Land of Cherry Blossoms and Gamba-te

I am spending my Easter holidays here in Japan.This is the second time of being here but this trip is deepening my sense of appreciation for the good things I see in Japanese culture and creativity, my... what a humble and hospitable people.

I came just in time when the Cherry Blossoms are just opening up and now, they are fully opened. Some of the petals have started to drop. Cherry Blossoms are so beautiful but it has a very short life span - 2 weeks and it is gone. This is so similar to life on this old world, our lives are like these Cherry Blossom flowers, it is there for a very short time and it is quickly gone.

Gamba-te (do your best) is often used as a farewell blessing to someone you want to wish well. I realize now how happy a Japanese can be when he hears this encouragement said to him. Unfortunately from "doing one's best" one can switch to "being the best". This second shift has produced so much pressure in the lives of those who take this concept seriously... it has produced depression, tiredness and guilt/shame for we know we always fall short of being the best in our class/group/community. I observe that this is the Law... and as we know it produces despair, and if not this -- going over the top with honour or pride. Hence, as I see them, many are tired, weary, often sleeping in the train as they go to work. They are not only physically tired, they are emotionally tired as well, it is like a vicious cycle. The reality is that "you can be the best" and still leave yourself empty inside. We must help them realize that there is One who is the best in all things and He became so -- for them, that they might rest in what He has won for them.

Lord, be merciful, send workers in Japan to show the light of the gospel on these people - she needs your Cross, they need the freedom and the acceptance of still being forgiven for not being the best.

Chadwick on Table Talk

I always find it funny when I read propaganda material on how of bad character this Luther guy happens to be. Similarly I find it interesting when I see those non-Lutherans who come quickly to his aid. Then there are Lutherans who are not bothered at all and could not care less what rude thing Luther said or what private devotional practice he exercised etc. etc. blah, blah and more blah. Most of the time, the contoversy is launched from what is alleged to have been said by Luther published in Table Talk. The supposed intent of this is to show ill character in the man with the hope that "his followers" might abandon their cause. This of course, underestimates the basis of why "his followers" appear to be "following him" ie his interpretation of certain Biblical passages. In reality though, these detractors are giving him lots of credit than he deserves, an effect of which they have not anticipated.

Here is what Owen Chadwick says about Table Talk in his book The Reformation, p.74-75

The characteristic memory of Luther is of a man presiding at his own table, with is his colleagues and friends around, arguing with him, or listening to his divinity, his politics and his humour, One of the friends shamefacedly took out a notebook and began to jot down Luther's remarks. The habit spread, and twelve different reporters made collections. Luther sometimes mocked nut neither resented nor forbade these deferential scribes. Twenty years after his death, one of them, Aurifaber, published a collection from a variety of collections . Thenceforth Luther's Table Talk became a classic of the Reformation. Rude and outspoken he might often be; 'Dear husband', said Catherine, 'you are too rude'. 'They teach me to be rude" replied Luther. He was so outspoken that his enemiesleaped to make capital out of the Table Talk. It is unreliable as a source for details of history, particularly when the events occured many years before the date of the reported conversation; and Aurifaber's text was not untouched by improvement or interpolation. But iit is a unique and authentic picture of a man and a divine; he who would understand Luther's person and mind cannot neglect it. It is impossible to apply any epithet to him less than the old classical epithet magnanimous, in its original sense of great-hearted.

I observe that Lutherans are not bothered at all by the assasination of character hurled at Luther, primarily because they are not bound by what Luther said, they are bound by what is in their confession, though some of it were written by him. For after all - Luther himself was both iustus et pecator, just like any other Christian, hence he is treated like any other Church Father, capable of error, respected but no idol.

1And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. - 1 Cor 2

Secret JBFA teaching of the Apostles

Chris Rosebrough a Biblical Text archaeologist has uncovered what is said to be a fragment of the Apostles' teaching on JBFA. Listen to his report here.

To me the logic of JBFA is very simple by taking key Scriptural declarations - if one confines what Jesus paid for to the ceremonial Law, then that means to say that there are sins that Jesus did not pay for, and to believe that is to deny the testimony of Scripture that says "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" - John 1:29.

To confine the Law to ceremonial or dietary laws is to commit a fatal blunder for in Romans 3:28
28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

The law here is singular it stands for the Torah collectively, the whole that encompasses moral, civil, ceremonial and dietary Laws.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".

Not for himself, but for those who do not and are not capable of fulfilling them. Sinners ............like me.

A Product of Luther's Libido?

I found this article at The Ark here amusing. It discusses the theory that Protestantism is a product of Luther's Libido. That is ,Luther wanted to be released from the sexual tensions within him so he devised a plan for freedom to marry - the Reformation. It is a really interesting theory and it was propagated by his detractors at that time. However, there are I suspect still those who really believe this theory. So we are a product of his sex drive eh?

The article featured an interview with a Professor of Gender Studies in University of Wisconsin, Prof Merry Wiesner-Hanks. It is an interesting and discussion specially on the way Luther appreciated and praised his wife so much. Wiesner-Hanks believes that Luther had a healthy and robust view of the sexual dimension of life, and for Luther the libido started at the fall.

There is also a discussion on Luther's use of explatives and vulgar talk, something many are offended and have used to attack his character. Here is what Prof Merry said

Rachael Kohn: Merry, much has been made of Luther’s coarse language, his vulgarity, his frequent scatological references. What do you think they indicate about him?

Merry Wiesner-Hanks: Well first of all I think they indicate that that’s the way that people talked in the 16th century, and wrote.

Again, including people like Thomas More or Erasmus, I mean the most highly learned people wrote in what language that we would now think of as vulgar and scatalogical, particularly when they were dealing with things that they saw as powerful or things for which they had powerful feelings. And that of course then comes to include one’s religious opponents, for Luther and for many others, includes his remarks about the Jews, or the Turks, it is the way that Luther talks about the papacy, it’s the way that his Catholic opponents talked about him. So that it’s not specific to Luther, it’s simply that people were perhaps a bit more forthright than we sometimes expect them to be. But it’s not peculiar to him.

I observed that many of these vulgarites often used to put Luther in wicked light were quoted from Table Talk and historians have pointed out that these were not necessarily also the words of Luther for they were written by his dinner guests - his students. Later I will post what one historian says about the Table Talk.

Hannity Hannitized

I do not have FoxTel, so I go to Fox News online. I do not know much of Mr. Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes. Apparently he is Conservative in his politics and a practising RC Christian and is an advocate for birth control methods. He was criticized and taken to task by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer of HLI

The RCC says that Birth Control is sin but according to Hannity this is much better for non-RCs than abortion. Looks like he is advocating two rules for humanity which the RCC is saying not so, for if RCC considers Birth Control a sin, it means it is a sin whoever commits it. When Hannity asked the reverened Fr. Euteneuer if he would be served communion in Fr. Euteneur's church, the good Father said - NO! Hannity should at least be a good RC and believe, teach and confess what his church teaches and not run as a public heretic (Fr. Euteneuer's words, apparently one can be private heretic in the RCC which can also happen in Protestant Churches). The good Father is right in denying him Communion but I think too that Hannity thinks that the RCC is wrong in condemning Birth Control.

However, in this development, there was a Fr. Morris who spoke in favor of Mr. Hannity found in HLI web site, or at least disagrees with Fr. Euteneuer's method of correction here

I note though the reply of Fr. Euteneuer giving the reasons why he engaged Hannity in public correction. I was glued to the end of one of the paragraphs, where Fr. Euteneur said...

I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.

Those were his italics, not mine.

Life Coach?

I was in a party a couple of years back. Since the host happened to be a Christian, there were lots of pastors in the party, so they sat me there at the table with a handful of pastors around. So I got to talking and exchanging pleasantries. I normally like to listen than talk, don't wonder, I am really like that!

Anyway, I had a could talk with the pastor beside me, he has a growing congregation in the city where the party was being held. So in the middle of the party, we got to talk about contact numbers and better yet we exchanged calling cards, business cards that is. I looked at his card and at one face of the card was his pastoral title, and location of his church etc, but I happened to flipped the card over and it said there that he was a life coach. It says that he is available for consultation on how to get your life organized, in order and successful. Life coach. Hmmm, interesting.

That passed. I was in another meeting and again with some pastors. Same thing happened, I exchanged calling cards with one fellow I met. I flipped over his card and there again - a Life Consultant of some title like that.

I got to thinking, if a pastor wants to burn out and run his time so thin he is counselling people one after another, then that is what he should bill himself - a Life Coach and present the Bible as the manual for successful living. Pretty soon, he would be so flooded by people wanting to see him for consultation he has to hire a secretary. No doubt the church will grow, but I got bad news. Don't think it is growing because of the Gospel, because the notion that the Bible is there for successful living...well that is not the Gospel. That is a baby boomer understanding of the Bible and Christianity. The ancient Christians knew no such a thing.

Trusting in Scripture...alone - a gift

I am sure we have heard a lot on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". The documentary which I have not seen myself has been upsetting some and not because it seemed to be true but the pathetic amateurish scholarship found there.

However, my gig is tangential to that. I am more and more getting convinced that in the same way that in Eph 2:8-9 says that faith is a gift, I am also convinced that believing in the testimony of Scripture alone.... is a gift too! What prompted me to entertain this idea is based on lessons I have learned from my friends who deny Sola Scriptura. However, today that idea got re-inforced when I listen to the excellent treatmeant of Pr. Tom Baker on his program Law and Gospel found here. In this program, Pr. (Dr.)Baker was reacting on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". I highly recommend for your listening edification.

To jump ahead - the point is John 20:24-29. Pr. Baker says that he had no desire to appear rational to the world because our faith is foolishness to them, appealing to material evidence is a "milky" was of defending the faith. Rather, the lesson is found in Thomas' experience, in that passage there Jesus said to him - "blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe".

Come home now to where we live. We have no evidence that Jesus' death was for our sins, only Scripture says that. We were not there at that time and place. You find no proclamation of that except from Scripture. Hence, since believing the Gospel promise is a gift and since that promise is in Scripture alone and in no other evidence, then believing Scripture is a gift too, absolutely it is.


It is futile exercise to look for hope somewhere else or even withing what is in ourselves, if the Scripture promise does not suffice, nothing else will.

real caths

Jaroslav Pelikan in his book The Riddle of Roman Catholicism p. 47 has this to say...

Hence the Reformation was indeed a catholic movement. If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. With men like Augustine and Bernard on their side, the reformers could well protest against the usurpation of the name "catholic church" by their opponents. A leading irenic and orthodox theologian of the seventeehth century, Johann Gerhard (4. 1637) spoke for all the reformers when he said:
If the papists want to prove the truth of the name "catholic" as applied to their church, let them demonstrate that the dogmas of their church are catholic, that is, that they are in conformity with the catholic writings of the prophets and apostles!...
If the papists want to deny us the name "catholic", let them demonstrate that we have seceded from the catholic faith and that we deny the mystery of the Trinity.

Not a new "Protestant" gospel, then, but the gospel of the true church, the catholic church of all generations, is what the Reformation claimed to be espousing. Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures; but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There were more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition.

There is more to quote of Pelikan too but space and time does not permit in this instance, yet inspite of Pelikan's move to Eastern Orthodoxy in his later years, I have no knowldege that he has retracted this positive evaluation of the Reformers. Let me know if you do.

According to Pelikan and to the Reformers

...for the church is truly catholic and apostolic when it relied upon biblical teaching, and it became sectarian when it admitted human opinions into the body of its teaching

.

In light hearted conversations, I have heard of orthodox Protestant theologians/pastors quip - "we are the ones that are catholic, it is they that added the Pope". For Pelikan, this seems to be true.

But more to the point, what makes someone, a something? Is it the sign on the bill board? When speaking about human beings, the Christians were identified by their confession, hence, the Creed, or what they truly believe in. Back home there is a home grown religious group, and the group's name when translated in English is "The Church of Christ". In their apologetics, they would often ask hearers (and to reinforce the faith of their members) - "who is the real church of Christ? Well, no other than us, can you not see that that is our name, we are called by that name and because we are called by that name, we are what we are called?"

Begs the question, doesn't it? Actually there is a false premise, "we are called by that name" is not true, for in actuality it is "we call ourselves by that name".

You can apply this same type of analysis to the most obvious case in Christendom.

St. Clement & JBFA

In the First Letter of St. Clement to The Corinthians we have these words on Chapter 32

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him.129 For from him130 have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.131 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven."132 All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

As can be seen from this quote St. Clement believed and taught JBFA as well. Clearly he says we are not justified by ourselves, this completely negates anything in us - our good works or following or "doing" any commandments, even works brought about by the "purity" of heart.

Now some will jump and probably point out to me - hey look at Chapters 33-35 where he talks about works, as if St. Clement just contradicted himself! Yes he does talk about works, but Chapter 32 as preamble eliminates any works as source of justification instead it speaks of faith through which God has justified all men and I quote but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Chapters 33-35 should be read in context - and what surrounds the discussion. Proof of this is in looking at Chapter 36 where all gifts are given by God to us for the sake Christ.

St. Clement in my thinking was following the Apostle Paul in his exposition like that in Romans. After discussing the free grace of God in justifying us in Christ in Romans 3,4,5, St. Paul talks about holiness , and good works in Romans 6. To me this is one example of a convincing evidence that what the Reformers taught was not new, but was believed by the early Christians before.

I noticed that St. Clement quotes a lot from the writings of OT and NT, and this was writen in Koine Greek, I hope to read it in that language for practice one day.

Looking Eastward the revival of EO?

They say that Club L has a lot more in common with Constantinople than with Rome, for that reason, those who leave Wittenberg move to there rather than Rome.

Here is an article that asks if this might be just the century of Orthodoxy.

Over at Pr. Weedon's blog, one will see an entry on the subject of looking or moving eastward from Dr. Heinhere.


First of all, I often wondered what gives when one leaves Club L, and Dr. Hein's comments strengthened my suspicion, what goes is "sola fide", or justification by faith alone (JBFA) in favour of ancient practice or dogma.

So over in that article I read the commented posts and I was surprized that some EOs do believe that their tradition have always believed in "sola fide".

Here is what one lady said, Anastasia said

We Orthodox also believe that justification is by nothing but Grace, through nothing other than faith.

Here is another one from a gentleman named Chris

It was in the Orthodox Church, not in the Lutheran Church, that I learned what "by grace alone, through faith alone" means, and I could not have joined an LCMS congregation if I did not believe that the same Gospel was being proclaimed there that I had received in Orthodoxy.

BTW, for my RC friends, I also recommend the article of Pr. Weedon on Patristic Choosing and Picking Over there he quotes from Augustine on how Augustine set aside the dogmas of Cyprian - it is a bit funny how Augustine said it. You just got to read it.

Death does not trump life

You know I started to ride a motorcycle to work and being a rider, I get to worry about my vulnerability and my finitude. I think you will know what I mean by those words.

I was listening to Pr. Todd on the Invocation of the Saints here. Towards the bottom of that interview, he said something profound, profound to me anyway that it held me stunned for a few minutes. He said this...

The life of the saint begins where your life ends and Christ's life picks us. The life of the saint begins in Holy Baptism, when God gives faith in Christ alone, and that life does not end; that life can not be touched by death.

Death is not a transition, there is no doubt about it, death is an END. It is an end to one thing but it is not a beginning. It is an end to this life of sin in the flesh, a life that was really over and done with when Christ put it to death in His body at the Cross.

While I listened I knew the truth of what he said was Biblical, that principle may be found in Col 2: 11-14. But there was so much Good News, I could hardly contain it, I felt like like worshiping God at that moment. Praise the Lord.

Pachelbel - A Contribution

I often joke around and sinfully brag to my kids that Club L has at least two famous contributions to the world. What would they be you might ask? Bach and Pachelbel!

Over at Aardvark Alley I heard about his being down on Canon in D where he feature this Korean boy's version of it. Listen to it and tell me if Pachelbel was not a genius. Of course I also hope you see the genius of Jeong-Hyun Lim.

Enjoy

Alleged Anglican - Roman Catholic Union.

I am historically still active in a Calvinistic list dispite my being the black sheep - the token member of Club "L". One gentleman posted the news of the possible swing of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic communion apparently because of the issue of ordination of women. I know this is a controversial issue and some who thought that the LCA would be ordaining women, did indeed leave it and became RCs. Fortunately for the LCA, the issue did not pass, at least for now, until it re-surfaces again.

The news of the Anglican-Roman Catholic merging as reported by the Times news is found here

One respondent on the list, from the USA with candor, said this...

After 2,000 years of church history some folks still think they can get spiritual unity from organizational structures under one head. That is folly and contrary to everything we know.

I can understand that college kids would fall into that kind of sophomorish idealism but when leaders of organizations with a billion members starts to live in that fantasy we are seeing mass hysteria at work. Next I expect to see the Bishops and Cardinals all engaged in Saint Vidas Dances.

Having many different denominations, movements and groups of Christians is one of the reasons the USA has such a rich and dynamic Christian life. We need more denominations/ groupings not less. We need more splits and splinters house churches and beach churches and tall steeple churches.

I can understand his point on hysteria - a band wagon effect can come in for as I read the Times article, it gave a sense that Anglican resistance is futile , a kinda "you shall be assimilated" message was ringing in my head. There are only 78 milliion Anglicans compared to the Roman Catholic Churches' 1 billion, really the Anglicans are just a drop in the bucket but influential in the Protestant world. Shortly after that, we hear the news that the reported demise of the Anglican Church is quite pre-mature. The news dispelling such hysteria is found here

It is interesting what the Anglican Bishop of N.Sydney Dr. Glenn Davies said in that article

We believe Jesus Christ is the true leader of the church. If a Pope gives a directive, every parish priest follows it. If the Archbishop of Canterbury offers a directive, most ministers of a parish would think that a nice piece of advice. The very thought we would hand over our authority would be a romantic notion at the least

Scripture Alone, in what way?

Since I got no takers on my Desanctis series specially from my RC friends I will digress a bit and mention another misunderstood sola.

Sola Scriptura is another one of those things misunderstood by modern evangelicals the same way that Sola Fide is misunderstood to mean - no sacramental usage of Baptism and Lord's Supper. For some Sola Scriptura means the Bible read with nothing, no aids, read without history and without creed. This is so misunderstood that my RC friends are rightly buffled by some Protestants. That is why when they say "hey but you guys though you say Sola Scriptura use Tradition", and I warmly admit right away - "yes" and do not deny it. The question is how is Tradition used?

Here is an article by Rev. Fouts on Scripture and Tradition. I think this article spells out where Reformation Christians are different from today's modern evangelical.

Desanctis III On his "conversion"

I hope my Lutheran readers do not check out simply because I am discussing a non-Lutheran Protestant's work. I am not here to glorify any ism, but I am sure they would agree, we are here to glorify Christ and his Gospel - his Crucifixion, his work of forgiveness for sinners.

Here is now a no nonsense approach of Desanctis regarding his conversion... but as you read, do note that he held the position Emeritus Censor, and was professor of theology at the Theological Academy in Rome.
Perhaps it will be asked on what account I have left a position so good, a career which could open up the way for me to the first ecclesiastical dignities, in orer to throw my self to the arms of a troublesome and uncertain future. I have never been pleased with stories which have been written about conversions, because they are mainly a panegyric which the converted one writes of himself; and strong on this opinion I shall not write the story of my conversion, only I shall say to him who will believe it, that the motives that have moved me to abandon Rome, and take refuge in a strange land [he ran to Malta] under the care of Providence, spring from preferring the Glory that comes from God to that which come from men; heavnly benefits to earthly blessings; true peace of conscience , which is only found in Christ, to the false peace the world gives

This is the secret of my conversion, and as for those who will not believe it, I await them before the tribunal of Christ, when all the secrets of hearts shall be manifested, and there they will see if I have lied. .

I offer this observation unlike those in EWTN who seem to come out saying "Eureka - I am so happy I found and now I belong to the TRUE Church", this fellow points to the peace found in Christ. The conversion testimony does not glorify any church body, though it would be obvious that Desanctis aligned with the Waldensians of Italy, I guess my point is that he got converted to Christ who alone gave him peace of conscience. This was somewhat similar to Luther's conversion to the Gospel as well as that of Calvin.

Was Luther an anti-Pope in the first place?

I often encounter portrayals of Luther as a person who started from the beginning as a person who had an axe to grind against the Pope of his day. Was Luther going to be happy only if he saw the western Church divided? Was he a schismatic to start with? Did he genuinely want reform or did he want division in the first place.?The more these accusations I hear, the more I like to go to the sources, but the more I get convinced as I read them, that the answer to the question was "no", he did not start as an anti-Pope for the sake of being one. I wish the focus on Luther should stop because what was this man after all? May be they think Luther is the Protestant's Pope and by casting him as a demon, Protestantism will simply crumble. It seems to me that he was an ordinary sinner who looked to Christ's Gospel as his hope, as someone once said - one beggar telling another beggar where he can find bread.

At any rate here are Luther's own words and I highlight some points to consider in which I think he denied the allegation that he was an anti-Pope to begin with. This is found in the Note to the Christian Reader.

DR. MARTIN LUTHER TO THE CHRISTIAN READER
                        
       
      EDITION OF 1545
                        
                  
      Above all things I beseech the Christian reader and beg him  for
      the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to read my earliest books  very
      circumspectly and with much pity, knowing that before now I  too
       was a monk, and one of the right frantic and raving papists.  When
      I took up this matter against Indulgences, I was so full and 
       drunken, yea, so besotted in papal doctrine that, out of my great 
       zeal, I would have been ready to do murder -- at least, I would 
       have been glad to see and help that murder should be done -- on 
       all who would not be obedient and subject to the pope, even to 
       his smallest word.
       
      Such a Saul was I at that time; and I meant it right earnestly;
      and there are still many such to-day. In a word, I was not such a
      frozen and ice-cold champion of the papacy as Eck and others of
      his kind have been and still are. They defend the Roman See more
      for the sake of the shameful belly, which is their god, than
      because they are really attached to its cause. Indeed I am wholly
      of the opinion that like latter-day Epicureans, they only laugh at
      the pope. But I verily espoused this cause in deepest earnest and
       in all fidelity; the more so because I shrank from the Last Day
       with great anxiety and fear and terror, and yet from the depths of
       my heart desired to be saved. 
       
      Therefore, Christian reader, thou wilt find in my earliest books
       and writings how many points of faith I then, with all humility,
       yielded and conceded to the pope, which since then I have held and
      condemned for the most horrible blasphemy and abomination, and
      which I would have to be so held and so condemned forever. Amen.
                                                       
      Thou wilt therefore ascribe this my error, or as my opponents
      venomously call it, this inconsistency of mine, to the time, and
      to my ignorance and inexperience. At the beginning I was quite
      alone and without any helpers, and moreover, to tell the truth,
      unskilled in all these things, and far too unlearned to discuss
      such high and weighty matters. For it was without any intention,
      purpose, or will of mine that I fell, quite unexpectedly, into
      this wrangling and contention.  This I take God, the Searcher of
      hearts, to witness.
                                                      
      I tell these things to the end that, if thou shalt read my books,
       thou mayest know and remember that I am one of those who, as St.
       Augustine says of himself, have grown by writing and by teaching
       others, and not one of those who, starting with nothing, have in a
       trice become the most exalted and most learned doctors. We find,
      alas! many of these self-grown doctors; who in truth are nothing,
      do nothing and accomplish nothing, are moreover untried and
      inexperienced, and yet, after a single look at the Scriptures,
      think themselves able wholly to exhaust its spirit.
                                                      
      Farewell, dear reader, in the Lord. Pray that the Word may be
      further spread abroad, and may be strong against the miserable
      devil. For he is mighty and wicked, and just now is raving
      everywhere and raging cruelly, like one who well knows and feels
      that his time is short, and that the kingdom of his Vicar, the
      Antichrist in Rome, is sore beset. But may the God of all grace
       and mercy strengthen and complete in us the work He has begun, to
       His honor and to the comfort of His little flock. Amen. 

Bad boy Luther

I have been thinking on what a friend of mine said... about Luther

I meant that they[Luther and the Reformers] should have stopped after being warned in Exsurge Domine to cease their publications and public preaching.

That's what I meant about my being pragmatic. It seems like a surrender, to back down from the threat of excommunication, but the Church had had its bleak periods before, the biggest one I can think of being the Arian heresy, which overtook most of the Church, and most of her leadership. It was the Lord's hand that saved the Church. So if it is a surrender, it is a surrender to God's reliable providence and pastoring. And no better healing can have ever been had.

Tragically, Luther did feel that it would take the Lord's hand to resolve the corruption he saw, but he just couldn't stand by and wait.

I wonder if in the Arian controversy, Jeff would be willing to have adopted the same attitude - just be quiet - let God sort it out. When false teaching is happening in the body of Christ, controversy and debate should never stop. In my thinking this is part and parcel of God putting us in line.

Jeff speaks of surrender, so surrender to false teaching then? So Luther is a bad boy, he should have recanted on some of his assertions like...

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon[church laws?].

Point 25 is very evident that the Councils like that in Carthage 419 and on wards did not consider the Bishop of Rome as he Vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world. The EO never believed it and so did the early Christians. Point 28 is obvious because all men are sinners and therefore may err. Simple logic will dictate that if we believe the Pope is a human being too. Well for point 33, as a Christian - you think for yourself , you figure it out- should we burn those who disagree with us? Did the early Christians burn the Arians or the Donatists? I wonder. Point 35 is again just stating what the Bible says - 1 John 1:7-8. Point 37 was never believed by the early Christians either.

To do what the Exsurge says is to accept erroneous teaching (at least from Luther's eyes), in otherwords, to comply meant a recantation. Thus he would have to agree that the Pope was the Vicar of Christ for all churches, he would have to agree that the Pope never errs etc etc.

So Luther was the bad boy for not complying, but what about the Papacy for teaching the sale of indulgences, this was not bad?


I wonder, are we not calling good evil and evil good here? I am just thinking...

Desanctis II on Layers

Was Desanctis another Alberto Rivera? I am not yet that convinced that he was, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and reserve my judgements till proven otherwise. Rivera died just about 10 years ago, while Desanctis died 100+ years ago. Click here for some info about him, this link at least confirms that he was indeed a former RC priest who held an important office in the RCC in the mid 1800s.

Scholarship dictates that we examine the things he claimed and said and prove/disprove if such claims did match reality.

According to Desanctis, before plunging in to become an RC, one must see it in Rome. For him, the RCC should be seen in terms of layers and I quote from his preface (p.7) once more ...

You must go to Rome, and observing all things with a searching eye, you will see that real Roman Catholicism has three different doctrines -- the official doctrine, which is very elastic, and as such, may be inderstood in not a bad sense. That doctrine serves as a weapon to the Jesuits and their adherents; and with the double meaning to that doctrine they show faithful Catholics that the Protestants calumniate Catholicism. They have a second doctrine, which they call the theological doctrine, that which goes much further than the official doctrine, but still is restrained within certain limits. Finally, there is the real doctrine, that which is taught to the people, and which they practice; which is full of superstitions and often full of impiety.

By the way a few more points, the book I have does not contain the Conclusion and Notes for the Italian reader, apparently there were documentations that were presented in the Italian edition to prove his points. Also at the time of his writing, there was already a gainsayer called Fr. Perrone who has thrown skepticism at his writings.

Hmm, "calumniate", now that is a new word for me...

Later on I will quote his conversion experience which I find not sensational at all...

Luigi Desanctis I

I am a proud owner of a very rare book printed in 1903 by this former RC priest turned Waldensian in the late 19th c. (1865) Fr. Desanctis wrote a series of letters in the style of C. S. Lewis compiled into a book he entitled Roma Papale (trans. Roman Papacy?) and was translated to English by Maria Betts entitled Popery, Puseyism and Jesuitism.

Apparently the ex-Father Desanctis has the following credentials : born in a RC family, 22 years in a Congregation of priests associated with Jesuits. He was Confessor in Rome for 15 years. He was 8 years the parsih priest of Church of the Magdalene in Rome.


I am not so sure if his boook can be classified as another conspiracy theory that proposes the notion that the Jesuits have a program to win back Protestants to the Pope. I judge a book by its contents not by what it says in its cover. The reason why I like to study this book is because some of the the things he said in his Preface rings true to my experience.

Here is an example. I have often said and observe to the ex-Prots that the RC you see in western countries is not the same thing you see in Latinized countries like the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela etc. I say this as a person who was also raised Roman and was devoted to the practice of the 7 sacraments and devotion to the saints. Remarkably here is what Desanctis says in p. 4.

He who wishes to know Roman Catholicism as it is, must study it in Rome, and study it, not in books, but see it in action in the Pope, in the Cardinals, and in the Roman congregations. Books often give a false, and always an incomplete, idea of Roman Catholicism. One finds in books either the barbarous and superstitious Papacy of the Middle Ages, or the poetical Papacy of Chateaubriand.

If you observe the Papacy in different countries, you will find it most varied. In the south of Italy you will still find all the superstitions of the medieval age; in England, and in Germany where Roman Catholics are mixed with Protestants, you will find a Papacy less superstitious and more tolerant, to be transformed into superstition and intolerance in the day when it shall have become dominant

Back home, when someone wants to have a child baptized, you will be asked in the church office if you want special or regular baptism which implies that the fee for the special one is dearer than the one for the regular one. In p. 6 Desanctis writes with strong words...

To know that Roman Catholicism is the religion of money, you need to go to Rome, to enter the Chancery, and the Roman Court of equity, and to see in what way bishoprics, canonries, benefices, matrimonial dispensations, and all spiritual favours are bought, to see how the price is haggled over, and to see a class of persons authorized to be the agents of such sales, under the specious title of Apostolic Commisioner.

There are fanatics on both sides of the divide, Desanctis does not seem to be one of them for he writes that he does not want to be controversial and he does not deny that there are good people who are RC and honourable in character. He does not deny that there are people who are acting in good faith but he does contend that it is an effect of culpable ignorance and keeping to pursue childhood prejudices (p.6). Amazingly, I recall my prejudices when I was a young lad.


more later...

This Jesuit thinks we are not heretics

In this article an RC priest thinks we are not heretics. Thanks very much, that is very kind of him.

Now if I remember history right, they called us heretics while we called them apostate false church. I wonder if we can stop calling them with the "a" word since we will no longer be called with the "h" word? A barter do you suppose?.

Unity or Truth

What about these 25,000 denominations? I am not bothered by them. I know my blog visitors will be scandalized by what I just said because ... did not Jesus pray that "they" might be one in John 17? I agree he did.

These 25,000 denominations are claiming some absolute truth and they collide, well ... that is better than saying there is no truth, or saying we can not know truth or saying what is true for you may not be true for me so..... why do not we just sit down around a camp fire and sing "Kumbaya my Lord"? Or my RC friends might say, yes there is truth and the Pope says whatever it is, so why don't we just gather around that (please,... I say this respectfully and with no sarcasm)? So what should we do, should we go to the post-modern solution of relative truths?

It is interesting that when Jesus prayed for unity he did not leave out the notion of truth, in fact several times this word were mentioned.

7Sanctify them^[b] in the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19And for their sake I consecrate myself,^[c] that they also may be sanctified^[d] in truth.

Jesus says - Your [The Father's ] word is truth. Where is truth then? Jesus says that it is in God's word, so to know it, find out where God spoke and there we find truth and gather around that.

I contend that the only reliable place to look are the Scriptures because Jesus gave authority to it, not the Church. It was better than that, it was the head of the Church who said that - Christ the Lord.

There is an empirical test to this. See if what Scripture says about your sin matches your experience, see too if you can by your own efforts live out the demands of God. My answer to the first is "yes", my answer to the second is "no" and the solution is not to try harder.

Lastly in the creeds we confess "we believe in one holy catholic (universal) apostolic church... we believe in the communion of the saints". This is an article of faith, that it is , it is already true now, that there is one church -- a body of believers (ie not hypocrites) who in repentance and faith cleave alone to the work of Christ for their sins.

I do not see this oneness by my eyes, that is why it is an article of faith the same way I have not seen Jesus died on the Cross for me, but I believe that story is true.

Those Chain Emails

Do you get them? They reminded me of chain letters that promise fortune if you send to people or bad luck if you do not. Here is one which Pastor Joel, a friend of mine sent me. This Austryn slang... I think this was written by a woman and she writes..

I must send my thanks to whoever sent me the one about rat poo in the glue on envelopes because I now have to use a wet towel with every envelope that needs sealing.

Also, now I have to scrub the top of every can I open for the same
reason.

I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl (PennyBrown) BR who is about to die in the hospital for the 1,387,258th time.

I no longer have any money at all, but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Bill Gates/Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special e-mail program.

I no longer worry about my soul cause I have 363,214 angels looking out for me, and St. Theresa's novena has granted my every wish.

I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers.

I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.

Thanks to you, I have learned that my prayers only get answered if I forward an email to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes.

Because of your concern I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.

I no longer can buy petrol (gasoline) without taking a man along to watch the car so a serial killer won't crawl in my back seat when I'm filling up.

I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists who refuse to put "Under God" on their cans.

I no longer use Glad Wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer

And thanks for letting me know I can't boil a cup water in the microwave anymore because it will blow up in my face...disfiguring me for life.

I no longer check the coin return on pay phones because I could be pricked with a needle infected with AIDS.

I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.

I no longer receive packages from any courier company since they are all actually Al Qaeda in disguise.

I no longer shop at Target since they are French and don't support our Australian troops or the Salvation Army.

I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a phone bill with calls to Jamaica, Uganda, Singapore, and Uzbekistan.

I no longer have any sneakers -- but that will change once I receive my free replacement pair from Nike.

Thanks to you, I can't use anyone's toilet but mine because a big brown African spider is lurking under the seat to cause me instant death when it bites my butt.

And thanks to your great advice, I can't ever pick up $5.00 I dropped in the car park because it probably was placed there by a sex molester waiting underneath my car to grab my leg.

Oh, and don't forget this one either!

I can no longer drive my car because I can't buy petrol(gas) from certain oil companies!

If you don't send this e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 70 minutes, a large dove with diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 PM this afternoon and the fleas from 12 camels will infest your back, causing you to grow a hairy hump. I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbor's ex-mother-in-law's second husband's cousin's beautician...

Have a wonderful day....

If I do not believe this, what do I believe?

I am in my middle years. I go through self-doubts and one of the reasons I blog is that I get to know who I was, when the time comes. I mean, I hope to read what I wrote about and the replies I made to friends who interacted with me along the way. Having gone through subjective experiences lend me open to self introspection more often than average.

Doubts, I have them. I doubt who I am, I doubt if I really knew Christ, I doubt if I was his sheep, I doubt if he really happened to me etc. A wise pastor's wife said that I was going through male menopause. I don't know if that is true, but what I am certain of is that I got uncertainties. At this part of my life, my self tends to talk to me a lot, I get pre-occupied by the inner workings in me. These doubts stem from anxiety, the fear of the unknown, I mean ultimate unknown. Were do I go? What is happening? My feelings are off the chart, it is off the wall and nothing inside can I hold on. So what to do?

Then a gentle thought comes from Scripture, a principle, a lesson from Jesus comes to my mind that seems to challenge and convict me -- it comes from Luke 16, the conversation of the rich man with Abraham Lk 16:27-31

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Here Moses and the Prophets refer to Scripture. Jesus through Abraham is saying, if you do not believe the scripture then no matter what experience you go through or even if someone comes down from heaven tell you the truth, or be alive again, you will not be convinced. If you do not believe scripture, you will not believe ie be convinced of the truth. If I do not rest my soul on what it says, there is really no help for me no matter what people say or whoever might say them to me.

This reminded me during my atheistic day while studying Confusianism, it teaches good things but in the end the authority comes from man - Confusius, and you can say so what Confusius, why should I follow you? Man has no authority, it is God who has the final authority.

Is the Bible true because it says it is true? Or is the Bible true because Jesus says it is true? The first seems circular to me, but in the second, Jesus gives his authority - his backing and approval on the Scripture. If I do not use Scripture as my final authority, then as Jesus said, I make my house on shifting sand. So the when the waters come, I need to stand on the rock.

The Doctrine of Hair

The Rev. Dr. G. I. Barber gave a sermon at 2:30am one Sunday on the Biblical Doctrine of Hair.

When listening, notice the 3 point sermon structure and his appeal in end. Your hair, how it is combed, or how long you wear it could really get you in trouble with the Lord.

Just be warned, if you get stomach ache while listening to this sermon, it is not my fault, as the Rev. Dr. Barber said, he did not write it, neither did I.

stop&think

STOP&THINK

Click on the image to view a movie which I think is an honest and sincere attempt to present the Gospel the best way they know how.

I really like the guitar background, that rock and roll like music reminds me of my younger days, the has been days.

Dr. White of aomin.org has objections to this presentation, he says...

The gospel is not a bare "offer" to all people to accept God's love in Jesus: it is first a command to repent and turn, and then it is in fact a wide and broad and glorious proclamation that the love of God in Christ Jesus is freely experienced by all, Jew and Gentile, who in faith turn to Christ!

I have some thoughts on this film and that criticism above but I am stopping and thinking.

So what do you think?

ex opere operating

I have a theory why my evangelical brothers are weary when one proposes a higher view of the sacraments, for example, as in the Lord's Supper. I think they are weary of ex opere operato, ie, the idea that mere action perfomerd merits the participant brownie points with God. Clearly this would of course be getting brownie points by works but not by grace. In this sense, one can say - God give me favor because I have done this action.

Here is an exerpt from the RC Catechism

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.48 They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God."50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

Contrast this now from Luther's Small Catechism

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

As can be seen Luther, was quite precise as to where faith is directed. Whereas in the RC, faith is not defined and is rather vague, which allows for wiggle room in 1128. In 1128, there is the "nevertheless" clause which is confusing, because on the one hand it does not depend on the rigteousness of the recipient yet it depends on his disposition. If the RC does not object any longer to Luther's catechism, perhaps they have reformed themselves in this area and conceded they were wrong. Similarly in in 1129, the sacraments (and the RCs have more than 2 to 3 , I remember 7) are necessary for salvation. My Reformed brothers do have the right to be alarmed at such a talk. In fact the Apology registered these protests (just examples)...

III. 155 Just as,therefore, the Lord's Supper does not justify us ex opere operato, without faith, so alms do not
justify us without faith, ex opere operato.
III. 165 In this manner they also distorted the Sacraments, and most especially the Mass, through which
they seek ex opere operato righteousness, grace, and salvation.
XII. 11 They falsely assert that the Sacrament itselfconfers grace ex opere operato, without a good disposition on the part of the one using it; no mention is made of faith apprehending the absolution and consoling the conscience.

1128 is now a compliance to XII. 11 but again, there is no official definition of what that "disposition" is supposed to be, you may correct me if I miss such definition or clarification in the RC Catechism. When I contemplate that section of the RC Catechism I quoted, I come out confused. Somehow I can not help but think of double talk and I mean no disrespect, just an honest frank opinion. It seems such wording allows the RC to say -- we have not changed since the old terms are there, ie. justifying ex opere operato, and in the other sense, they can say - they have changed since they added more clarifications on the teaching that sounds Lutheran.

In logic, we have a maxim that says, from a contradiction you can prove anything. That is right, you can prove anything you like under the sun.

In summary, Lutherans do not believe in ex opere operato on sacraments. I hope my Reformed friends take note of that.

Lord, my name is Cruz

This is just a small interruption of the normal broadcast.

I was just reflecting on my name, which happens to be akin to the surname "Smith". It is, no offense the Smiths of this world, it is common and a bit ordinary.

My grandfather told me how we got our name. During the colonial times (my grandfather was born 1892, he was in his 60s when I was born) according to him, the Spaniards would require a census and all the Indios ("indians" - the native Filipinos) would be required to register. Since my ancestors were Indios, they did not know how to write and so when they reach the Spanish clerk to to sign their name, they would not know how. So instead, they will take the pen and just make a cross mark on the dotted line. Thus, the Spaniard would say - Ahh your name must be Cruz because you signed it that way. That explains why there are so many of us with that last name.

As an aside, we were not called Filipinos, that took a while, we had to earn it - we were Indios, not Filipinos - that term was meant for the Spaniards born in the Philippines only.

Anyhow, my last name also means - Cross in Spanish.

So now, I like to humbly pray - Lord, make me live up to my name, may I be a preacher of your Cross, may I like your saints of old, glory in no other. Amen.

The Mighty Holy Will

I got scared of this, at first I thought the song was not serious until I listened more towards the end. This was from a fundamental Baptist Christian college



I got scared because if I was asked by God to choose Him (with what I know now about my sin etc), I know I would not choose Him. I got scared because it depicted God as so great yet he is so weak he can not even override my will. He is depicted as helpless when my Holy Will is involved. He is depicted as a slave to my Mighty Will.

The good news is that God is so great he did not wait for me to choose him, he came to save in Jesus. At the Cross, Jesus chose us. The choice was not up to me, the choice was in Christ and he chose to die for us human beings as the Nicene Creed says...

For us [humans] and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:

If eternal life were up to me, I know I would muck it up.

Sola Fide Hijacked - Misunderstood

sola fide was a slogan that originated with Luther and the more I dialog with modern evangelicals (calvinists and all sorts etc.), the more I am convinced that this is where the misunderstanding is coming from.

It is funny but in my internet wanderings I would be accused of being a hyper-Calvinist (duh??! I am Lutheran and no longer Calvinist so I can not even be a hyper!) . But some accused me of being antinomian at the same time they rebuke me for having a morbid paranoia with guilt and sin. Now if you stop for a moment, surely this is enigmatic and contradictory, it should have rang some bells.

I figured since these wild suggestions stem from Protestants in line with our confession's rooted assertion that God supplies all things that he demands from us, like faith, the understanding of sola fide must be lurking there somewhere. But once again, like many early Lutheran ideas, the term sola fide has been borrowed, massaged, mangled and mis-represented differently and quite foreign to the way Luther defined it. More precisely I observe

a.) Those who rally the slogan more often than not have presented faith as a type of work.
b.) They think that sola fide means that there are no sacraments (Baptism and Supper).

I have said much on a.) lately but part b.) is where people criticise what they do not understand. They should have studied more the Lutheran confessions rather than taking the ball, running with it, playing with it without out even realizing first the rules of the game.

When Lutherans cry sola fide (as I observed) they do not mean faith without sacraments (of Baptism or The Supper), rather they see the sacraments as the means the Holy Spirit uses to produce and sustain faith, ie they are the same as the Gospel but wrapped in water and in the bread and wine as Jesus taught. Case b.) takes time to understand but it is understandable if one gives a solid ear and a search for it in Scripture is undertaken.

It is a shame that some groups have the Word but they have no Sacraments, others have the Sacraments but no Word. Both are made hungry in the end, it just takes time to realize that such poverty is there.

Deaf, mute and blind too

A few moons ago, I had a discussion with a couple if internet friends who happened to be Reformed Baptistic on the topic of infant baptism and regeneration. In our discussion I threw out what I view as a real situation, that of a person who was functioning well but perhaps due to an accident went to coma. I presented a situation where the person had never been baptized but the parents wanted the comatosed son/daughter to be baptized. In fact I made it even sharper when I threw the situation of a person who was born deaf, mute and blind who in no way can profess faith. Needless to say the RBs would not administer baptism to such an individual. One of the argument was - "well, what good would it do to the comatose"? Smack of pragmatism, I noticed.

Now I normally listen to the broadcast of Dr. James White mainly to follow his issues with Dr. Ergun Caner. and what do you know? In this broadcast towards the end (approximately at the 48 min mark) a caller called up regarding the issue of baptism for his down syndromed daughter. I listened to JW's answer and sadly I have to say that the answer was a diplomatic waffle that dodged the issue. The answer was further muddled by a smoke screen redirection towards the issue of paedo communion. I was not impressed. Sorry. The answer was not satisfactory to me and if the caller would be honest , I believe it was not satisfactory to him either.

Of course it is a difficult problem for RBs like JW, he did admit that - it would have been a bit more honorable if the answer was flat - I do not know what to do. Fortunately this is not one of those that is a problem for us. On our side of the fence, there is no doubt what we would do to a deaf, mute and blind person whose parents wanted baptized.

The Rescue

Christmas demonstrates the wisdom of God. See there in the manger, God has provided himself a Lamb who would take away the punishment for your sins and mine. See there God's gift to the world.

4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Gal 4:4-5.

Rejoice. Bow down, praise Him and give Him thanks. It is right and proper to do so.

An ordinary special Steward

I am continuing to enjoy reading the Hammer of God. I wish I was given this book of Bo Giertz along with Walther's Law and Gospel before my stint in ministry. I think these are very helpful books for the would be pastor who has no clue as to what he is to do. Because at the end of the day, the most important thing is to get the message right before you get it out and these books illustrate how the Gospel is applied to the one in the pew as well to the one in the pulpit.

One thought that comes out in the Hammer is the simple idea that the pastor is the steward of the Gospel, in otherwords he is also a fellow sinner who is a work in progress himself. I thought this is so refreshing because back in Charismania, the pastor becomes the Gospel. In Charismania he becomes the epitome of a victorious, pious Christian life. He does not become a steward but becomes a life coach to demonstrate to you how you can do it and make it. This makes for disillusionment and burn out, it misunderstands what Christianity is all about.

You Gospelmonger you.

So when was the last time someone hurled that at you? Have you ever been called one? I was reading Bo Giertz's Hammer of God and this word was introduced in that novel.

I thought, now that is an interesting word similar to war monger or that sort of thing. Would you be insulted if someone referred to you as such? Does this best describe us? Should we wear that label (once again) with dignity?

I know it can be boring to hear us assert the Gospel again and again, I even feel that such a thought of hearing and proclaiming it again and again may be somewhat mundane.

But, I noticed that when I am feeling numbed about the Gospel, it only is because I have not heard the Law in its lightning horror, it just means that I have been hearing the Law as if I can do it, it has been presented or I have presented it to myself as a do-able thing. It does nor terrify me when I am made to believe that I am capable of fulfilling them. I hate it when that happens. Please, give me the Law, do not let me off the hook, let it crush me to pieces, let me dispair of me and my sin, only then will the Gospel be sweet to me, and that would mean I am in love with Jesus again.

Gospelmongers, would to God that might be the reputation we are known for.

The Penny Drops

One of the most difficult thing for me to understand is the idea that Baptism is something that God does rather than something that we do. When I was an RC kid, I never been reminded of my baptism, perhaps I was just ignorant but maybe the RCC really do, but not by my impression. In fact I asked my RC friend and he told me the same. That is something in the past. Then when I became a pentecostal, that was the same too, it is put away in the shelve and never recalled, but that is not true in the Lutheran understanding of baptism. Each start of the service, you start it off by recalling it - In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Then I kept on going back to the Gospel and the doctrine of justification and once we see that justification is a gift, then it is no longer hard to see that Baptism and the Lord's Supper is not a thing we do but gifts that God gives which are connected to the gift of forgiveness of sins in Christ, at the Cross. It is the same Gospel of 2000 years ago. The Baptist certainly would find this weird. I know I did. It sounds weird because they look at Baptism as an ordinance, a command, rather than a gift. No point discussing the mode, or candidates for baptism, you gotta discuss first the nature of the Gospel ie justification. Now that is also weird - to some.

No wonder it was difficult for me to get it because somewhere in my growth, I was made to focus on the Gospel as a demand rather than a declaration. So I go to church to receive God's gifts, what a nice deal.

The Continuing Saga of the White-Caner Baptist Calvinist Debate

There has been an ongoing online debate between Baptists Dr. Ergun Caner Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary and Calvinist Baptist apologist Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Originally the two were about to do a face-to-face to debate Calvinism in Baptist movement, but something went through in the process such that the debate was cancelled. It is funny that after the cancellation, the two for a while debated online the reason for the cancellation of the debate! But lately Dr. White has been commenting on the sermons of Dr. Caner, an example can be found here.

As can be gathered, the staunch Calvinist is White and the anti-Calvinist is Caner. I am not sure if Dr. Caner would like to be labelled Arminian, but he is a Of "free-willer" at least that can be said.

The comments that Dr. White has been making is quite revealing as well as the sermon delivered by Dr. Caner too. What is revealed in these two is the fact again that the Cross or Justification is not at the center of these two people's positions. Dr. White says that Jesus should be Lord because He created people. That is true that Christ created us but that is not the reason he should be Lord. Dr. White does not want to go to the Cross because to do that would mean he has to deny the doctrine of Limited Atonement. That would be bad because he will lose the "reformed" label. The "Reformed" label is something people fight for - it is the IN word in Christian circles now a days. On the other hand, Dr. Caner emphasized the free-willing nature of human beings such that it makes man the determiner of his salvation. In other words, Dr. White's Calvinism means that it is God who determines who is lost and who is saved. For Dr. Caner, it is man who determines if he is saved or lost. None of these positions talk about the Cross.

It is disappointing for example that Dr. White wants us to hail Jesus is Lord because He created us, and not because He died for us. On the other hand, for Dr. Caner, man casts the deciding choice, all has been done, all we need to do is make the right choice, make Jesus Lord.

These two positions are too far from the sayings in our circle - Jesus is Lord precisely because He is our Savior. Of course by His right of creation He is Lord, yet that is not how God wants us to hail His Son. Rather we cry He is Lord because He bled and died for us, He is Lord because He saved us, sacrificed His all for us. He is Lord because He has won us and paid for us.

The Church That Would Not Simply DIE

The church on a hill. Known to be the oldest Lutheran church operating in Australia, it celebrated its 150th year in operation last Sunday November 12, 2006. Built by early German and Wendish farming settlers in Victoria in 1856, it can only seat 32 people. It has no toilet, it has no electricity, it has no airconditioning, it has no kitchen, no dining area, no Sunday School facilities, and today it is the home church of only 8 adults and a dog!

What on earth is the point of this? It is certainly by today's standards foolishness to continue operating this church. In fact, it is good for the museums! It has only one use, you might say -- that of a historic tourist spot - perhaps it may earn its denomination some money in the process.

Thomastown Lutheran Church defies our modern way of thinking. It defies our pragmatism and our idea of church. People might say, well why go on? You might wonder though that of the 8 some people that worship there only one can trace her roots to the early founding settlers, all the rest may be considered new comers!

The church on the hill just would not simply roll over and die, it embarasses the modern mind and is offensive to our upward mobile thinking. So one wondes why is it still kicking and ticking, when in fact nothing is happening there? How could God be in any thing so ancient and small? Ahh but perhaps something is happening. Why is it still operating today? It is there because as one of its former pastors' say : it is there and still exists today because God wants it so.

"'Look, you scoffers,be astounded and perish;
for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.'"

My wife and I are one of the "fools" who attend this church.

Heresies and Music?

I have been reading Harold .O.J. Brown's book entitled Heresies. I picked it up again primarily because I thought I had none (errors or heresies) but in the last year or so, I must confess, I was a party (a heretic in Brown's definition - heresy is a party) to some erroneous teachings - I did decisional-ism, born-again-ism, altar calling-ism, I did not see from Scripture the Law/Gospel, and although I think I got the Gospel right, I was wrong in turning its proclamation to a proposal. Although I was taught these ism from the ones who pastored me, I am responsible for repeating them . To all the folk I preached to, please forgive me. I am deeply sorry - above all I was wrong etc. etc. How I wish I could preach again the Good News that is better than you think.

Prof Brown, a confessing Reformed theologian, gives a fair treatmeant of all concerned be it orthodox Calvinist, orthodox Lutheran, and heretic ones of all types. There are a few things he admitted that interest me, one of which is when he says that the first couple of hundred years after the Reformation, the Calvinists produced more heresies than the Lutherans.

In P.383,

The first phase of the Reformation took the universal church out of the center of attention and replaced it with the local congregation; this [Pietism] second wave of Reformation, if we may call it that, redirected attention from the congregation to the individual believer. Christians began to sing "I" rather than "we"

I though this was interesting yet it still goes on today.

Funny Mix

I sometimes get surprized when I see some zealot Puritan Calvinist bloggers put the picture of Martin Luther along side the picture of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon together in the same spot!

I think this is naive. This is not seriously dealing with the teachings of Luther and is fanciful. I believe the smelly monk Luther would have spewed out explatives upon seing his picture along side these men. For one thing Luther would have rejected Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper because it falls short, since it stems from a Nestorian view of Christ. He would have been upset with Edward's mysticism and would have lumped him with the Enthusiasts, and most of all, he would have anathematized the baptistic Spurgeon for being an AnaBaptist in his baptist doctrine.

Same cloth - many points

Through past historical events, I am still part of list group whose members I am sure treasure and love their Calvinism. A discussion arose between me and with a Baptistic 4.5 point Calvinist friend in the list who then got into discussion with the guy I usually spar with, a Baptistic 5 pointer Calvinist. Here is a quote from the 4.5 pointer

Under all of our theologies (God's included) the death of Jesus Christ saves no one. It presents no one before God as justified, in and of itself. To be really blunt – the death of Christ is of no
more value than the death a sheep outside of the complete salvation "package" - sovereignly decided by God. Again very bluntly – the blood of Christ is of no more value for our salvation
than a quart of oil outside of the complete method of God given to us whereby we must be saved.

Even under the vaunted supposed Calvinistic theology, Christ's death accomplished nothing until the merits of it are applied to our lives when we exercise our God given faith.

You said, "The Calvinist believes that Christ has already purchased the redemption (saved positionally) of His own when He received their retribution. And that, the benefits of the secured salvation simply need to be brought to them by the Holy Spirit that they may
be saved experientially. "

Not true! I don't believe that and I don't think many Calvinists would say that they believe that.

I admire the candor of my 4.5 pointer friend about his Calvinism, he was willing to call a spade a spade. His frankness and boldness got me thinking, for a while now I have thought that Arminianism and Calvinism are a cut from the same paradigm. The 4.5 pointer brother confirmed what my hunches were telling me. In the end it leads to inward looking faith, i.e. we are saved by what is inside us. One is left looking at the subjective justification rather than the objective. Although the 5.0 pointer affirms that this faith is an instrument, one's faith nevertheless gets the subsequent attention or focus, at least my 4.5 pointer friend was willing to admit that, yet the 5.0 pointer fails to see it in the system. His brutal honesty was something to note and immitate.

What is quite unique about the Lutheran fathers is that they can say "do not talk to me about faith, talk to me about Jesus". Faith as opposed to works, simply trusts the promise God made that is already there. Indeed, when we focus on our faith and our consciousness of it, we can be side tracked. The Apology has this

56] For faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy.

It receives the justification that is already there - won by Christ. Amen.

Repentance

I am thinking over this definition of repentance by an internet friend...

'repentance is a willingness or resolution to consciously turn away from sin, self, and the Devil, and a concomitant commitment to follow Christ in His lordship.'

Should I agree with this?

Attitude

Something triggered in my mind while I was listening to Issues Etc. It occured to me that when I was in evangelia/charismania that we talked often about bad attitude rather than sin. Having bad attitude is not sin. This means that you can improve on your bad attitude by adopting new thoughts. In born again teaching, Christians are bogged down by bad attitude, they are not bogged down by sin. So you have sermons on how to counter bad attitude, a lot of sermons preached on having the right attitude.

The nice thing about bad attitude is that you can sort of correct it by simply stopping that bad thing you do or think. You'd think?!/?

Well, if bad attitude is considered sin, that is very negative and people can not relate to that. But if bad attitude is not sin, then the solution to that is found inside you - it means you have to work at it.

Religion of works do not appeal to me because I am downright lazy and get tired easily.

I do not have bad attitude, I have sin.

That One Line in Nicene Creed

The line reads

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

When I ask my credo-baptist friends if they affirm the Nicene Creed they normally say "yes". I guess most of them now a days do not recite the Apostle's Creed and so they think that the Nicene Creed is the same but just an elaboration of it... until I point out that one line.

The truth is that if you are a re-baptizer, you can not and should not affirm the Nicene Creed because that one line there is not something a re-baptizer believes, why? Because a re-baptizer does rebaptize persons who have received Christian baptism when they were a infants. Because for them the ability to profess faith is a pre-requisite for baptism. I think this misunderstands Sola Gratia.

The fact is that since a re-baptizer can not affirm the Nicene Creed, the re-baptizing Christian is not catholic. Understandably she not Catholic (big C), but she is not even catholic (small c) either.

Hmmm...

Dr. Little's piece says a lot

I am so happy that I found Dr. C. H. Little's articulation of justification. By the way we share the same name because when mine is translated in English it means little too. However mine is a nickname and his was a surname.

This is a lovely short essay that instructs us how to avoid faith in faith. It tells us how to avoid synergism and why the Gospel is really good news.

Longed to Hear

A long time ago, I was watching a teaching video of a famous and respected Calvinist theologian say that he longed to hear someone tell him his sins are forgiven. I do not blame him, if you have a wife, you would long to hear her at times say to you she still loves you, right? What is wrong with having what is fact mentioned to you? Nothing, in fact it is part of our human need.

This is why I believe in absolution. The good Calvinist theologian is well aware that there is such a thing. He is a giant scholar and an authority (but I won't mention his name until I can refer to you the details when he confessed about that need), yet he and his church do not practice absolution. They misunderstand it, the same way I misunderstood it too. I got offended with it too, until...

Absolution scandalizes some Christians, because the question that comes about right away is that -- man has no right to forgive anyone's sins, only God can. This is right and logical but why should we believe in absolution?- because when the minister proclaims to me that my sins are forgiven, he is not saying that without a basis. He is saying that according to the fact that 2000 years ago, Jesus took all the guilt of my sins (including my future sins) at the Cross . Yes, it is correct that no man can forgive another's sins against God only God can, but the fact is that is what God did! In Jesus' at Calvary. Its a gift.

What a blessing. We should go out of church shouting and leaping in praise to God. We love Jesus because he forgives us.

Corruptible

I was just again meditating on the Gospel and how it can be corrupted. I was reminded when I was in charismania. The pastors I had used the term Gospel but it was some vague concept. One even pointed out the Bible as the Gospel! One denomination even have the motto (as I said in the past blog) All the Gospel -- meaning they have all the goodnews. Yet, when I first believed I only knew of just one - Jesus paid for me. Then you get involve in church and you get to hear that there is more coming -- bigger and better. My sinful sould loved that false doctrine, you can have heaven here on earth too now that Jesus is your Lord. It was similar to a fairy tale story. It was a Christianity whose theology is Glory rather than the Cross.

Yes, we can corrupt the Gospel, our sinful soul is a creature of the Law. We can turn the promise to performance and even fool ourselves that we are actually pulling it off. The Gospel is not intuitive, it is easier to believe God helps those who help themselves rather than believe God helps those who are helpless.

From the time we were born, we have always looked into ourselves. The Gospel is outside and makes us look not within, but without. Don't kid yourself, you and I can muck-up the Gospel. People did it in the past, and people still do it today.

F Words

Yeah, no more F words in Christian circles today because fanaticism and false doctrine are taboo subjects. They have been eliminated from existence, they are no longer in the dictionary. As far as modern evangelia/charismania is concerned today, they do not exist, no one needs to be warned from them, no one needs to be taught about their dangers. You are just a stirrer if you ever even suggest that some practices are coming from fanaticism or false doctrine, that is not religiously correct. You are the bad guy and you are upsetting the harmony of individuals - now why can we not simply just get along. Now read this and if you do not weep something is wrong.

I like Cemataries

I mean cemetaries. Aussie kids pronounce it as cemataries. I like to visit cemetaries. I am not kidding you. No, I do not go in the evenings, I go at day time. Often when I visit a country town somewhere I enjoy reading the epitaphs engraved on tombstones, whenever we happen to pass by. They tell a story, they tell of a philosophy, of hope and faith of the one burried there whatever that may be.

Lately I have been driving through one on my way to uni. The cemetery is a bit hidden by an iron fence wrapped around its perimeter, so when you drive by you see mostly crosses that stand out above the height of the fence. The crosses are what you see and focus on, some of them are tall. They do draw your attention. Well at least, they always draw mine. Can not help but looking at them as I drive.

It just got me thinking. Why did the early Christians use the Cross as the symbol of their faith? Why, it is almost like the electric chair of today? That is the place where consigned criminals perish. It is a symbol of shame. A lot of people died on the cross, yet the Christians used it to identify them of their faith.

The cross reminds us of something that happened in the past. It was not something trivial, it was something very very great, it cost God his best and his everything. It tells us that God hang his Son there for your account (and mine). We were supposed to be the one who should die a criminal's death but instead God slew his Son so he can have mercy on us. I tell you today I am filled with wonder at this. It is a great salvation and may we not neglect it is our prayer.

It is a good reminder of the Gospel, and please do not tell me I do not need to be reminded by it. I need to be reminded by it because I have a tendency not to stay on it, indeed my tendency is to move and wander away from it. That is part of my being a sinner.

The cross is the Gospel in one symbol. We do not venerate it, we run to the reality it points to - the atonement of Christ for sinners, in faith we claim it as ours because it is right down ours. His death is,... for you, for me.

Wise folk say -the Cross of Jesus is not only the start of Christian life, it is also where it ends.

Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord, you finished it. Amen.

Blog Roll

Visit Aardvark Alley's blog. Thanks to him for including this blogspot in his list.
Look Here

Too Good to be True?

In the midst of thesis work, I had been thinking -- If the Gospel is God's Truth, can it be corrupted? I chewed on this question for quite a bit and it went on for a couple of days. Absolutely, you bet!!!. As early as in the time of St. Paul - apostle to the Gentiles, we read his warning in Gal 1:8. He even pronounced a curse on himself should he go back and change the message. This is astounding because even when the apostles were around, people have been changing the Gospel already. People, and thus by mplication, the Christian Church, can corrupt it.

There are so many reasons why this happens. The Gospel is good news - Jesus dying and being raised from the dead for the sinner's forgiveness while that sinner is still a sinner - is just (pardon me) --- too darn too good to be true. This is absolutely just too much goodnews to take and our mind gets overwhelmed by the force of this reality. Our mind is not program for this sort of reality.

Let me list a few things why the Gospel may be corrupted by people and thus by churches (let me know if I missed some) ...

1. The Gospel is counter-intuitive. It is not natural to comprehend, so it is easy to misconstrue it. What is intuitive but for God to be good to those who are good? Certainly he is bad to those who are bad, that would be more natural to think of. But God being good to the bad? That would be...non-sense! So even if Jesus is there, we patch the Gospel and re-package it with us or something in us included in it. We change the Gospel to a proposition rather than keep it as proclamation. In other words, we impose our intuition into it and thereby change it however subtly. Fortunately, the Bible does not change, you go back to it and it still says the same - Christ died for sinners. God's Grace (Jesus) is greater than our sin.

2. Sin itself. Our sinfulness makes us corrupt the Gospel. Unbelief is part of that sinfulness. Deceitfully workin inside us, our tendency is not to believe it. Sin does that and we do not always see it already operating in our hearts - we disbelieve. The less famous sin -- pride, says - surely it can not be that I do not have to do anything. What? Simple trust in the fact of the Gospel? Surely (we say), it can not be that easy - I still have to do something like ... 'decide', 'confess', 'pray' and 'believe" etc. So we focus on the results of faith rather than the Christ of faith. So we focus on the spiritual effects and use them to change the Gospel. We make the results to a formula, a command, a work to be done. I like what I heard from Dr. Nigel when once interviewed at Issues Etc., he said - do not talk to me about faith, talk to me about Jesus -- what a wise advice.

If the Gospel is too good to be true, it is only so, because we are just too bad to deserve it.