If you are reading this

You did not get raptured either.

...

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

Does this sound familiar?

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

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.

Anatomy of a politician

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

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?

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?

Faith fallacies of mega proportions

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

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.

Houston, I have a problem

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.

Interview

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

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.

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

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?

I listened and got bored

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.

Aussie bishops head for Rome

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.

Target Market

Many moons ago, in my wanderings I attended an AOG pastor's meeting in my area.

It was lunch, and a young pastor sat beside me. At that time, my congregation was getting bigger and had a few outreaches. The pastor relayed to me how he was getting tired of evangelizing an elderly Greek lady in his church neighborhood. Hearing that we were growing, he asked me if we had any young people. I said "yes, we have some". It was like an "aha" moment for him, when he said "That is it, I better concentrate my efforts to work on them" and stood to get some sweets. I choked on my food as I looked at him finish our conversation. Didn't that elderly Greek lady need the Gospel?

Well, targetting the youth does make sense. The young are strong, they can do lots of manual work in church. You do not need to pick them up and bring them to church. They are abled bodies they can drive themselves to the meetings. They can do follow ups, and no need for much visitation, they are filled with energy. Our utilitarian needs are well served by them, not like these old ones who live off coins from their pension. So in many respects, the young people are the best market to attract. They are low maintenance.

I love it when I am being facetious.

Multimillionair, yours truly.

There have been a lot of people from UK and in Africa emailing me that I just won several million dollars or someone has got an inheritance and likes to share it with me. They are so eager to deposit loads and loads of money to my account.

My situation is a lot better than a CEO who bankrupts his company and still gets millions of dollars for his payout. I know, you may think I have no advantage over a CEO who sacks his workers and still gets a good sum by making people jobless. But I have the high ground, I just got email and I did not have to do anything. The good people of this world have found me and now are willing to give me their millions.

Now I receive these emails 2 per day. So it must be true, otherwise why will they persist in emailing? They must be serious, why will they nag me about it, if it is not true? Why will they end their emails with a "God bless you"? These must be honest people, so I am going to confirm my account details and collect.

So you better be nice and friendly, or yours truly will not shower you with his fortune.

To be honest with you, I have always been a millionaire even before these emails came, I am just pretending to be poor.

What gets you "in".

By "in" here, I mean "in the faith", "in Christ" and so forth.

When I was in Charismania,

my Arminian teachers warned:

- faith got you in, faith will keep you in.

then I swang to Calvinism and this got transformed to

- grace got you in, grace will keep you in.

None of these gave assurance. I did not find all the above adequate as the first points to me or my faith, while the second points to me again, I am sure that comes as a surprise, correct? The second also points to me because here is the question: did this grace "happen" to me? In effect, did this faith which is a gift of God happen to me? Both point to something in me. Both get me edgy.

My assesment, and I believe is consistent with the Scripture's teaching on the means of grace:
- The Gospel that got you in, is the same Gospel that keeps you in.

The Lutherans Confessions taught me the last one and it points me to the Promise, outside me.

Now, if I could get these Lutherans excited and believe their own doctrine and trust the means of grace...

Marriage and Birth Control

I have been listening to Issues Etc debate on this found here.

Please remember, my topic is not birth control outside marriage, I am considering here, the domain - birth control within marriage!

I am a bit skeptical on the arguments mentioned by the pastor for the contra position, but the one on the pro position could have brought forth his arguments much better from Scripture. The contra has some red herring arguments and straw man arguments which should have been fairly answered by the one on the pro side.

A few points:
-It has been claimed that in ages past, orthodox Christian leaders have always been contra to birth control. Therefore, we should be contra too.

ME: We have no article of faith on this, but the contra position holds this as dogma, a type of Law.

-It has been claimed that God's purpose for sex in marriage is for pleasure AND childbearing.

ME: This statement is an interpretation of the biblical data, notice I highlighted the AND, meaning both, i.e you must not separate. Actually most Christians who lived in the ancient world considered only the latter, sex is ONLY for childbearing, nothing else.

But what if the Biblical data says that sex in marriage may lead to childbearing? In other words, it is not an AND, but an IMPLY. It all hangs around on God's intention for sex, how is it to be used? I think that is the question.

Meaning, God intended sex for married people, it may have the consequence of childbearing. It may preclude of course that the spouses would like to copulate because they do want to have a child. It may also mean they want to do what the birds and the bees do because they just want to without in mind to childbearing. But the contra position says birth control in marriage is wrong because it violates God's intention for sex. Do I have Biblical evidence against this position? I think so, that is why I am skeptical for the traditional contra position.

Consider 1 Cor 7:

³^B)">(B)">B) The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵^C)">(C) Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again,^D)">(D) so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

⁶Now as a concession,^E)">(E) not a command, I say this.^a]">[a] ⁷^F)">(F) I wish that all were^G)">(G) as I myself am. But^H)">(H) each has his own gift from God,^I)">(I) one of one kind and one of another.

⁸To the unmarried and the widows I say that^J)">(J) it is good for them to remain single^K)">(K) as I am. ⁹But if they cannot exercise self-control,^L)">(L) they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul seems to have a practical understanding of things. In fact he says if you cannot contain yourself, then you should marry, it pertains to sexual passion.

Sex is intended by God to be exercised in the realm of marriage, and the above passage bears that they are to go and engage in what is lawfully theirs. It does not mean that they have to get together for the purpose of having children. In fact it does not suggest that at all. It is silent.

If it is true that sex and childbearing should go together then what do you say to a person who decides to be single without any relationship, they are just happy being single with no relationship? They must be violating the command to multiply, correct? He must be practicing birth control is it not?

Any thoughts on this?

Randomness and Monkeys

Taking out the mystery surrounding what appears to be a random event, if you ask me, is what a scientific theory should be doing. A scientific theory that simply recognizes that there is a random element here or there does not qualify as a scientific theory. You have not added any new information if your theory simply recognizes it. Just imagine the task of building a bridge. You can observe that some bridges collapse at least some contribute to accidents. Imagine if building a bridge is a matter of guess work, a matter of "que sera, sera", a matter of randomness. If so there is no possibility of technological progress.

Want some example of how randomness is explained away by hand waving? Here is a quote from http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html.

Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out...

My reply: If this is not random chance, then you should be able to predict where a mutation should go in a large scale ecause after all that is what Evolution is saying, a specie turning into another pecie and not just mutating microbiologically. For example, you should be able to predict that a fish should form some feathers. Have you ever looked at how things re done in a horse race? There is a lot more science in the horse race than this, for pundits are able to predict which horse should get in, most of the time.

It continues...

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

My reply: Notice how the explanation pertains only to micro level not macro level. To say that "probably innumerable different forms" does not add any information to a theory. This is like using a magic wand to explain the objection away. In a horse race, you can also say there are millions of possibilities. Yet pundits are able to cut through that cloud, they can give a reasonable prediction.

What I see amongst evolutionists (not of course in the stated web site) as I go around the internet, is this intellectual imperialism ever so present and as bigotted as the rest of us. Most of the time, their argument is based on bullying using ad hominem attacks - i.e. you must be a moron if you are even mildly skeptical of it. One of which dismissed the opinions of physicists, chemists, engineers and mathematicians as if knowledge is confined to a sector of society and no scholar or scientist is qualified to comment if he/she does not come from that field, i.e biology. Can you see the intellectual arrogance of these pseudo-intellectual colonizers?

OK I will agree, some people do come from monkeys. Yes, because judging by the way these evolutionists argue and how they attack the sanity and credibility of people who disagree, surely they have evolved from orang-utangs.

Godel and Falsifiability of Evolution

Falsifiability in science is a very important concept. For me, a scientific theory deserves serious consideration only if it is falsifiable. Simply put, assume the theory to be false, can we have a method of verifying this physically by experiment or observation? OK, I am Popperian ( Karl Popper another Lutheran) in this regard, I offer no apologies and not ashamed of it because I believe his requirement of falsifiability is common sense.

Example of what is falsifiable: Theory of Gravity: It says what goes up must come down ( spinning wheel ... I won't sing it). Assume this theory is false, is there a way of confirming its falsehood? Yes, throw an object in the air and if it does not land down, you can say - heck Newton was wrong. Ergo: Theory of Gravity is scientific.

Take the case of Theory of Evolution - is this falsifiable? No. There is no physical method of validating its falsehood. Why? You need ions and ions of time and by that time, the experimenter is already dead before he sees evidence of this. So, sorry this is not science. I don't buy it for that reason - it does not meet falsifiability. There is no physical way of observing this phenomenon in action

Aha, but maybe there is!

Enter Kurt Godel (my patron logician - see my picture? another Lutheran , OK you get it I am biased). Godel brought Einstein's Theory of Relativity (ETR) to its final conclusion. Godel calculated that by virtue of ETR, it is possible to do time travel, if you travel at the speed of light.

So how does Godel help falsifiability of Evolution?

Simple, we ask the Evolutionary Theorist when she thought a particular specie evolved to another - she says , this happened according to carbon dating, for the sake of argument, 10Billion years ago.

Easy. We set the time machine to year = -10,000,000,000 years and go there and observe Evolution in action. You can even see that specie giving birth and even die.

Sounds good? Ya with me? No? You think this is nonsense? Well at least deep nonsense.