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.
23 comments:
Dear Lito,
Lutherain keep singing A Mighty Fortress after they pass on to heaven. And they remain "Lutherains". And they remain Cessationists. They take communion in heaven.
In Christ Jesus,
Jim
Jim,
Lutherans believe that every one who gets to heaven eventually becomes Lutheran there. ;-)
LPC
You're a better man than I.
I cannot listen to that stuff at all.
I do listen to a heretic's radio station that plays great old hymns (now and then) and has daily readings direct from Scripture.
(too bad they don't understand what they are reading)
STeve,
What to do when a man is bored?
At least it is good for getting numbed out.
LPC
You're right. Sometimes I listen just to see how bad they mess it up.
But, even a broken watch is right twice a day!
Dear Lito,
Kenneth Hagin spoke (and wrote) that the cross holds people in bondage to satan. That we are already seated with Christ in heaven over the princpalities and powers. (Eph 2) And so Word of Faith Pentecostals are already in heaven without becoming Lutherans.
Earlier you said that Jesus was only "firstborn from the dead" phyisically not spiritually. That suggests that the Holy Spirit forsook Jesus at his reurrection. When protestants say that "It is finished" on the Cross they also say that when He went to be with the thief (Hagin denied this) and was spiritually ressurected on the Cross to paradise.
And so you are saying that Jesus was born again (to paradise with the thief) on the Cross but spiritually dead ("physically only") comming out of the tomb.
Would you say that I am a pentecostal that is afraid of theology?
In Christ Jesus,
Jim
Jim,
And so Word of Faith Pentecostals are already in heaven without becoming Lutherans
I have pentecostal pastor friends with good and honest hearts but I still see them having colds, going to the doctors, getting depressed and discouraged, getting surgery, taking medications etc.
Hagin gives Scripture a mythical and mystical twist.
When protestants say that "It is finished" on the Cross they also say that when He went to be with the thief (Hagin denied this) and was spiritually ressurected on the Cross to paradise.
Jim, you are dear friend but I cannot comment on this as the word "protestant" is a generic term and which protestants are these etc.
And so you are saying that Jesus was born again (to paradise with the thief) on the Cross but spiritually dead ("physically only") comming out of the tomb.
Spiritually dead? Jesus was never spiritually dead. Only sinful people need to be born again, but Jesus was never sinful so he did not need to be born from above. He came from above that is what Scripture says, he need not be born from above because he is God and Man at the same time and he never sinned.
Would you say that I am a pentecostal that is afraid of theology?
Absolutely not. You do love theology I just wish you consider the theology of Hagin and listen to what his critics say.
God bless,
LPC
Dear Lito,
Lutheran Sola Fide is a deathwish.
Your false comfort and humility is satanic forgiveness against the goodness of God.
The Bible says Jesus identifed with our sin in every verse.
It says the Father did not punish Him but satan did in the tomb.
It says that the Father raised Christ and us together and spoiled and triumphed over the pricipalites and powers.
Sola Fide is a desert deathwish refusal to enter the promised land.
YOU HAVE WOOD HAY AND STRAW WORKS.
YOU DO NOT HAVE GOLD SILVER AND PRECIOUS STONES WORKS.
YOU ARE SAVED BY WALLOWING AND WANDERING IN YOUR OWN DEPRESSION AND DEATH THAT DOES NOT COME FROM GOD BUT SATAN.
Satan comes as the wrath of God.
Satan says that Jesus steals kills and destroys to make you humble.
He claims that abundant life and entering the promises are unrepentance.
The Theology of the Cross casts fasle satanic aspersion on the promises and goodness of God toward the elect.
You are perishing in the desert.
Sola Fide is a deathwish desire to go back to Egypt and give birth to Ishmaels through Hagars.
It is bondage to Siani. It is not Zion. It is the Jerusalem below. It is not the free Jerusalem above.
Luther preached the gospel that saved Hagin from pelgianism but Hagin surpassed Luther. Luther is like Moses but Hagin is like Joshua.
In Chirst Jesus,
Jim
Dear Lito,
1) the priest does not sacrifice the goat:
Lev16: 21-22 "He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and PUT them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. And the goat shall BEAR UPON HIM all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
2) The wild animals kill the goat in the desert.
3) Jesus was not dead when He cried "My God My God..."
4) He was in "agony" at the hands of the wild animals dead in the tomb:
Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the AGONY of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
5) His time in the tomb was not serene and idillic! It was agony. Luther has abondoned you to the "AGONY" that Christ experienced for you in the tomb!
6) Above you see the priest "confesed the sin putting them on the head of the goat bearing" them--not killing it on the Cross.
7) The "AGONY OF DEATH" was in the tomb at the hand of the wild animals not the priest over the Cross.
8) Luther has misasssocitated the priest with the wild animals.
9) The fit man washes himself from the contamination of sin after he releases the goat:
Lev 16:26 “The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp.
All of the above is identification of sin on the back of the goat. And agony in the desert tomb at the hands of the wild animals not the priest on the Cross.
10) Here is the wild animals in the tomb:
Hbr 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil–
11) The power of death was not the Father's of Holy Spirit's (the priest's) on the Cross! It was the devil's (the wild animals) in the tomb!
Luther abandoned you to the AGONY OF DEATH at the hands of the wild animals in the desert tomb of sanctification!
In Christ Jesus,
Jim
LPC- I didn't respond to one item over at the Jackson website (he's no longer publishing my posts).
Scripture isn't the inner mind of God, rather it is God as he is offered to us via law/gospel. Jesus does show us the Father's true heart, but God is active through one Word in a different way than in another Word of Scripture.
I would strongly encourage everyone who hasn't read "Bondage of the Will." Look at Luther's response to Erasmus on the question of God's statement in Ezekiel "I desire not the death of the sinner." In that Word, God as he is offered does not desire it, but elsewhere he works sinners death, right? Otherwise he would never condemn sinners, but unilaterally forgive, right?
Actually, LPC, when you challenge me on the duality of God preached and not preached, hidden/revealed, and so forth, you're taking the position of Erasmus.
You say that by saying this is just a war over words that I'm undermining the Reformation which was a disagreement about justification and sanctification. Whereas for Lutherans said they were distinct, RC said they were the same.
First, RC and Lutheran have different conceptualities, therefore it wasn't a debate about words.
I would encourage you to read the Apology. The terminological distinction over "justification" and "sanctification" hadn't arisen yet. So Melanchthon states that justification can be defined in two ways: as justification proper and sanctification. Actually the linguistic distinction between the two only pick up steam during later orthodox after the writing of the FC, which identifies justification excusively with imputation of righteousness.
So, actually, the RC and Lutheran disagreed conceptually, but agreed linguistically about what the word "justification" can mean- since Lutheran thought it could mean sanctification (Luther frequnetly uses the word "justification" when he means sanctification as well).
Secondly, if word=thing directly, then why do we have the same words of institution as the Reformed? Clearly we conceptually differ from them, right? Otherwise we'd have inner communion, right?
Lastly, you are correct that ecumenists use word games to claim that the Reformation was a big understanding. That's sort of the point though. The JDDJ document does not take into account the fact the RC and the Reformation use the same words to express different concepts. So they come up with formulas of agree where the same words are used, but different conceptualities are present, giving the illusion of agreement.
Again, I'd strongly encourage you to read the Apology on Justification and compared it with the FC.
Jim,
I have not been responding to you and have just been allowing you blubber off as you wish. It is because I do not take anymore seriously Hagin's position after my study and observation. As you know I got involve with Copeland-Hagin gang before. I have been there and done that and I even chucked the t-shirt.
So, I have moved on from Haginoloy and have left it behind. No offense, but I have trashed the idea to death and so please forgive me if I am disinterested. My time is limited and I need to be judicious with the time God gives me. When I get the other priorities done, may be I can comeback and publish your claims for Hagin's theology.
LPC
Jack,
I have read the Apology on Justification in fact it is my favorite part of BoC.
I do not want to be side tracked with what is on the table at hand. Your claim that I/Dr. Greg/Brett are just into word dislike is something trivial is on the table.
What you are to prove is that there is a universal objective justification taught in Scripture or in the Confessions.
My position: There is an objective thing taught in Scripture - the Atonement, but Justification whenever that term is used in Scripture always has faith lingering on the side there fore it is always subjective. The two are not the same, meaning Atonement is not Justification. The categories are not co-equal neither co-identical.
Your admonition to me that by analogy I am arguing similar to Erasmus does not wash. It is just red herring and I am not interested in what you label to me because I can do the same. In fact I have demonstrated that UOJ in as much as it equates atonement with justification is Calvinistic manner of reasoning and categorization for their procedure is the same. Calvinists view justification is tantamount with the atonement but they see that since justification is limited, therefore they conclude atonement must be limited too. UOJ does the reverse. Either one is correct if and only if atonement = justification. Is this assumption correct exegetically? If this assumption is wrong then the conclusion based on the assumption is wrong too.
In your blog you mentioned the use of deduction in theology. I agree to its use if on a topic the Scripture is not explicit, but this is not the case for the discussion at hand - on the subject of atonement and justification the Scripture is not vague nor un-explicit rather the reverse.
LPC
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.
Also, you need to stop substituting condescension for arguments.
Lastly, you need to start actually addressing argues from the context which I make them.
My allusion to Erasmus had to do with how you were construing divine agency.
You insist that the we need to stick with words, instead of conceptualities. This has to do with the with the rhetorical strategy that you and Meyers have devised. You believe that because the words "Universal Objective Justification" never occur in Scripture that, HA, HA! YOU Win!
Not so much. On that basis enhyposthesis-anhyposthesis goes by the way side. And so does the Trinity.
So, the word "Trinity" is never in the Bible. So, LCP, show me where the word "Trinity" occurs in the Bible. Oh, no word "Trinity" in the Bible? Then I guess the Trinity is not a Biblical concept.
So, when all sins are said to be paid for in the Bible, I guess it means that they're really not forgiven. Because the specific word "justificaiton" or "forgiveness" isn't used.
Not a good argument.
Jack,
You claim non_UOJers like me build straw men arguments.
Yet your comments are filled with it. Your recent comments are filled with straw men. You made the argument for me and you shot down the argument - which you claim I am making myself.
Conceptualities? I asked you for a teaching from Scripture that the concept of UOJ is found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.
You insist that the we need to stick with words, instead of conceptualities. This has to do with the with the rhetorical strategy that you and Meyers have devised. You believe that because the words "Universal Objective Justification" never occur in Scripture that, HA, HA! YOU Win!
Have you been reading, did I ask if the term is found in Scripture. You are being high schoolish. Of course the term does not have to be present in Scripture to be valid! Is the concept of UOJ found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. That is to say - the is there a portion of Scripture that I can have so that I can say that the Muslim down the street has been JUSTIFIED, DECLARED righteous already hence forgiven already even before faith!
So, the word "Trinity" is never in the Bible. So, LCP, show me where the word "Trinity" occurs in the Bible. Oh, no word "Trinity" in the Bible?
Seriously Jack, we are supposed to be scholars and gentlemen, we are not high school kids. You are behaving like a high schooler here.
Here is where you are IMHO are making a drastic blunder, you do not distinguish the provision of forgiveness from the actual enjoyment of forgiveness.
So from Article IV, AC, 1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4
I highlighted the pertinent words for you. This is what I confess.
Not a good argument
Shall I say more?
LPC
btw Jack,
Now can you see why Jackson does not want to debate you? You presume our arguments are not that sophisticated. You have not shown respect in the way you treat this discussion.
Meyer has been into this for many many years far more than I have. I came to this non-UOJ conclusion 2008 after adoption UOJ terminology and concept from 2005 when I became a Lutheran.
If you show from Scripture that God has declared the whole world already righteous, justified without faith, I will take you seriously. I promise.
There I did not even use justification etc.
LPC
Dearest Lito,
Hagin was superior to the law/gospel distinction.
Hagin was not walking in his own works-righteousnes.
Hagin understood Luther.
You never understood Hagin.
I understand the Law/Gospel distinction.
You don't understand me.
I understand Sola Fide.
I understand The Theology of the Cross.
You chucked away a tee-shirt you never grapsed.
You never grapsed identifcation.
Identification is superior to substituion.
Substituion is inferior to identifcation
Substitution is a shadow of identification.
Identification is fulfilled substituion.
Substituion is incomplete identifcation.
Identification includes substitution.
Luther never understood Hagin.
Hagin understood Luther.
You never understood Hagin.
Idenitifcation transends substitution.
Substitution is infantile incopmarison to identification.
In Christ Jesus,
Jim
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.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
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
Dear Lito,
Look at Jack and Bret desperately squabbling over crap.
Your dead tradition condemns Hagin.
Hagin empathises with your dead tradition.
John 3:16 is not subtitution.
It is indentification.
God "gave" His only begotten Son to satan not Himself.
The lightning blot that struck Luther was from satan not God.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,* that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Heb 2:12 Because God's children are human beings--made of flesh and blood--Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the Devil, who had the power of death.
Jim,
We have a saying here, the dogs may bark but the train still keeps running.
My train has left the Hagin stable and has been crapping dust at Haginology.
LPC
LPC,
"Now can you see why Jackson does not want to debate you? You presume our arguments are not that sophisticated. You have not shown respect in the way you treat this discussion."
First, you're the one who has insulted me and condescended to me. I've consistently been respectful of you and everyone else. All I want is for the actually answer the arguments that I put forth, which you refuse to do.
Secondly, when I starting investigating this thing I respectfully asked Dr Jackson for materials and asked if I had his permission to post them on my blog and respond to them. In my post, I actually said very nice things about him and have never insulted him. I e-mailed him and gave him every opportunity to respond to me. When I posted on his blog, I merely asked for clarification.
In return, all he has ever done is insult me.
In any case, I think it's fairly clear that he has a weak argument and I think he knows this as well, which is one of the reasons he won't debate me.
If he does think he's has a strong argument, then why not deal with my arguments?
Also, why did he erase my responses to him in order to make himself look like he was defeating me and I had no response?
That doesn't suggest a person with much confidence in their own argument.
Brett-
"I post this here because what you have written on your blog serves as a testimony to the contradictions and sophistry of UOJ. "
Why would this preclude you posting on my blog? If it does, then wouldn't posting on my blog make you look good for opposes said sophistry?
Also, interesting how this decision coincided with my demand for you to respond directly to Luther quotes (which above you have also decided to ignore) and also my argument based on the meaning of the biblical word "kuppur."
Also, no one has responded to my argument about the BIblical practice of Jubilee and how Christ claimed to fulfill it, but of course no one at this point has really responded to almost any of my arguments, so I guess I can just add it to the list.
In any case, I think I now have a definitive handle on the series of theological and linguistic misunderstands that have led to the anti-UOJ position.
Again, if you'd like to make a response instead of merely insulting me and condescending, then I would very strongly encourage you to respond to them. They're divided into three parts. Pt 2 deals mainly with the conceptual and linguistic difficulties that I think that your both having. I encourage you invite others to join the discussion of my theses as well.
Again, I am always open to having debates what do not involve insults and condescension. I have been open and honest. I will always let you have your piece, I will never intentionally erase your comments.
All the best, Jack.
Jack,
All I want is for the actually answer the arguments that I put forth, which you refuse to do.
I guess I have to state the obvious...
Jack, you have failed or if you wish refused to demonstrate, from Scripture firstly, and then from the Confession, that the "concept" of universal objective justification is taught in Scripture. I am not actually asking you for the verbatim presence of the terminology per se from Scripture, that is silly.
Please give me verses. If Scripture is not the playground of our discussion, I have no wish to debate with you. You do not come around us demanding you debate us on your on your grounds. Firstly, it is you who want to engage us, it stands to reason, that you should demonstrate the faultiness of our position IN OUR OWN GROUNDS.
Scripture is that ground that I for one wishes to go to the mat with you.
Really, I find Francis Pieper and Jay Webber more sensible than you. The first one though now dead, knew that if he wanted people to believe he must cite from Scripture. Unfortunately his Scripture did not hold exegetical soundness. The rest is the same for Pr. Webber. Yet I find these attempts admirable, sorry I do not find yours to be the same.
Also as I said, you are on the positive side of UOJ, I am on the negative. It is imperative upon you to demonstrate existence of the concept as taught in Scripture, that is your burden of proof, not mine. For I am on the negative, my job is to show the unreasonableness of your evidence. Yet you do not want to show evidence from Scripture so what am I to argue about? You have not presented any Scriptural proof whatsoever for me to respond to.
LPC
Lastly, since you speak about "kuppur", is there someone from the OT who got forgiven who did not believe in the ritual of atonement?
LPC
Post a Comment