

2010-04-13T09:09:00.007+10:00

Dr. John Piper is hailed to be the popular hero of young Calvinists of today. In my days in Calvinia, I was a fan too, until I learned about Law and Gospel and I am no more. Read about my critique of his Desiring God - Hedonistic Christianity here. Read some more in here.

Piper is getting flak from his fans for inviting Rick Warren to his Desiring God conference. Look at this video, the long version here .

Why did Piper invite Warren to his conference? Because Warren has been reading Jonathan Edwards, the Revivalist of long ago, since Piper is a fan of Edwards, there you go. This shows you that when Enthusiasm becomes the common cause, people get together. This is why Calvinism does not work because it is Enthusiastic and Experiential. It is the experience that unites rather than the confession. I wrote about Edwards' famous sermon here. Sadly the most famous sermon has only Law, no Gospel.

The more I think about Calvinism, I conclude it is shaky. In fact, I think it is a big contributor to the mess and instability that present Evangelicalism finds itself in. If you think Walther and Co. is the answer, think again. It does not solve it.

Favoring KJV on Rom 3:25

2010-04-07T22:08:00.003+10:00

In the KJV of this passage, we read Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

Most modern translations do not have this reading, they leave off in his blood away from faith even though in the original Greek word order, KJV is the most accurate.

For example in the ESV, we get this whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Notice, how the ESV moved his blood closer to propitiation, technically differing from the KJV. What is the reason for this? Well, the ESV translators following others do not want the readers to put their faith in the material blood of Jesus, that red liquid part of the human body.

IMHO, the KJV is quite accurate here which brings me why I posted the picture of the late Aussie NT Scholar Dr. Leon Morris. Many years ago, I went to converse with Dr. Morris in his Donvale home, a suburb of Melbourne. I got to discuss this thing about the "blood" of Jesus with him when he agreed to be interviewed. He said to me, that whenever you read "blood" in the NT, it does not suggest per se the material blood the flows from the body. He said, each time you read it, equate it with "death". The KJV is not suggesting the material blood per se that is the object of faith, but the death of Jesus as faith's object. Hence, properly understood the KJV does a very good service of pointing the reader to the death of Jesus.

In my readings, when people speak of believing in Jesus, faith in Jesus etc., what is exactly neglected is what is it in Jesus one should believe? This is the reason why in my last interaction here, I asked what exactly is the object of faith? In Romans 3:25, the object is the death of Jesus, that his death is payment for our sins. That is the object of faith as taught by Romans 3:25.

Broome's Japanese Connection

2010-04-01T20:41:00.009+11:00

As you know I have been sharing with you my trip to North Western Australia. Many Australians do not know this but Broome, its main town, has a Japanese connection.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Japanese pearl divers where brought in to Australia to help in the pearling industry of Broome.

Some of the pearl divers died due to drowning or what the called diver's paralysis.

Some of the Japanese also died in the cyclones and their bodies are buried here in Broome's Japanese cemetery.

As you can see there is not a few of them.

The tombstones used are those of the sandstones found in Broome's beaches.

Some of the families of these Japanese pearl divers settled in Australia and have intermarried with those with Aboriginal or European heritage. So from time to time I have seen people with Asian features but are quite tanned/dark.

This cemetery is still used today by those people with Japanese ancestry. Those who have stayed behind.

I noticed that these tombstones face the setting sun, the west. Yet the Chinese cemetery near by has its tombstones face the east, the rising sun. I want to ask Augustinian Successor about this, why is that noticeable difference?

This cemetery has only 2 Japanese Christians buried here. Here is one of them and it is fairly recent at that. His grave is located at the back part of the cemetery, alone.

How I lost my (atheistic) religion

2010-03-24T09:35:00.002+11:00

My kidz [sic] have no interest in understanding or learning about the background of their parents. I mean, I hope they might have at least a passing interest in my activities, even as a fellow human being and wonder off around here.

My close friends could not believe I was once an atheist. It all happened when I was in university. Even today I still could not figure out how I winded up being accept to study at our national university, where I never paid any tuition fees. If there is one thing we really really thank the Americans for, it is that they gave us education. My university was established by them and almost all of the professors there have been trained in some American university somewhere in USA.

In my first year I was undecided if I would major in physics or mathematics or switch to engineering since my father and his brother are engineers. Since I was good in algebra, I picked on mathematics. However, in that system, you are given lots of elective subjects. So in a way, they want you to pick a major and a minor. I was becoming philosophical so I picked on philosophical subjects as my minor. It was because I was becoming sceptical about life. Life was becoming absurd and meaningless to me. This scepticism grew and I found myself being sceptical about God too, not to mention that I was reading the works of existentialist philosophers which added fuel to the fire. So I started denying God. At that time, I was in the school's philosophy club wherein there were only two kinds of people - agnostics and atheists. I was on the second group. I was like this up until in my last year.

One early morning I was waiting for my lecture so I sat outside a cafeteria where there were trees and seats. I sat under one of them. It was quiet, I remember looking on my left staring at the ground with these thoughts - "What is life? what is this for? So you are born, you grow, you go to college, get a career, get married, have children, grow old, you retire and then you die. What is up with that? What is the sense of that"?

I was also taking mathematical physics and for some reason, my prof one day decided to show us slides of the universe, the nebulas and the galaxies. They were very pretty pictures. That kinda impressed me of its beauty.

So again, one morning same scenario, seating under the trees. But this time as I waited for my class I started staring up at the trees in front of me, how they swayed with the breeze and since it was still morning, the moon was there in the background. Then these thoughts - "it can not be that these stuff just simply happened. It cannot be that they simply happened by accident of nature, it is just too suspicious to have this randomly happened. I could not believe there is no God who created these stuff".

From then I posited that there must be a God. But you know, when I said that - I became terrified, because if there is a personal God, I know for sure I do not know him and I am absolutely lost. Not knowing him is synonymous to me as being lost.

What happened to me? I guess what happened was that I became sceptical of the things I was sceptical about. I think at that point I became an honest atheist - honestly recognizing there must be God. Though I was terrified at my conclusion since I did not know who this God was, the solution for me was not to deny him so I can drown my fears of him, I felt the solution was to find him. He certainly was not the one lost, it was me instead.

So I went to the library and borrowed books about religious beliefs. I worked on reading Confucius, the Budha, and Taoism. I remember I borrowed so many books, I had stacks of them my two hands were not enough to hold them. None of these satisfied my inquiry. I can tell you why in another post. This is another story.

Here is a thought though: I would love to see Richard Dawkins debate Antony Flew.

Aussie bishops head for Rome

2010-03-18T19:06:00.004+11:00

Just an update on what is happening here. Australian bishops are taking the lead to go to Rome sweet Rome.

Here is the news from The Australian newspaper just out this morning.

The RC e-apologists must be very happy.

I should like to say "think before you convert".

No, I wasn't saying this to Anglicans. I meant this to the Lutherans who get so nervous, they are left out of the party.

Anyway, I have just thought of a technique for those RCs who want to become priests but are afraid of being celibate. Why not be an Anglican priest first, then convert. You can have your wife and the ministry too. I think that should do the trick.

Broome and Cape Leveque

2010-03-17T21:33:00.013+11:00

I am continuing to share with you my trip to the north of Western Australia, I went to Cape Leveque. You can see a more professional picture here. Google map has it here. That is the road to Cape Leveque. Dirt road all red earth. Some parts are sealed but any unsealed part is like this. Red. Also you can not go there with an ordinary vehicle. You must use a 4X4. Our guide carried with him a trailer filled with supplies and a tent. He warned us if it rained on the way back, this road is unpassable, so we would have to sleep in the bush until it gets dry. Being stranded is a possibility.

This is a view of the red cliffs from the right.

This is the view of the beach at the Cape.
Open space view of the beach.

This is on the right side of that previous picture. We were not allowed to go to this place because this is Aboriginal holy ground, a burial site where they bury their dead.

This is on top of the red cliffs.
This is my shot of the red cliffs.

Red cliffs with a bit of light exposure.
More red cliffs behind.

This is the one shot I like of the red cliffs.
Wherever you turn and watch the sunset, it is always beautiful in Northern Western Australia. God is good. I did not have to go to the theatres to get entertained.

Atheist Prophet Evangelist - Dawkins, the Fool

2010-03-15T09:32:00.006+11:00

We interrupt our regular programming to report on the latest news in this part of the world.

Dawkins is here, telling all believers to repent for believing in God.

Read about it in The Age report here.

According to the Bible, God has a certain opinion about people like Dawkins. Read about it here.

Don't get mad at me, I am just reporting what Dawkins and God are saying.

Update: Read this writer's response. Some women do have...some guts.

Broome and her beach rocks

2010-03-13T12:03:00.015+11:00

People, you should visit Australia and you should plan to see the Kimberley's. As Bob Barker used to say "Come on down". The missus has a project with the Aboriginal people of the Kimberleys and she wanted to bring me where she works. Once a month she is with them, in the desert. So a few weeks ago, I went to Broome where she stops over before she goes to Fitzroy Crossing.

Broome, is a small town north of Western Australia. The weather is quite hot and humid. I like it. You will sweat a lot.

Broome has beaches that is filled with interesting rock formation.

The above is my failed attempt to catch the camels at sundown.

You can see them in the photos here.

In one side of the town you can catch the sunset and also the sunrise.

Me and the missus.

Notice the interesting rock formation. It is quite amazing to look at. This one is a about 3 stories tall.

Another example of how the ocean has influenced the rock formations here.

This is not a very big bridge. It used to be that in Victoria, there was such a thing which was a real bridge which you could walk on. It is no longer there because it collapsed.

This one is solid rock. I could give more examples of the shots I took.

Have a look at this rock pillar. Now in this photo, yours truly happened to be a few meters in front of this rock pillar. It is about 2 stories tall.

Now what about this figure here. Now does that not remind you of something in the Middle East?

Clue. Starts with the letter "S".

Mind you, this is not a complete attraction in Broome. My eye just caught this angle. From this side, it looks like the one in Egypt.

This is the sunrise. See the colors of the sky? This is quite common in Broome. It is the colors that will captivate you. It changes as the sun rises and also as the sun goes down.

I wonder if this redness might be caused by the red earth that is so characteristic of Northern Western Australia (which by the way WA, is 1/3 of the continent).

Here is the example of the red earth I was talking about.

See how red this is? You see this all around northern WA.

BTW, this is a small plateau.

iTeach

2010-03-11T21:44:00.004+11:00

Whoever said those who can't do, teach --- must have been a guy who had no education.

I have been there and done that.

After 25+ years as a software developer/engineer I have had it. I work for myself as a consultant. The pay is good but I am now tired of programming. I mean I am really tired of it. I want to share and handover some ideas to kids out there. Teaching is a lot of fun but lots of admin work too.

I still have consulting work but I like to tone it down. I like to interact with people now, not with machines. So this semester I am teaching for two regional universities who have their presence in my city. Universities are discovering there is money to be made from foreign students. So even if they are from out of town they look for city partners which can give them access to big cities like mine, where the people are and where foreign students would rather settle. So in my classes, I kid you not, all of my students are foreigners, majority from East Asian origins.

So today I had a long day lecturing. One of my students sat in the corner. I allowed him to listen from time to time as he played with his drink bottle and some paper envelopes.

When it was time to go home the students said good bye and he passed by my desk. As he walked away - he showed me his drink bottle wrapped in envelopes. As he exited the class room, he said - "look sir, I made a bomb", then he walked off. His name is Muhammad.

Grinding my ax.

2010-03-04T19:49:00.003+11:00

I want to go back to the Walther quote I mentioned here. To repeat, C. F. W. Walther said...

C.F.W. Walther wrote in 1868: "…you often hear pastors preach, 'You are saved if you believe.' What they should be saying is, 'You are saved so that you might believe."

The quote may be found in http://www.franzpieper.com/.

My journey before coming to Wittenberg was that I considered myself a Charismaniac Calvinist (if not Calvinian) for 4 years. In those years I studied Reformed writings specially on the TULIP and I was worshiping with a wonderful group of Presbyterians near my home as I studied their confession. I was, you might say, a Christian looking for a Confession. A few things bothered me but in the end I cannot, in good conscience sign my name on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Calvinists, by enlarge, do look at faith and their fruit to find out if they are Christians. However to me the system warps itself down because the "L" in the TULIP does not guarantee that the Atonement is yours. Then also there is no means of grace, I mean concretely delivers what is promised or concretely promises something to you, I mean what God did with Abraham when he walked in between the carcasses of dead animals through a smoke etc.

I think Walther and his mates were combating the Revivalism going on around them which taught people to look at their faith. So when people say "I am saved because I believe", Walther and Co. think that people are confessing this in the Wesleyan sense. Meaning looking at their faith, made a commitment, a decision etc. I think there is a sense that this accusation is true and I wrote about this too. However, is the accusation necessarily always true?

So now, I read blogs, listen to radio programs of Lutheran persuasion and the expositors are allergic to even mentioning faith at all.

Rev. Paul McCain says I have an ax to grind in his post here. I got in to that post because Dr. Ichabod blogged about it here, so I went there and chimed in. There was a follow up reply I made but Rev. McCain won't publish it, fair enough. It is his blog.

Do I have an ax to grind or is it my conscience saying something fishy is going on and it does not seem right ? I mean, why is it a dichotomy that being a Christian and having faith (in the Gospel) must be separated? I feel disturb about this. So I return to the Walther quote for I think it is Waltherianism to have such an attitude, and I am bothered by that attitude for many reasons:

In the incident with the Philippian jailer, we see St Paul saying something differently when he was asked what must the jailer do to be saved. St Paul answered like the pastors Walther criticized, and I take it that these pastors he criticized were Lutherans too!
In the ordo salutis, or order of salvation. Amazingly, Lutherans were the first to coin the phrase! Yet, Lutherans do not have a formal position on this unlike what the Calvinists have done. Their ordo affects their evangelism, apologetics and any other philosophizing and even psychologizing of justification. Look at that Walther quote again. I find Walther being Calvinistic in that quote., because in Calvinism, salvation happens first or regneration happens first before faith comes out, faith is an off shoot of regeneration. Though Walther despised Calvinists, he was quite like them in that quote.

So below is the comment I wrote to the Rev. McCain, which he won't publish, I said:

If a person is looking to Christ as his savior, i.e., the one who paid for his sins, is this not faith?

If this is not faith, then what do you call this phenomenon?

What do you think, how will you answer my question?

Christian Life

2010-02-21T21:43:00.005+11:00

Take Up the Cross and Follow Him

Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.

--- Jesus

Jesus did not say, follow me when your life is calm and in order and all the knots have been sorted out.

I wish I have more to say but this says it all.

Not your grandpa's church

2010-02-18T20:58:00.004+11:00

You must have heard the saying: "this is not your grandfather's church".

This comment made me laugh...

...and guess what, your grandfather's church wasn't really a true Lutheran church either! It had more than a nod toward Pietistic doctrine.

---Bruce Church (no joke, I believe that is the real surname of Bruce).

Imputations, one more time

2010-02-12T18:39:00.005+11:00

The other day, I was wondering why, when I was exchanging responses with folk who claim to be Confessional, they got amazed when I spoke about two imputations. They do not believe the Scripture speaks of two imputations.

First the imputation of our sins to Christ (2 Cor 5:21), then the imputation of His righteousness to us (Rom 3:24-24; 4:21-25) . The two are not the same and they are not simultaneous nor are they equivalent. The first happened outside my space-time. The other happens in my space-time. Then I got to read this post from Brett Meyer which quotes the BoC, it was so on target and spot on. This was taken from the Solid Declarations III.

10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. 11] This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the father, and are eternally saved. 12] Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3, 28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4, 5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5, 19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5, 18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. 14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. 15]

For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life.

17] Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3, 9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Prov. 17, 15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Is. 5, 23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Rom. 8, 33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits

I highlighted some words for reflection specially the ones in red are a way of proving my point. I am at a loss as to why the Confessional guys I interchanged with in my blog a while ago found it rather odd of me speaking of these imputations. We might ask - the Word of the Gospel, how is this understood?

From the BoC, AP IV, 291-2
The Gospel shows another way. It compels us to use Christ in our justification. It teaches that through him we have access to God through faith and that we should set him, the mediator and propitiator, against the wrath of God. It teaches that by faith in Christ we received the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, and victory over the terrors of sin and death.
....
Faith alone accepts the forgiveness of sins, justifies, and regenerates...As we have already stated, we teach a man is justified when, with his conscience terrified by the preaching of penitence, he takes heart and believes that he has a gracious God for Christ's sake. This faith is accounted for righteousness before God (Rom 4:3-5)

Now look at what Walther said...found or quoted here.

C.F.W. Walther wrote in 1868: "…you often hear pastors preach, 'You are saved if you believe.' What they should be saying is, 'You are saved so that you might believe."

I thought Walther was Confessional? Huh? What is the point of faith if you are already saved? Walther seems to be saying all are saved, they just have not believed it yet. That manner of speaking is as universalistic sounding to me as anything. The Scripture speaks of all being paid for by Christ's propiation, but not all are justified/saved because not all have faith, not all are using Christ as a shield against the wrath of God, this is obvious. So I repeat what the Apology said... use our Saviour, set him against the wrath of God, against the wrath of the Law, because the wrath of the Law is still there for those who reject Christ. Outside of Christ, there is still wrath, the Scripture is not kidding. The good news is that God has provided for us his Son as the one who answers the Law for us sinners - John 3:16. So we run for safety and cover, this is the Lord Jesus.

Now have a look at what Abraham Calov said, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei ( R. Preus' Justification and Rome)?

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.

How is that different from Walther. Between Walther and Calov, I would go with Calov.

I thoroughly enjoyed SC III, I was salivating as I was reading it. Hope it has been a blessing.

Don't sing Sinatra's My Way...

2010-02-08T18:23:00.005+11:00

...if you are in Manila and you still want to see tomorrow.

The national sport of Filipinos used to be baseball, then it became basketball. Now it is karaoke.

This song can literally get you killed. I was telling my pastor a long time ago that I have heard no less than 2 guys who died after singing this song in a karaoke bar. They got shot.

My pastor led me to the news here featured at The Age. It has been going on now for some time.

No one knows if these people got killed for singing My Way, their way, or horribly off tune. Another theory is that the song evokes arrogance, and that is something Manilanios love to hate.

So there you go. Skip My Way if you decide to sing karaoke.