I knew it

Sometime ago, I had a feeling that it would just be a matter of time when we hear a famous Evangelical turn to Rome. I had this notion because apologists of RCC persuasion have been very active publishing conversion experiences. Now it has happened, like a big fish swimming the river (Tiber) to Dr. Francis Beckwith, former Evangelical Theological Society President. This is no ordinary layman, returning to the RCC, this is a leader in a highly visible Protestant scholarly society and has lots of publicity with embarassment for Evangelicals. So many things have been written in reply to Dr. Beckwith's move. I am not here to offer a profound analysis( I am hardly profound). I have no doubt he is sincere and must have come to a crisis of faith that only this move can reconcile the turmoil (so he thinks).

A few things are worth noting. Should not the local church to which Dr. Beckwith belongs exercise discipline? That is I am sure, that Protestant local church to which he attended, if it be Evangelical, surely believe that he is embracing some false teachings, thus should publicly call him to repentance and publicly state that he is under discipline.

Now I wonder, had each Evangelical convert to RCC got disciplined in such a way, I wonder what could result if the Scott Hahns, the Gerry Matatics etc. got such public chasening from their former local churches, I wonder what might have happened? It is not too late to do such a thing, I suppose.

But then, wait - does not Vatican II makes conversion to the RCC superflous?

On an amusing note, from what I heard (and this is just hearsay), had this happened 200 years ago, it would not be strange to hear a suggestion from some quarters that the person converting to RCC from Protestantism must have been a Jesuit mole whose main design was to convert Protestants back to Rome. Don't laugh loud, I know this is playing up to the music of conspiracy theory. But apparently that suggestion was not considered entirely pointless, a couple of hundred years ago.

You're soooh mean!

You probably think this blog is about you. Sorry, not really. I don't know.

Many Evangelical as well as Calvinist folk are so offended with the closed communion practise of Lutherans. At first, in my mind, that was a concern in me too. It seems so tribal, divisive, clannish and not Christianly at all.

Over at Reformed Catholicism this is being discussed. It was started off from The Pirate with a nice help from Confessing Evangelical . These guys' contributions have been insightful.

To my Calvinist and Evangelical friends who are quite disappointed at the close communion practices of orthodox Lutherans, I have a suggestion, a sincere advice. Do not start with the question "why do they do close communion"? This is not the first question to ask. The first issue is this, "what is happening at the Lord's Supper"? Is this the body and blood of Christ? This is the first question to understand, and when it is settled, the idea of closed communion, you will find is not strange at all.

If you answer that question with a "yes", to which a Lutheran will say also "amen", then you got your answer too - you will see that it makes sense why they practice close communion and they only offer it to those who can say "yes", this is the body and blood of the Lord according to his Word.

If your answer is "no", then why blame them for being closed? This is something to be happy about, why commune at the table to which you can not agree? You should not be desiring it. Besides, this answer means there is nothing special about communion and it is no different (really, I mean no dis-respect) to eating bread for breakfast or taking a sip of wine during dinner.

So the Lutheran practise of closed communion is a very simple issue to resolve. It is not hard and you will not be offended once you know the answer to "what is on the table". Believe me, I was like that too, close communion became the least of my concerns after I got the answer to the question from Scripture (1 Cor 10:16).

Now would an RC commune in a Lutheran table? Of course they won't! I got my suspicions why they won't, I just want to know if they match their reasons.

Theology and Mis-Theology in Spiderman 3

I must confess, I am a Spiderman fan. I saw Spiderman 3 last night with the family.

I like Spiderman because he is so human, he has money problems, love problems, ego problems and also, sin problems.

Spiderman 3 proved to be more theological than the last two episodes, for me anyway. Here we get the problem of revenge, hatred and its resolution - forgiveness.

Being infected by a venom from outer space, Spidey turned into a violent revenge ravaged man - he turned into a nasty and not nice than usual self - he was there to enjoy the fun, of getting even. And he loved being that way. Giving in to the self is addictive, intoxicating. Gal 5:19. I like the line Peter Parker said to Eddie Brock, "what do you want, forgiveness? Get religion".

There are a couple of things though that are mis-theologies in Spiderman 3. For those who have no Christian connection, but are submerged into pop culture, the theology in Spiderman would probably be the only exposure one could have.

There were a few things which some what bothered me. Firstly, Eddie went to church after being humiliated by Parker, he prayed to the crucifix of Jesus and asked Parker to be killed? Is this a swipe at Roman Catholicism which normally uses crucifixes or to Christians in general i.e. is it ligitimate to pray to Jesus for others to die? I probably prayed that way but that is wrong.

Secondly and the most disturbing to me now is Parker's exhultation of "your choice", so much Pelagian innuendo came through at the ending, and I felt it was in line with the American notion of free will/ your choice. cf. http://extranos.blogspot.com/2007/01/mighty-holy-will.html
When it comes to attaining a connection with God, our free will is incapacitated.

In the end, the exaltation of our free will is still part of that sinful flesh.

Any thoughts?

The Small Cat

I once asked my daughter, who worships in a Pentecostal church, if her friends in church heard, or could recite or just plain speak of the Apostles Creed. She said - "Well I would know about it since you spoke of it, but I doubt if my friends ever heard the thing".

The more I observe young Christians in evangelical churches, the more I am convinced that many (quite many) are not taught or catechized well. I wonder what would they say if I asked them - "what is justification, regeneration, or name one commandment in the 10 commandments"? They probably would give me a shocked looked, eyes wide open and rolling. People today are not into those might big words, they would probably say "I am not into that sort of thing, all I want is to know Jesus". (To be interpreted) "I want to know how to make it in this life".

Mighty big words? I don't think so - those words like justification, atonememt etc are in Scripture or used as terms in Scripture. You can not ignore them if you read the Bible - they are there.

But really it is not the fault of young people why they are like that. It is the church that is representing Christianity to them and what they see done and talked about in church gives them the impression that, that is what Christianity is all about - how to make it in life. So long as the church is giving people what they want and not what they need, Biblical ignorance will not decline, it will even increase. If the church caters to what people want and not to what Scripture says people need, then trouble is just in the corner, the church will be following where they lead, not tell them where they should go.

Oh, don't be impressed that some could even quote the Small Catechism verbatim. I discovered that there are those who can quote what Luther said there and still manage to believe that Christianity is about good works, and that one is saved by doing good. In fact that could be the reason why they go to church religiously. When we see this - we should not just sad about the young, we should get sad about the old too.

Born Again -st-ness-ism

There is much correction needed in my former evangelicalism. I agree. I would not be where I am standing now had I thought all was well. It was in the process of observing the things going on inside and those outside me that made me try to understand, how is Christianity "suppose to work"? I had questions, questions like - what really is the Gospel? What is the nature of faith and Christian life? Is it a trip of one victory to another? Is the Bible about me and how I could have good success? I did discover that what I formerly thought was true was not all that true and it needed adjustments. Like any naive believer, I was influenced by people I admired who lived behind the pulpit. They were sincere dynamic and yes, charismatic pastors whose teachings I absorbed and parroted. They represented what Christianity was all about. They were well meaning people, they taught what they believed the Bible said. But, there were things that were wrong. Now, I am like a boy who seemed to have discovered where the real goodies are and enthusiasm gets ahead, often it being manifested in a somewhat critical way.

I hope my readers who visit from all over the world (mainly in the USA, Australia, UK, Canada) [but I do not mean to imply I got tons of them, but this is the world of the internet, they can be in India or Malaysia, no matter] do not judge that this one blog site is just against anything going on in evangelia or in Romanism. I hope they do not visit this blog to entertain themselves by joyously wondering, now what is he against this time? That would be boring wouldn't it? Besides, such novelty will wear out. I hope they find that somewhere in the bowels of this site, they find some of my blogs that does not kill but rather make alive, make the soul sing through Christ and His Gospel. I hope so.

So I put the picture of Whitfield here for a reason, to discuss the subject of "born again-ness". I have to thank Steve for jogging my mind on this. When I realized the work of Jesus was for me, I did not know the term born again. The pastors of the Assemblies of God felloweship where I first attended after believing told me that this was what happened to me. The term was foreign to my consciousness, I knew about being "saved", but not about "being born again". From then on I heard about it and even going to ministry that was the subject of my teaching and my theme. Like Whitfield I preached on "you must be being born again", as if one can do something to do that. Sometimes questions are good and so a few years ago, I did an exercise to see if the Apostles in Acts preached on this theme. So I scrutinized each sermon I could find in Acts. Shockingly, I found no sermon enjoining people to be "born again" like I did (and like my pastors did).

In John 3:5, being born again does not mean it is a command, rather it is a description of what should happen to us to see the kingdom of God, it does not imply nor taught that we can do something about it. Indeed the verses even discuss the role of "water and the Spirit" in John 3. As Steve said, Nicodemus wanted the "how". In Acts, the disciples did not focus on this for this is the effect of something - it is the effect of the Holy Spirit. I noticed the disciples in Acts concentrated on proclaiming the Law and the Gospel to their hearers. Their sermons were different from mine - and I should say, far different from Mr. Whitfield's too. Under the disciples, people came to faith, they were indeed born again, but the effect was not their theme, the Gospel was the disciple's theme and focus.

So do I want people to be born again? Yes, but that is something I can not do for myself nor for someone else, nor for themselves. The same way I did not decide to be born, neither did they, so I nor they can decide to be born again. But here is what I as a preacher can do - I can faithfully tell them the problem of their sin, and tell them the solution that Jesus did for those sins. Now, let's see if they don't get born again.

Not In Limbo Anymore

While growing up as an RC kid, I was well aware of the RC teaching that babies who die un-baptized go to limbo - an unknown place, a question mark spot, neither heaven nor hell. Of course, there is no official teaching about this - not in the sense that there is a document signed by the Magisterium, but RC pius folks and priests followed this line of thought.

Now the RCC is stating through its Vatican International Theological Commission that babies that die un-baptized go to heaven, or atleast we should have a hopeful expectation that they are there. You can read about it here.

Modern evangelicals have always believed that babies that die go to heaven. For them it did not matter wheather or not these babies got baptized, besides, they do not baptize babies anyway. They go there because they are innocent by default - I remember John MacArthur teaching that babies that die are by default elect because they go to heaven straight away. This new position or a bit official position (I do not know what to call it) complies with the modern evangelical teaching.

So the RCC is lining up closer to the modern evangelical view. Though this official document by the RCC commission carries no official dogma, it is pre-cursor to future official teaching pronouncements by the Pope. Realizing that this weakens their doctrine of baptism, the paper was quick to assail such possible implications.

My evaluation is that their attempt fails. It does indeed weaken their doctrine of baptism. So could being aborted the best thing that can happen to a person since it brings them to heaven? I am being cynical as usual. Then there is another question - the same question that can be hurled at modern evangelians -- at what age when an un-baptized baby or child dies is it dis-qualified for heaven? When is a child no longer a child or a baby stop being a baby, at what age? If they changed their traditional mind on this, I am not surprized if they change their minds in other things too. Perhaps one day they can canonize Luther, that way one day the Lutherans may well burn their BoC.

Lutherans believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, though it is not absolutely necessary. However, there is no sure place we can stand on, and baptism is that place where sure hope is found, for there the promise of God is sealed. Hence, we dare not weaken the gift that God gives. Excuse my lack of pius speech - but there you can hold God's feet to the fire.

Time for some repentin'

I tracked for some time the Virginia Tech tragedy (VTT). Yes, you can say Virginia Tech killings. I thought about the families of those who were killed and the family of the killer too. The whole incident makes me dream of a better society.

I looked at those who died and almost all of them where younger than me, I am now in my middle years. The age of the killer and that of those he killed where in their late teens or early 20s, young students not yet lived half of their years. Their lives were cut short by the gun man and he cut his life short too. I asked my self the question, why them, not me? In times like this when we see the awful effects of our own sins in this world, yes, our own sins, not just that of the killer's, we can see that it affects those that have nothing to do with it. It hurts, even destroys both the guilty and the innocent. I think of families. I think of parents who had nothing but better wishes of a good and peaceful life for their lost son or daughter, now cut short, no longer with the living. Those who died may have never even seen the gun man before. The gun man's family undoubtedly innocent of the actions of their son will be affected as well. Shame, dishonor, sadness, these are just a few that they will be living with. Then, I am reminded of what Jesus said, in Luke 13.

1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

When tragedy and horror happens to our fellowmen, we need to realize, that such can be our experience too. Its time to re-evaluate. Have I refused to stop and listen to those who are unable to talk, those who are not as sociable than others? Have I replied their lack of trust by my lack of trust towards them? Have I valued the proud, the strong, the beautiful and those which society admits more than those who are timid, the weak and those that society welcomes? Have I been so pre-occupied by my own self agenda, that I could not care any better for the ills and troubles of my neighbor? Have I refused to offer compassion to those who are less fortunate than me? Have I been a party to the promotion of greed?

I have.

Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, he forgave the woman caught in adultery, he allowed a woman with questionable character to wipe his feet with her tears and commended the unclean woman with the issue of blood for touching his clothes. These were just some of the things Jesus did to those who were not, we might call beautiful people.



The question is not why bad things happen to good people, the real question is why good things happen to those who are bad, like me.

We smile and we laugh, so relax.

The smile is a very important behaviour of Filipinos. They smile when they are happy, they smile when they are shy, they smile when they do not know the answer, they smile when they are embarassed, they smile when they are angry and they smile when they are sad. They even smile when they cry.

Then they laugh. Filipinos have another trait, a very Filipino trait of laughing at themselves. The greatest Filipino jokes I have heard are jokes about Filipinos. Well what is left to do if your economic and social condition has no hope of ever changing? Take it easy anyway.

So in line with this trait of laughing and joking about themselves, I am featuring here Betty Butterfield when she went to a Lutheran church ( I have heard of her the first time in horn+swoggled).

Proverbs 17:22

Dr. Piper on Hearing God's Voice

Here is more cherry blossom pictures. I am back in my home base now.

I used to be a great fan of Dr. Piper, back in those days when I was toying with Calvinistic thinking. Over on this article, he gives a critique on the experience of a Christian university professor in "hearing the voice of God". I think his critique in the extra-Biblical experience of the professor is well taken. The professor believes God speaks today because he (the professor) felt an inner movement or an inner voice in his heart, telling him to give the monetary proceeds of his book to a needy student.

However, in this written piece, prior to his critique, Dr. Piper too first relates his own experience with hearing the voice of God, and this is through a reverberation of a voice which is Scriptural in content. This experience convinced Dr. Piper to attest that God speaks today. Such reverberations for him is a clear cut evidence that God still speaks today in our space and time.

I wonder about Dr. Piper's experience. Don't get me wrong, I do have such internal experiences, I have countless of them and I can relate to what Dr. Piper says. The effect of such feelings is exhiliration, you walk away with a shout of joy.

Here is my question, why is Dr. Piper's experience valid rather than that of the professor? Is it because Dr. Piper got his with some Scriptural content? What makes his inner experience more proper that that of the professor? Both of these are experiences of spiritual nature - that of Dr. Piper and that of the professor are experiences - perhaps even mystical experiences?

What am I saying? Are they not both walking by sight and not by faith, in that they conclude God speaking by way of inward experiences?

Rather, should we not think that the Scripture is God' Word today whether or not we experience any innward movements in our hearts? Read it and you hear God's voice speaking to you. Indeed, God does remind us of what he wrote in his Bible, but the proof that God speaks to us is Scripture itself revealed in what he has done through Christ.

Over at KFUO, Dr. Hein discusses mysticism here, there he says that there is one thing that God wrote in our hearts - the Law and the convicting power of the Law is what is internal that God promises to do, all the rest are external - like the Gospel.

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.