Saturday, November 29, 2008

Does faith create justification?

I was asked that question almost a year ago. It is fair question. I could even add a corollary question - is there a righteousness that is independent of my faith?

To the question: Does faith create justification?
My answer: No.

Is there a righteousness that is independent of my faith that is out there?
My answer: Yes.

However, to explain why my answers are such, I can not deal with these two questions separately but I must explain in such a way that the two questions are answered simultaneously; when we consider the question in the light of Christ and His Cross, the questions are simultaneously answered.

Firstly, our story or oops, his story: Jesus Christ, the Son of God lived a perfect sinless life and gave himself as a ransom for the sins of the world. The nature of this Christ is that he is the Just One and The Righteous One, the One that can stand before the Father - perfect, he is the Justified One.

Faith simply grabs a hold of what is already there - it grabs a hold of the Christ - the Righteous One who paid the sins of the sinner. This is to me why faith justifies, it justifies because it is grabbing a hold of the Justified One, the Righteous One. That is why faith is reckoned as righteousness because it is grabbing a hold of the Righteous One.

That is why, to the question - does faith create justification? My answer is NO. It receives what is already there - the Justified One/ Christ our Righteousness.

That is why also, to the question - is there a righteousness that is outside me that is independent of my faith - I answer with a YES, Jesus Christ our Lord is that ever Righteous One. He stands ever outside me that is why I (we) can use him in front of the Law of God that condemns me(us). The question is not because faith receives, for faith can receive anything, rather, the question is what does it receive? Faith lays hold of the Righteous One as his righteousness.

Do you see any discussion of UOJ there in that explanation? I certainly don't and I suggest neither do the BoC editors need such construction to assure us of God's forgiveness of our sins.

First 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)

See also SD III, 13.

Let me further quote Jacob Heerbrand (in R. Preus' Justification and Rome)

....We are not justified by faith insofar as it is a quality in us, as again the enemies of God's grace, the Neo-Pelagians, falsely accuse us of teaching, namely, that the unrighteous are justified when they have a certain idea (or rather dream) that they are righteous. No, we are justified by faith in so far as it apprehends Christ who for us was made righteousness by God, sanctification and redemption, and insofar as faith is concerned applies Christ's merit to itself.

I highlighted some portion above in that quote because I found that comment interesting and perhaps worthy of reflection.

How about Abraham Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei (again in 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.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Romans 4:25, and Dr. Emmett Brown

In keeping the comment of the missus that I am the person who likes to answer questions no one is asking, I might as well live up to it.

The discussion so far has led me to much thinking and Romans 4:25 came up in my musings.

I recall that in my doubts about UOJ, a pastor from the States pointed this passage to me as proof of UOJ.

So today I went to check the original.

First in English (thanks to

Romans 4:25

who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (ESV)

Then in NT Greek...
Romans 4:25

ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν

The pastor pointed out that at the resurrection of Christ, all human beings have been justified - meaning - treated not guilty or declared by God as righteous, irrespective of faith on our part.

To the contrary my skepticism understands the Gospel that at the Cross, Jesus paid the debt I owe. On the other hand UOJ says, God has declared people righteous independent of their faith.

Notice that there are two phrases starting off by διὰ. The first one has been translated in English "for our trespasses", the second "for our justification". The pastor said that Rom 4:25 says that when God raised Jesus from the dead he made a declaration too that all humans are now declared righteous - proof verse of UOJ.

So, OK, the crucial question to be examined in my mind then is how should that διὰ to be taken? Now both instances of this preposition have the so called accusative form. As one pastor I heard said, NT Theology is operated by prepositions (to paraphrase him). Prepositions in Greek are followed by forms to tell the reader how that phrase is to be taken. Here the context is that the accusative should be taken as a marker for time.

Commentators say that there are 2 ways of taking those phrases, either retrospective (past) or prospective(future). If retrospective, then the American pastor may have a good point. Meaning, our justification happened in the past.

There may be doubts as to how the first should be taken (for our trespasses) - hence, he was put to death on account of our past sins (retrospective), or put to death on account of our on going sins (prospective).

However, commentators like Sanday and Hedlam and C K Barrett, comment that the second is no doubt prospective - i.e. "with the view of our justification". Barrett even find the retrospective view (the pastor's view) artificial, (I think he means grasphing at the straws). Stuhlmacher also includes faith in his analysis of this phrase.

OK may be I am also biased, I was taught in uni to take this accusative of time as "with the view of". Yet the force of this accusative is not able to dissuade me from looking at that διὰ to mean "with the view" because even if you translate it as "because of" or "for the sake of our justification" etc, you can not still avoid the possibility of it being taken in the prospective, i.e. you have not ruled beyond reasonable doubt the impossibility of the prospective sense.

So to quote what Dr. Emmett Brown said to Marty in Back to The Future, it (in this case justification) happens in your space- time continuum.

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers

To the dear friends in the USA who regularly drop in and read, or lurk etc. around this humble blog, my best wishes to you today.

Have a good day catching up with family and friends.


Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Origins of UOJ

I need to bare my soul, be honest and say something on this.

Ichabod has done research on the origins of UOJ, what is known in our circles as universal objective justification. This is the teaching that everyone is being treated by God as righteous since the Cross, be they believe it or not.

Briefly, there is evidence that the concept came from the author George Christian Knapp from Halle University which happens to be the turf of pietism. This concept is contained in his book Lectures in Christian Theology 1833. Apparently this influenced the USA Synodical Conference leaders, that is, if one notes the date and timing. There are more things I could say to its contents, for example, it is advocating inward looking evidence for justfication, which is enthusiasm, but I won't go into that right now.

In section 113, p. 317, it says...

1. The Universality of this Benefit
It is universal as the atonement itself; vid. 111, II.If the atonement extends to the whole human race, justification must also be universal--i.e., all must be able to obtain the actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness on account of the atonement of Christ. But in order to obviate mistakes, some points may require explanation. Justification then is universal,

*[This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he profers pardon to all through Christ; subjective is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the latter not. Tr]

N.B. italics are not mine. Notice where the words 'objective' and 'subjective' are introduced by the translator.

At first I thought UOJ was the same as UOA (universal objective atonement) because I for one believe that the latter is the Biblical teaching, Christ died for sinners, the propitiation of the sins of the world. But UOJ says God is treating all righteous be they have faith in Christ or not, for this happened 2000 years ago.

Take at one advocate of UOJ arguing for its justification...

Franz Pieper, along with Georg Stöckhardt, Herman A. Preus, Jacob Aall Ottesen, U.V. Koren, Adolph Hoenecke and others, recognized the greatness of the doctrine as taught by C.F.W. Walther. And it started with the Lutheran doctrine of Justification- Objective and Universal!

"That’s nice" says the world, "but of course you must believe first before you can be justified. You must remember the great Lutheran tenet, ‘justification by faith.’

"No, I believe what Dr. Pieper taught- there is a justification that exists before faith, before believing it, for all. That is called the universal/objective justification.

"Well, surely you would not discount faith in the order of salvation, would you?" says the world.

I would eliminate faith as a requirement that makes justification true. That would be making faith a work of mine. The Bible teaches that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. Thereby is the teaching of faith upheld for it teaches the object of saving faith, the vicarious satisfaction worked by Christ.

Today I object (or am skeptical) with UOJ (a bit of pun) terminology. I am not so sure about this concept and taxonomy. I believe this confuses categories and has disastrous effects.

Just take a look at the Knapp quote, that is what he was doing, confusing the atonement with justification. The latter is the treating or the reckoning sinners as righteous but if we look at the term 'justification' it is always connected with faith in the Gospel, in that Atonement. You reject that Atonement/ the Gospel then you are not justified. UOJ imples a double justification - one at the Cross or Resurrection and then one when you believe, yet this leads to confusion and philosophical conundrums (why are there people in hell if they have already been declared righteous?). I see the Bible speaking of justification at the point of faith; Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, not before...Rom 4:22-25

Also theBible teaches no faith means no salvation - cf Mk 16:16. God brings the Means of Grace to us - Word and Sacrament so that we might be justified when the means of grace, creates faith in us.

Faith is a condition, but it is not a condition we meet in ourselves, rather it is a condition that God creates in us through promising the Gospel of Christ's payment of sacrifice, telling us Christ has answered for us - done, finished. We are capable of rejecting this Gospel when it is brought to us by Word or Sacrament and so we are not justified when we reject it. For this reason the BoC admonishes us to stick be/exposed to the Means of Grace - Word and Sacrament as found in the Scriptures that faith might be continually created and strengthened in our hearts.

My opinion is that UOJ leads to disastrous effects and no, it is not just a matter of semantics. I believe this is the one behind the romancing that is happening with Lutherites moving to Rome or Constantinople. I will not be surprized if those who have left have this in their psyche. For after all, if everyone is saved/justified anyway the rest is just fiddling with semantics, they all pan out to be the same in the end. It does not matter if anyone gets the categories wrong all are justified anyway (which is functional universalism).

Isn't that the reason why we have the Reformation is because of categories ? Wasn't the issue about the mixing categories - justification confused with sanctification? Same thing here, I reckon.

See what I mean?

I want to hear from you.

International Trademarking

I have been thinking.

What if the Pope applies to trademark internationally the word 'catholic' and succeeds?

Does that mean he can sue us when we recite the Apostle's Creed, since it appears in the 3rd Article?

Monday, November 24, 2008

All for Vesper

I like this version of James Bond.

He is fair dinkum. The previous ones seemed synthetic to me.

This version of 007 is vulnerable and more realistic.

Man, this guy even cries and even wears T-shirts.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Thursday, November 20, 2008

What the editor of the BoC wrote...

They say that when bank tellers are being taught to spot fake notes, they are made to spend more time analyzing the properties of the real ones. They get so familiar with the real thing that spotting irregularities in a bill becomes second nature.

Anyway as a Christian in the Reformation movement, I believe it is of prime importance that I be familiar first with the Scripture, the confession I profess (BoC), and some classic works that expound on that confession. For lack of time, I have a thin knowledge of Augustine or any well known Fathers.

I should think it would certainly be an embarassment if I were more familiar with the I-Ching rather than Scripture and the BoC. I am not a Lutheran pastor but I should think it is certainly unbecoming for a Lutheran pastor to be unfamiliar with Scripture, the BoC, and some of its classic expounders.

On the subject of the BoC purposely misleading its readers regarding the Fathers or things like that, I wish to give an excerpt from Martin Chemnitz, one of the editors of the BoC on what he said about them and the subject of justificare...

From The Examination of Council of Trent I (Section I, Article I, 4c, p. 468), this is what Chemnitz says and you be the judge...

For although the fathers mostly take the word "justify" for the renewal, by which the works of righteousness are wrought in us through the Spirit, we do not start a quarrel with them where they according to Scripture rightly and appropriately teach the doctrine how and when a person is reconciled to God, receives the remission of sins and the adoption, and is accepted to life eternal. This difference in meanings has often been shown by our teachers, and also how the former meaning can be rightly, piously, and skillfully understood and admitterd according to the analogy of faith and the perpetual sense of the Scripture if it is accepted with the fathers according to the manner of the Latin composition. However, the papalists habe not been placated at all. For the dissension and strife in the article of justification is not only about words but chiefly about the matters themselves.

Now does this sound like someone wanting to mis-represent the Fathers to its readers? Is this not a reasonable admission where they agreed and where they differed?

More on Article II, p.469, 1.

We, indeed, also teach that newness of life is begun in the believers through the Holy Spirit; but we say that we are not by that newness justified before God, that is, that our newness is not that on account of which we are received into grace and receive the remission of sins, and that it is not that on which faith should rest when it delas with God that we may be adopted as sons and received to eternal life. Therefore the Tridentine decrees on justification are patched together out of very manifold deceptions, as we have hitherto shown.

To suggest that the BoC writers were purposeful liars is to suggest that they were brainless scholars i.e. stupid thick idiots who believed they could hoodwink the world.

Friday, November 14, 2008

The BoC lied about Augustine...

This is the charge that Dan Woodring of Beatus Vir is making against the BoC, (and perhaps the reason why he became an RC) .

You will find his charges in the post Lutheranism: Only Half of the Gospel. Here is the snippet...

The day I stopped being a Lutheran was when I realized that the Book of Concord lied about what Augustine and the Catholic Church taught on Justification. I realized I could not subscribe to a book that was untruthful. Why couldn't they make their case, and say "We disagree with Augustine" and present the Roman Catholic view accurately and make their case without distorting the position of their opponents?

His charge is worth discussing and is worthy of serious thought. Asside from that, I have never heard such a charge before, it is new to me and interesting. Note I do not know everything, if someone can show me why his charge should not be taken seriously, let me know since that is the purpose of the discussion. It is interesting because it entails an exercise on BoC exegesis. Lastly, I wish to answer the charge. My answer will need further development (I have to admit), but all I need is to cast reasonable doubt on the charge.

I asked Dan if he can cite in the BoC wherein it explicitly misrepresented Augustine or the Fathers on the subject of Justification. The best he could come up was this...

"We know that that what we have said agrees with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and with the whole Church of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is the propitiator and the justifier."

(you will find it in the comments here)

This is found in the Apology of Augsburg III(Love and Fulfilling the Law), 268.

We have a few questions: What is the meaning of the phrase "what we have said"? Did this refer to those things in Article III, Article II, or those things inclusive from the start? For Dan ,I believe this meant all of the things said thus far... at a minimum, perhaps Article II(Justification).

This raises several nuanced questions with my answers, what is yours?

1. What does it mean to subscribe to the BoC ?Is it verbatim subscription?
I for one do not consider the BoC inspired, I consider only Scripture is inspired. I examined the claims of the BoC against Scripture and I find its exposition accurate. Further, I do not subscribe to the words per se, but I subscribe to the meaning of those words. Thus I subscribe to the intent or semantics of those words. The BoC is not another set of Laws to me.

2. How should the BoC be read?
I read it paying particular attention to its context and the intent of the writer, i.e. content. For example, I have spotted Luther in the Large Catechism, quoting Scripture from memory and his reference was wrong.

So in this regard, I wish to answer the charge against the alleged lying performed by the BoC in AP III, 268.

1.) First let me note what its says i.e. what it asserts. Technically, 268 is not explicitly saying that the Fathers believed in Reformation Justification in toto like the Augsburgians do. Look again at the statement - it asserts that the Fathers believed that Jesus is the Propitiator and Justifier. Now, tell me, is there a Church Father that would deny this? Ask ourselves as reasonably as we can, would Augustine or Ambrose deny this - that Jesus is the Propitiator/Justifier?

2.) The assertion belongs to a whole swag of sentences and belongs in the paragraph which started in 262. Read it here for yourself. Notice it argues for the good thing called - faith (in the Christian sense), that faith produces a confession, that the Church ends its prayers in an appeal for the sake of Christ, that faith apprehends the promise of reconciliation, it quickens, that the Law cannot be observed without Christ etc. Proper hermeneutics says that the statement should be understood within its context and the domain of that context, it is safe to assume, is that paragraph and not necessarily beyond it. The question that one should ask is this...Would Augustine or Ambrose object to the statements made in this paragraph? I suggest NO.

The burden is with Dan to show that the Fathers denied this.

3.) I argue that the 268 clip forms part of Melanchton's rhetorics. For example when we are illustrating a point, our point is not in the minutae but in the overall thrust the statement is making. Hence, in saying "Good men, indeed, will easily judge these things", he was not implying he has interview all good men around the world. That is not his point, not in the details but what is reasonable to assume. Further he also used the phrase "many others" in the paragraph, and the phrase "we know what we said agrees". These phrases are rhetorical elements. To illustrate, I know certain things, and what I know, you as a reader do not necessarily know. I also could be wrong in what I know to be consistent with facts. For Melanchton, what is contained in the paragraph flows from the assertion that the Church has always made - that Jesus is Propitiator/Justifier. For him, this is what it means[at least those in the paragraph, or Article III ] to make such confession about the Christ. I argue that 268 forms part of Melanchton's rhetorics to show that what was just said (at a minimum) on Love and Fulfilling The Law, the Scripture (I believe for sure) and the Fathers would not assail.

On those 3 points I suggested above, I believe the charge is flawed.

[PS. Welcome if you are a visiting from Boar's Head Tavern]

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Atheists should have a Statement of Faith.

A couple of evenings ago, I went to an Atheist Society sponsored talk. I went to listen how someone unconverted from being a Catholic to an "Atheist".

Notice I deliberately placed the quotes in "atheist".

At the start of the talk, the chairman, said that their followers disagree as to what an atheist or an agnostic is. They could not define this thing. Funny, for people who claim to be rational, putting a definition to a tag/name/label is fundamental to rational thought. Pure and simple what gives you the right to a label when in fact you do not know what that thing represents? Comprende?

As I sat to hear the leader's preface for the talk, my own sarcasmagoric self said - hmmm, "adopt-a-word" movement. I can't help it but the thought kept running in my mind. The funny thing is that they can not agree amongst themselves the proper meaning of the word "atheist". You would think people who claim to be rational should have a method of resolving conflicts in ideas, no? Nope.

Anyway the talk was given by a news columnist. I asked questions and I believe I was polite in my behavior, I was never at a point asked to leave or booed down. Over all, she left Catholicism, the idea of God, Jesus and so forth because...she saw the life of her parents and observed how they behaved inconsistently with what they professed. I asked her about this and she said this was a good factor in her de-conversion experience.

I felt sorry for her and sad for her(of course she is happy without my pity). How many times have I read and heard something like this? Lots of times. In the end I simply had to dismiss her conclusion and not take it seriously. I know it is a horrible thing to say, but one's faith is not invalidated as a piece of crock simply because the professor failed to live according to its ideals. It has no direct connection to the truth or falsehood of the faith.

But Christianity is not about morals, that might be what she was taught in her Catholic home, but Christianity is not about being moral. If Christianity were about morals there would be no need to become a Christian, every religion out there be atheist or satanist, is selling a brand of morality already.

Funny in the middle of the talk she said they should be called "rationalists". The thing though is that the fallacy of a rationalist's reasoning is hidden to the rationalist itself.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Appalling lack of love

I had been feeling quite bad a few weeks ago.

I was evaluating my love for Christ a few weeks back and I did not like what I saw. I felt so ashamed of myself.

The more I look at my love for Jesus and compare it to how others love him, mine is below par. I used to have the zeal, passion or enthusiasm that they have. However, today it seems down the tubes. My score is so obviously low in this department. This can be rather pathetic since I am active in church work and it is quite embarassing since I teach the Bible and run a study group.

Then something happened a few days after that. My friends and I were discussing again the point of the Gospel and I was struck again by this thought while I was speaking to them...try not to find how to love Jesus more, rather look at how much Jesus loves you.

This is quite stumbling. What? If you want to love Jesus more, don't focus on how you do it, rather remember how Jesus loves you, i.e. bask in what he has done for you.

My love for Jesus is not something generated within me, but something created by the truth that is outside me.

Jesus loves me
this I know,
for the Bible tells me so.
So the song goes.

Remembering how Jesus loves you has some pretty interesting fruits. Besides, the Gospel is not about how you should love Jesus, but how Jesus loves you. When you find out that he is the forgiver of your sins even today, you will love him more.

1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

More on Imputation/Impartation.

Dan Woodring is taking me to task on the above issue. I am glad we are having this exchange.

I am putting his comments in view so that others may see the discussion more prominently, and not miss the thrill of the discussion and excitement. Here is what Dan said...You can find what I and A.S. thus far have said here. Dan begins...

You said that the unregerate man cannot, on his own, trust in Christ. Rightly so.

However, that trust, or faith, is worked in us through the Holy Spirit. "I believe that I cannot by my own reason and strength believe in Jesus Christ..." Faith is something that can only come through the inworking of the Holy Spirit. That is the flaw in the whole impartation vs. imputation thing. Because of faith, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (extra nos). But that faith itself is something that the Holy Spirit imparts to us (in nobis).

Let me point out the logical inconsistancy another way. For Lutherans:

Faith (Trust in Christ) comes before Justification (because we are "justified by faith alone")

Justification comes before renewal. (FCSD III: 19ff.)

Yet, renewal must preceed faith, since the unrenewed man cannot trust in Christ.

Your comment about "it is finished", reminds me of the day this was discussed in seminary. The prof explained that on the cross, our justification was complete. One student raised his hand and asked "So why did Jesus rise from the dead." The prof answered "what else could He do?" I had that some prof for my theological interview, and he asked me to what event does St. Paul connect our justification. I answered "The cross." He pointed out that in fact it was the resurrection (Rom. 4). I replied, tongue in cheek, that I thought my answer was "more Lutheran."

Man's sin, his unrighteousness, consists in two things. Guilt, which is largely extra nos (the guilt of Adam) but also guilt for our own transgression. But sin is also corruption, which is entirely in us, in nobis. If our unrighteousness is twofold, so also must be our righteousness. It is a non-imputation of guilt and imputation of an alien righteousness (extra nos), but also the injury, the corruption of sin, must be repaired in nobis. The former is by imputation, the latter by impartation. The former is gained on Calvary, the latter comes through the empty tomb. If you read Augustine's anti-pelagian writings, you will see how the grace of pardon (imputed righteousness) and the grace of renewal (imparted righteousness) both belong to justification. Interestingly enough, it was Pelagius who, like Lutherans, accepted the former while denying the latter. Further, the insistance that renewal follows justification, and cannot precede justification, inadvertantly implies a pelagianism because it requires an unrenewed man to exhibit faith.

As far as "Mother Church" goes, we hold that the subject who both imputes and imparts righteousness is God, though Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Neither righteousness has its origin in man or is achieved through human effort. Both are by grace alone. Your presupposition that imputation is grace and impartation is works (by human effort) is off the mark.

As I see it, the problem with Lutheranism is that it only has half of the Gospel, but at least it's the better half.

My additional reply:

I have said a few things already in the comments. Dan has an interesting take on what his professor in theology taught him. For him, as a now confessing Roman Catholic, at Jesus' death is when the imputation happened -- the legal one, and at Jesus' resurrection is when impartation happened, the renewal. This indeed is an interesting formulation.

Presumably, because Dan says that at Jesus' death on the cross, imputation of righteousness happened there for everyone, then this means that justification happened for everyone there too. He can correct my impression of what he said.

I for one, believe in justification through faith - JBFA. Meaning, without faith no one gets the benefit of Christ's work. I do not believe in justification without faith, without means of grace - i.e. without Word and Sacraments. This faith is created by God out of nothing in an unregenerate man through Word and Sacrament. Yes - even the thief on the Cross had one of them effected on him - the Word. When the person brought by God to faith in the finished work of Christ, God treats that faith as righteousness - declared not guilty. It is a declaration/reckoning/ an assessment.

IMHO, Dan is mixing categories. Reconciliation/Atonement is not the same thing as Justification and neither are the other concepts such as sanctification, glorification as the same thing etc. I am a logician/mathematician by training, I was trained not to mix my categories. Concepts may relate but may not be precisely synonyms of each other.

According to Luther, Faith is nothing, even the Formula of Concord editors say this too. The reason why faith justifies is not because it is a quality or virtue that is worthy of God's smile, but it holds on to the work of Christ. That faith has value because of what it is holding on too and not because of itself. Quenstedt has a quote on this which I will share when time permits.

The difference between a unregenerate man and the regenerate is that the latter is brought to spiritual life in that the latter has faith in the Gospel. The former has faith not in the Gospel (outside him) but faith in anything but Christ's saving work.

...more later.

Monday, November 03, 2008

An Obama-nation

I am affected by what happens in USA.

Most of the readers of this blog are from there. My Google Analytics tells me that. I care for those who read this blog be they agree with it or disagree.

Leadership has two components - it is character and competence. These two interplay specially in hard situations.

If the polls are correct, it looks like the USA is on the road to becoming, ah wattyamakalit? ... "an Obama-nation".