Monday, September 17, 2007

Shocked and Awed, No More.

I was driving to work the other day and I got distracted by a billboard of a TV series called "Californication". I could not believe what I just read. I could not believe it not because I got offended, but because I could not believe the word "fornication" could be used in some approving manner. What it implied to me by that title was that "yes, this is a TV drama about fornications and fornicators, it is the story of their escapades". Now, you can fault me for being a prude, I have not seen any of its episodes. But frankly, I don't think we have a famine of such stories. That is just one story line after the ones we have seen before. If you ask me, there is already plenty of that value system in the movies we see today.

Then after a few weeks I read this on ABC News.

Just by coincidence, for the last couple of Sundays now the documentary called Decadence - The Meaninglessness of the Modern Life, is being shown in our SBS.



I so like this documentary and I do recommend it. I recommend it because it makes you think, it ashamedly critiques modern Western culture, what it has become and continues to become. It is no wonder that Islamists have no bit of respect for what the West stands for today.

As an example, several decades ago, explicitly having pornographic lyrics in songs in my generation was unheard of. Even in the lyrics of "Hey Jude" by the Beatles one had to be given the angle of looking at it in a suggestive way before one gets it. You got to think hard in order to get it. Today there is none of that. It is in your face and in your ears.

Zeks sells.

What does a scantily clad girl have to do with an advertisement for roast chicken? What about the Big Brother program which is nothing more but helping you indulge in satisfying your voyeur curiosities? Am I an idiot, as if I do not know what these TV stations are trying to do to me? They are marketing to me, they are involving me at the same time they want me to buy what they are selling, all of these at my expense. I am insulted not because they show people in their depraved worsts, but because they have the nerve to think I am stupid enough not to notice what they are doing.

There is a cultural transformation happening and the engine for that is Tinseltown - Hollywood. It is the fueler of pop-culture. No, it is not just porning America, it is porning the world. Hollywood has a lot more influence in the world than the White House, don't be naive. There are many things Hollywood can accomplish that will take the White House decades to get going. A few years from now, what used to be R rated movies will have X rated scenes, and they will make it appear ok, it will become the norm. A movie house who won't run them would miss out on the money.

In today's culture you do zeks first and try to develop the relationship later. I often observe that there is idolizing of romantic love in Hollywood movies as if you are not fulfilled if you do not have a boy friend or a girl friend who is in love with you. I do not mean such love is not needed, what I am amazed is the obsession of Hollywood with it. I pity my kids and their children, they are fodder for marketeers.

Do not think that women will come out properly treated after this mayhem of filth is over. No not at all. Just think, who are the role models of teenage girls? Paris Hilton types, it is the model who has the body but no brains. No wonder boys today want these types but little do they realize is that they are looking for a trophy they can hold in their hands and put on the book shelve. Well trophies are just that, objects to be put on a shelve, you pick them up and look at them if you are in need of some comfort and when that is done, you put them back on the shelve.

In fact, women are becoming more and more objects for indulgence. They do become a thing for one's pleasure, this is what Hollywood is making them to be. Zeks is a recreation sport and women are the equipment. What bothers me is that I do not think young women are resisting, I think they see Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan as people to be envied and admired. They seem to be flowing where the river flows, they are gliding along with the marketeers, oblivious that they are swimming the sewer lines.

I hope I am wrong.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Assurance and the Lutherites

Oh boy, I am enjoying this

I do not know about you but the WCF has an article on assurance but it does not help assure, at least it would not help assure me or it has failed to assure me.

I refer you to Article XVIII, but we do not need to go far, just the first one will do and you will see what I mean...

I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]


Now this is precisely the point, when a person is doubting and even in the state of depression, he precisely does not have what these qualities, can you get me?

I mean, firstly the person in a crisis doubts everything in himself, he does not know if he believes in Jesus, he looks at himself and compares it with this article and he says he does not think he loves Him, he doubts if he is even walking in all good conscience for doubt itself is not a good thing...

I will cut to the chase, it will fail to assure because it talks about inward qualities and those qualities are really not there in a person who is in a critical period of their walk in the Christian life. Then because Jesus only died for the elect (as Calvinism states aka Limited Atonement), he can not look outside either because there is nothing out there to hold on, the promise of God is not for you necessarily it is only for the believer, but that is exactly what you are doubting if you really are!!! So it leads to dispair.

The only thing that can break that is the passage of Scripture like 1 John 2:1-2. What we need is a promise of God to the sinner first, then to the believer, this is answered by objective justification.

Ok I got to run, have a good weekend and if you want to enjoy God and glorify him forever, look at your sin and then look at your Saviour (I hope to say more on Piperian Hedonistic Christianity next time).

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Sovereignty of God and the Lutherites

MetaLutheran is being interviewed here on the role of the Sovereignty of God and how Lutherans view it. I think it is an excellent presentation why that doctrine is secondary in our approach towards the Christian life. Naturally it is being compared to Calvin and Calvinism since that doctrine is quite prominent in that tradition.

Now, I admire Calvin, I believe he is a very good exegete. He is astute, warm and perceptive. Calvin however, can be confusing. For example his view of Baptismal Regeneration can be spot on, but in other places, he seemed to have the left hand take what the right hand has given away. Hence, people in the Reformed world can appeal to him to muster their (non)-regenerative views of Baptism. This does not happen with Luther and the Lutherans when it comes to that subject.

Hence, in one blog that I visited, I commented that Calvin compared to Luther is less experienced. The brother, laughed when I said that. He said he has never heard anyone suggested that. Now, ain't I the first, that rather made me 'proud'.

Seriously, I knew that would be the reaction for I was a Calvinist before and I knew that to some, Calvin is viewed as more impressive than Luther. They think that Calvin's systematization proves him to be more superior in mind than the latter. The truth in history is that the former dipped on the smelly monk's insights. Just compare the two from top. The Sovereignty of God prevails in Calvin while the Cross captured Luther.

Here is the thing, when you see the Cross as everything and you take that as your worldview, all other doctrines will be governed by that and soli Deo gloria is true for the reason it is solus Christus too.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Fruit inspecting



I have been thinking a lot about Gal 5:22-26

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another


Normally the teaching I got from here was that the Holy Spirit produces these qualities in us. The focus was then on the Holy Spirit and in my background, that means looking for Him within your own self, such that if He was truly there in your heart, you would experience and should be experiencing these qualities in your own character.

I think that is just half of the story now.

I have a different view now on this. To me the fruit of the Holy Spirit should never be separated from the Gospel and I hate to say this, Pentecostals/Evangelicals separate the Holy Spirit's person from the Gospel itself. Really this fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of faith in the Gospel. Notice these qualities, and here I add by implication the Gospel's effect on us, ie these qualities are the result of being forgiven. Love (for God and man, because we see God's love already for us), joy (in being forgiven), peace (with God, for there is no more issue between us and Him), patience (in trials/temptations), kindness (to others because God has been kind to us), goodness (because we now long to please God), faithfulness (because we savour that forgiveness), gentleness (because God treats us in gentleness too), self-control (because God exercised restraint in his wrath towards us).

There is no law against these, because the Law is not producing these, but the Gospel itself is.

Think about it, they come out from us, but they are not produced by us in a self generated manner. If you look at the Spirit within hoping by looking in, these may be produced in us, you are looking at the wrong place. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is fruit of the Gospel, again, it is extra nos. The Cross produces these things and the Holy Spirit is with Christ and His Cross... always. Dwelling on the Gospel takes care of these fruits, by itself. They are not self induced qualities from within, rather they are sourced external to us. The source, the Gospel (the Holy Spirit) comes outside and produces them within, and what is within produces what is outside seen and observed by people around us. The accent is not to look within, but to look where Christ is -- in His Cross!

Another way of understanding this of course is to take the
"Spirit" as pertaining to the new man, created in Christ Jesus since the new man longs and trust in Christ, but that is for another worthy discussion, for now...

Peace be with youse.

Friday, September 07, 2007

You might say you got options

I gotta blog this, I got this from Lutherans Love Theology list. Right now for those Lutherans who are crypto-Romies or crypto-Orthies, there is now a denomination that offers you the security of Apostolic Succession within the Lutheran Reformation. It is called the Lutheran Orthodox Church AKA Catholic Church - Lutheran Rite. It is found here. No need to swim the Tiber or the Bosphorous, there is an alternative for you. The possibilities are endless it seems because they ordain women in the priesthood, they got the smells and bells, and hey, they Apostolic Succession, the historicity one eventually longs for.

Now what is of further interest to me is that the ArchBishop who ordained the Bishop for this church group has links to the Philippine Independent Catholic Church (Iglesia Filipina Independiente ). Now if my history is right, I got ancestors from one of my grandmother's side who were members of this church also known as the Aglipayans. Perhaps Protestantism runs in the blood, sometimes I wonder.

Aglipay was an RC priest who broke away from the Papacy in the 1800s and as far as I know they are in communion now with the Anglican Church. The Reformation never reached the Philippines and for someone like Aglipay to break away without known influence from Geneva, Augsburg, Westminster or Canterbury says a lot. Sure enough, Aglipay like Luther was excommunicated by the Pope.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Law and Gospel minded

Mention Law & Gospel to my Pentecostal pastor friends and they would not have a clue what you mean. That is not even a category in their psyche. Our friend Steve of www.extremetheology.com has a nice introduction here.

However, Law & Gospel is not also a general category amongst new Evangelicals either. In fact in most Reformed, it is not a category too, it has been forgotten. Now why is it that in the paleo-Evangelical, gnesio-Protestant(confessing Lutheran) tradition Law & Gospel is alive and well? The simple answer is that it is written in their Confession.

Frankly I looked at the WCF and its derivative versions and you won't find Law & Gospel mentioned there, at least not mentioned in a robust thorough going way. The closest I can find is Chapter XIX of WCF. Yet this is by far not as explicit as a hermeneutic found in the BoC, specifically in Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord Article 7 I think the erosion of this has happened in the Reformed circle because it is not written in their confession. You have to read about this expounded somewhere else outside their Symbols, unlike in the BoC wherein it is a distinct part of it and given ample exposition. When I see some posts in www.reformedcatholicism.com by Reformed folks attack this, I can only point that it is because it is not a special doctrine mentioned in their statement of faith, hence, they are not convinced of such an approach. In the Reformed tradition, you can be one without subscribing to this method, but in the Lutheran, it is not possible to be one without subscription to this teaching.

In the BoC, it is solidly declared, Law & Gospel is the way to read Scripture, why? Because it uncovers Jesus and His Cross. I am convinced that it does.

For further consideration see als Pr. Tom's Law & Gospel program.

Still have Jesus?

I am, right now as I type, listening to the broadcast of Dr. Francis Beckwith's move back to the Roman Catholic faith in the Catholic Answers -EWTN. He is being interviewed there, he was asked to summarize the move back...

He said that he still has the historic Church and he still has Jesus!

Now I reflect on that a bit more, what a good idea. Hey, what have you got to loose, you get historicity and Jesus too! What a good deal.

Now how should I answer that now that I am Lutheran? I guess I am because all I want is Jesus---only, alone. Mine is reverse it is the other way around.

I am in a less wise situation than Beckwith, he has more props or support, I only have one. None but Jesus. From a mathematical standpoint my expectation function is lower compared to his, the payoff for him has more chances than mine.

I think I have "historicity too" but that is a side issue. That is not the reason why I became Lutheran, it is because it Jesus alone, not this and this plus Jesus too. If that were my criteria I would stay in Pentecostalism, for after all we have - all these blessings now, health, wealth and wisdom too, then plus Jesus in heaven also! Wow what a better deal.

For me it seems, there is no other way, I ascertain, all other ground is sinking sand. Does that not make me vulnerable, you bet, but there is no other way for me, my options have been made limited by Christ and in Christ alone.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

When you do not have a song and a prayer



Matthew 20:31
31The crowd(A) rebuked them, telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" (ESV)

Psalm 30:10
Hear, O LORD, and be merciful to me!O LORD, be my helper!"(ESV)

They say when it rains, it pours. Do you sometimes come into a situation wherein you are so overwhelmed you do not know how to pray or where you should start your prayer?

Kyrie Eleison


Lord, have mercy.


That prayer is enough. God hears that prayer and you do not have to enumerate, elaborate or spell out in detail the need you need help for. He knows you can't because the burden is so heavy it has brought you to your knees and made your mouth shut, He knows you are speechless. He knows you can not even articulate your pain that goes inside your heart, your head. That is enough. He understands and He hears and will show mercy. Sometimes you can only sigh or breath that prayer and it is enough, He understands what you are asking for. Mercy. It covers all that you need. Mercy. It summarizes that. On His mercy, we can have confidence of that because He has shown us the Cross.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Reversing Sola Fide

I heard this at White Horse Inn today...

A respondent to what faith is said "faith is knowing that Jesus died for us to give us a chance for salvation".

That is a scary statement.

We are saved by grace through faith -- thus says Eph 2:8-9.

However, this is not understood that way by evangelicalism, rather it is the reverse. That mean, they understand it to say -- we are saved by faith through grace. Notice the subtle shift in understanding. I think this confusion happens because they think being creed-less and confession-less is a wise thing to be. This understanding does not make faith a gift but it makes faith as a form of works. Sure they will affirm that we are not saved by works, but when they affirm we are saved by faith, faith is the element we throw in and thus are saved.

Sola Fide is always grounded on Sola Gratia. When this grounding is considered, I think it becomes clear how the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper does not nullify Sola Fide but rather it demonstrates it because it is Sola Gratia really, the ground of Sola Fide. Deeper in to the heart of this is Jesus with His Cross, is the sole originator of our salvation and is the Grace of God, and, also the Author of our Faith. Everything revolves around Him.

Well now, what is the off shoot of this? Well, if you are saved by faith through grace and not the other way around, then certainty becomes a problem. It may not be a problem at the moment, but when crisis happens, your confidence in the finished grace of God can come under attack. You will standing on sand, and not on the done deal of Jesus.

Here is an excellent discussion found at brother Matthews' pod cast production on Unconditional Grace -- Lutheran Difference.

Finally, going back to what I heard and notice I emphasized the quote there, the person tacking on "to give as a chance for salvation" should cause us to be nervous. This means that Jesus did not do a complete job, all he did was give us a chance to be saved, but not actually to save us for sure, so the rest is up to you. If you do not take the chance, then bad luck for you.

No, the Bible says Jesus died for sinners, period (pun intended). It means paid in full.

Some more on Mother T

In one of the list I am a member of, Pr. Bob gives this quote from Mother T's beliefs.

* "Oh, I hope I am converting. I don't mean what you think. I hope we are converting hearts. Not even Almighty God can convert a person unless that person wants it. What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one's conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept. But I cannot prevent myself from trying to give you what I have" [Desmond Doig, Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, (Glasgow: William Collins Sons &Co. Ltd., 1976), p. 136].


Some reactions are found here, here and here

Like I said before, I can not know for certain what went on at the last moments of Mother T whether she held on to this or not. All we can do in this discussion is do conditional discussion. This means one can only make statements like this "if Mother T believed this then ....". That is the question, we do not know for certain if she recanted this and finally got to see the Gospel etc. Within the confines of conditionality, I think fair statements can be made and some educational interchange is still fruitful.

What do ya think?

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Another Proof - all numbers are the same

I found another proof for this theorem--

Theorem:
All numbers are the same.

Proof:

We prove by induction on any number n. For initial case, we now that 1 = 1. Now for inductive hypothesis: assume it is true for any number n and now show it is true for n+1. We know that n+1 = n+1, hence it is also true for the case n+1.

QED. (I think it should be replaced by LOL)

Want another even shorter proof?

Proof:
We use proof by contradiction. Assume it not true that all numbers are the same. We know that 1 = 1,hence a contradiction, thus all numbers are the same.

LOL.

Want another even really shorter proof?

Proof:
Trivial (the mathematicians favorite word).

LOL.

What is the moral of the story? If sophistry can be done in maths, the more it can be done in theology.

The Book of Concord in the Apology charges their adversary with sophistry. A sample is in Article 6 verse 26

26] May God put to confusion these godless sophists who so wickedly distort God's Word to their own most vain dreams! What good man is there who is not moved by such indignity? "Christ says, Repent, the apostles preach repentance; therefore eternal punishments are compensated by the punishments of purgatory; therefore the keys have the power to remit part of the punishments of purgatory; therefore satisfactions redeem the punishments of purgatory"! Who has taught these asses such logic? Yet this is neither logic nor sophistry, but cunning trickery. Accordingly, they appeal to the expression repent in such a way that, when the inexperienced hear such a passage cited against us, they may derive the opinion that we deny the entire repentance. By these arts they endeavor to alienate minds and to enkindle hatred, so that the inexperienced may cry out against us [Crucify! crucify!], that such pestilent heretics as disapprove of repentance should he removed from their midst. [Thus they are publicly convicted of being liars in this matter.]

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Not Scared Anymore

This Sunday here in Australia, people will celebrate Father's Day. They do it on a different day than that in North America. Usually, I get scared to go to church on this day. I get annoying feelings, begrudging feelings about being in church on a Father's Day. I do not like going to church when I can predict the sermon.

If you are a father and you are going to an Evangelical/Pentecostal church, I can predict the sermon topic you will hear this Sunday, I can bet you the subject of the sermon you will hear -- is about you, the father of the house. Well, be prepared for a lecture, don't say I did not forewarn you.

As for me, I am free, free, at last...

Monday, August 27, 2007

Mother Theresa's Crises of Faith



Over at Time magazine, there is an article that speaks of Mother Theresa's crises of faith. I read it with great interest and I hope you wonder off to the above link to get a context of what I am about to say here.

What is striking is that according to this article, Mother Theresa did not have the "presence of God" even in the last 50 years of her life. Now, no one can deny that Mother Theresa is an epitome of good works that all of us stand to be shamed, hands down. Our selfishness, and self-indulgence need no further commentary. You already know what I mean.

So, one would wonder, what drove her to these self-sacrificing care for the poor? Now, I will not deal deeper into the state of her standing with God. I do not know her heart. I do not know if she clung to the promise of God alone, that for Christ's sake her sins are forgiven, without throwing any of her good works to the mix. Her experience reminds me of my Jehovas Witnesses train buddy, George. Back in those years, I used to take the train to work and I happened to be-friend him. He saw me reading my Bible and we started conversing and converting one another. I think I got to around 96 hours of debate with him altogether. One time, George hopped into the carriage I was in, looking not so happy and quite burdened, I asked him, what was up? He said "well you know, if you remember Noah being in the ark with his family, they were probably not that happy too, sometimes it is like that in the kingdom of God. It is sweaty and unpleasant, ugly being around those animals, with their pooh and smell and that". I ignorantly replied "well, yes there is that, but over all I should be glad for after all I am being saved from the flood".

So, putting aside the crucial issue of Mother Theresa's object of faith, I do not know where it was placed for sure, but crises like these is absolutely guaranteed to hunt us. As our body is racked by sickness, weakness and ill health, we will be thrown into an ocean of doubt, dryness and feelings of being left alone to die. The abandonment so to speak. Sometimes, you would not even know who and what you are. I have fits of these. You see, life gets harder, as life gets older. In fact, I have attacks of atheism myself (see my article below). So what to do?

Some few points of observation:

1. If we are thinking that God comes to us by we doing some good work, He does not. Quit trying that route. He has already come, in Jesus, I should be content that He has come and I should see this in His Word and Sacraments. In other words, I should look into the promises of God, both verbal and visual forms that are outside me. If I look inside me, and draw spiritual energy there, well, we are bankrupt in the first place, that box is empty and emptiness is what I do get.

2. Our dryness, doubts, emptiness have nothing to do with the done deal of Jesus. All of these are experiences we go through, and the best way and may God grant it, is that God causes us to doubt our doubts, and make us skeptical of our dryness or His apparent lack of presence in us. There is no mucking around, we need to look at the Cross. Some follow the idea that God is holding them... like this saying here...

this is when I am glad to be a Reformed believer because it's not so much that I
hold on to God but that God holds on to me, not so much that I know God but
that God knows me.
This does not do anything for me, not because I am not Reformed, but because that is precisely what I am doubting - is God for me? Is he holding me? I do not know, for I am feeling forsaken at that time so this saying gives me no comfort. Why? Because I am a sinner, God has no reason to hold on to me. BTW that saying above brings you also down the slope that is inward looking. It will not do (at least for me). I suggest that only the Cross is the one that truly gives comfort. For me that is the only one that avails, by experience.

3. It is important that we continue to hear the Word preached to us, because we are wondering atheist ourselves. We need to be put back to our senses and in our place by someone else preaching Law/Gospel to us. Due to a very serious family crisis in my life today, I have not been in church as I had to travel inter-state over the week ends. Skipping worship services, I was tempted in my mind yesterday to say --"hmmm, I feel blah about going to church, I could get used to this". Then something in my head said - "you need to go to church, dumbo, you need to know you are a sinner", "you need Good News outside your situation, buck-o".

One time Pr. Tom Baker at www.lawgospel.com said this that blessed me, he said
"God abandoned One, so He does not need to abandon you"

Hebrews 13:5b
"I will never leave you nor forsake you."

See also John 14:18. Oh my soul, hope in His word.

Do me a favor, when you see me dis-oriented, whack me in the head and send me a message telling me - "go read your blog".



Friday, August 24, 2007

What God thinks of atheists

Wow, I wondered off some atheist blogs and boy, are they insulting and impolite. They really do foam in the mouth with animosity towards theists in general and Christians in particular. The latter is the usual punching bag and target of verbal insults and boy, do they make an art out of it.

I was an atheist during my university years, in fact that is why my minor was Philosophy.

If the Bible is the Word of God then it is God speaking there, so to know what God thinks of atheists, see Psalm 14:1.

God calls them "fools". Now that is a nice term, the Bible is being nice, but I think the translation of that word is found here.

Now, pleases do not get mad at me, I did not write the Bible.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Ahh, that's a negative, over...

My Professor and I were discussing over lunch and in passing the notion of negation. What happens when we negate a proposition? For example NOT P. If it is NOT NOT P, does this mean P? In classical logic, yes, but that is an axiom (depending on how you structure, it can also be a theorem). We have a thing called "negation as failure". For example if I can not prove NOT P, we conclude it is P. Yet that is because we assume that NOT NOT P ->P, i.e. implies P. In general this is not true, I know this is hard to believe, I still get mental on this.

Now what does this have anything to do with theological ideas? Well, a plenty. Notice that when we say NOT P, we are not saying what it IS. We are saying what it is NOT, and not what it IS. For example, if I say "this is not a pen", I am saying what it is not, but what it IS has a myriad if not infinite of possibilities. Using your eyes and looking to where I point my finger to the thing I am referring to, well, you can infer what it might be. Now if we are only communicating non-visually, like conversing like this, via blog, then nothing helps to clarify when I state a negation to you.

My concrete example then is found in the Chalcedonian Formula. There we read this words in reference to the Lord Jesus being God-Man...
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably
The above is what we are not to do with his God and Human natures. That is, NOT confuse them, NOT change them, NOT divide them, NOT separate them.

Whatever we do, we are not to do the above. You can do plenty of reflecting on it but see to it that you do not fall on the negation's edge. Because, if you do, you get into error and that can be fatal spiritually.

As you notice, the mathematical-logician's downfall is negation. For the theologian, well, he gets into trouble when he crosses "negation" too.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

I feel, teach and confess

It must be true because I felt it, I felt the presence of God in the worship service, and I felt the moving of the Holy Spirit. I used to think that. Unaware, I was conditioned to believe some doctrines to be true because I experienced it myself. Tell you what, that situation is recipe for depression.

As you get older, you find that what you feel is not always true, and your strongest enemy within you is your emotion. If you have been conditioned that "feeling" great means you are into God's will, when depression hits, guess what? You go down the tubes so fast you need a parachute.

When I am depressed, I now realize that what I need at that time is not to feed my emotion, besides, depression is like that, it refuses to be comforted by whatever is good. Providentially this is where the divine service, ie the formal liturgy has helped me. Because there you will find that your mind is being drawn away from you, at least for a brief moment, you are being helped to not focus on what is inside you but to focus on what is outside you. That I believe is what I need when I am depressed, something that will bring me out from my mind which is going 200 miles per hour with anxiety and what have you, to the truth that never changes. You need truth that is unchanging, that is there whatever your feelings might be - be it good, nice, warm feelings or not. That is God's Word and God's Done Deal in Jesus - the Cross. Whatever promotes that, that is what I believe we need, and a liturgy that is peppered by God's Word is the most useful tool to have and use.

Then there is also the aspect of creeds and confessions. I now think that creeds and confessions must have been practiced and used by the early Christians because these creeds have the effect of limiting the domain of your thinking and imagination. It is kind of a fence or a border to which you can relate too in your private moments of reflection, as you are lost in your own thoughts and imaginings, it will tell you or pull you back from where you have strayed. And by George, we have plenty of that, our sinful nature talks to us and lies to us 24 X 7 . We can manufacture novel ideas and teachings without realizing they are heresies.

Of course there is no comparison, absolutely no comparison, with Scriptural passages being recited and confessed. That should be a habit too specially the passages that promises us forgiveness/salvation. Scripture is there, it is outside you, it has no bearing on how or what you feel about you or about God at all. The Creeds however convey the truth of Scripture's teaching in summary form.

For me now, the creeds although they can be mechanically recited, should not be. Rather as it is recited, it ought to be reflected on. They are meant to convict and comfort us by the truth those creedal lines convey. It normally starts with I believe not with I feel.

Amazingly when you are challenged again and again by what you say you believe (and do you really), your feelings change. I think it starts getting comforted by the truth that Jesus loves you by dying and rising from the dead -- for you, your sins. That is good news one should never get tired of hearing and believing.

1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Monday, August 20, 2007

A Baptist's Testimony

Over at IssuesEtc you can here a testimony of a Baptist. Click here. Go to the next portion of the program to hear his testimony, somewhat in the middle.

To understand the proper view of baptism, one must relate it to objective justification.
Q: When did God forgive you of your sins?
A: At the Cross of Jesus 2000 years ago.
Q: How does God apply that gift to your space and time?
A: At my baptism.

This does not violate sola fide and sola gratia, in fact it demonstrates it, the baptism declares the Gospel of forgiveness to the sinner as a free gift. I follow this understanding when it comes to babies, is this baby a sinner? Yes. Did Jesus die for this baby? Yes. Then I can baptize it. Again, objective justification is a free gift.

One time I ask a baptistic Calvinist if there is a parent who has a teenage, say, son who is in a coma and the parent requests that the teenager be baptized, if he would do it? He said--what is the point? I guess he won't because the teenager is unable to profess faith, it can not speak as plain in simple, it is in a coma. But then again this illustrates that God only applies the forgiveness of sins found in the Cross of Jesus, only if the person is able to profess. What about a deaf, mute and blind one? They probably would not be baptized.

Is baptism a ticket? No, because one can reject the gift, they can say, thanks very much I do not care about it. In that case, the Gospel is left in the shelves, languishing and of no benefit to this baptized person.

more later

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Be All You Can Be

The fact that Jesus died for my sins has nothing, if not little, to do with my reaching my maximum potential.

Whoever sold me the notion that after Christ, God's plan is that I should be all I could be must have been like a salesman selling me air. I am just wondering how come I bought it?

-----
I hear the Savior say,
“Thy strength indeed is small;
Child of weakness, watch and pray,
Find in Me thine all in all.”

* Refrain:
Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow


----
Colossians 2:10 (New American Standard Bible)

and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Friday, August 10, 2007

Miss Saigon and The American Dream



My daughter gave my wife and I a ticket to the musical play Miss Saigon a few months ago so we went to watch it. We enjoyed it very much, one of the reasons is that the main casts were played by several Filipino singers/performers! I am biased of course. We were quite pleased that they did very very well and our hearts were warmed. Seated to the right of us were Vietnamese folks and I thought they were touched by the story and by the performance. There were a few hankies drawn and sounds of sniffs after the performance. It was a very touching and real piece of a story. I hope the Vietnamese watchers considered the performance doing justice to that part of their history some 30-40 years ago. The Filipinos and the Vietnamese in some respect share a common experience, they both were colonized by western powers. Ours was with the Spaniards and then the Americans. We Filipinos are good colonial children. Colonized people live in a mixed cultural mindset. Everyone is superior to you and you are down there below. You are never happy with who you are and you wished your skin was white, your height tall, your nose pointy and your hair blond or fair. You wish you were rich and not poor. Everyone is beautiful except you. Ever felt like that? Then we got something in common.

Here is the conclusion I draw from seeing Miss Saigon, though the Americans retreated and lost the war, culturally they won! They won because that American Dream got embedded in that generation they touched and they are pursuing it today. That is what is going to happen in Iraq. The US may lose the war, but culturally they will win because their version of democracy and lifestyle appeals to the human psyche, it is right on the ball and in sync with human nature. The right to be "happy" and the right to pursue it, what could be wrong with that? Who would not like the nice life shown in Hollywood?

Some one like D. Gelernter's Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion says that America (Americanism) is a religion!(I got the book reference from Bill Cork's blog). In fact if you look at the way Evangelicalism has developed today, Americanism is mixed in there too, right there in that form of Christianity which, ironically has very little trace or connection now with the original Evangelicals, it is there too. Fortunately thinking ones are reflecting and are waking up.

Over at the restless reformer blog, I got this poem

i repent, i repent of my pursuit of america’s dream
i repent, i repent of living like i deserve anything
of my house, my fence, my kids, my wife
in our suburb where we’re safe and white
i am wrong and of these things i repent

~ Derek Webb, “I Repent”


Same here, I repent of it too.

Hmmm, yawn, whatever





I went to a Atheist vs. Christian debate last week, Matt was kind enough to let me know so I went to my uni where the debate happened to be. I was actually expecting the Dr. (the atheist) to do a lot of damage since the Mr. (the christian) has not even finished his uni degree yet. I mean, the credentials of the atheist is just so over whelming.

Firstly, the christian went in first on the floor, but actually he should have gone in after the atheist because the atheist is in the affirmative, his thesis is that religion is a delusion and the christian is on the negative. At any rate the christian boy did a good job specially in the middle of the "debate" as he focused on Christ and his Cross.

Unfortunately the atheist did not even do a dent. The atheist made assertions even to the point of asserting that Jesus did not exist! Now you may try and prove he did not rise from the dead but there was a Jesus who pagan historians said that was crucified and whom Christians addressed as their Lord. To assert that is to be taken out of the realm of being serious. So plenty of assertions but nothing to back up that substantially can be taken with much seriousness. Then comes the kicker, the atheist stated that atheists are moral people and that you do not have to have a God to have morality. Hence, he believes in being moral but he does not believe (or he doubts) if there was a God. Now his definition of his type of atheism is already subject to equivocation, but the justification for morality is...passe'.



Here is what I mean by passe'. I remember when I was a young college sophomore, in my Philosophy class, we studied Immanuel Kant and his work - Critique of Pure Reason. I do not remember the full details of the book but in summary, Kant showed that there was no positivist evidence one can use to convince that God exists. There is no empirical test one can use. Whether we agree with Kant on that or not is another issue. But the atheist in the debate was sounding off Kant, but with a sad incoherence. Unlike him, Kant showed that for practical reasons we should believe in the existence of God because morality and social order has no basis at all. In fact social order has no foundation or basis to be. One's idea of justice also becomes irrational and absurd. Rather than order, it will produce anarchy (yet the atheist's solution to world peace is to chuck out religion).


So the position of the atheist, I conclude is passe'. Did you observe today that there are not too many becoming atheists? What are people becoming? They are becoming spiritual! The issue today is no longer does God exist? The issue that people are working on now is - which God should they believe in? They are shopping for a God or some form of spirituality they can latch on to.

The Gospel does not give spirituality, it tells and gives the love of God for poor souls wandering in the dark, in demonstration. It does not simply say God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Yuck.

Rather God says I love you and here is how - see my Son hanging on the Cross for you, an enemy worthy of my wrath.

Psalm 14:1

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Beating to submission

I see that the ELCA will vote again on the topic of homosexual clergy. I heard they have discussed and voted on this issue before, and now it is back again on the table. Ohh, I see that, all you have to do is if at first you do not succeed just try and try again until you beat your opposition to tiredness and wear them out to submission.

I am just wondering, this technique can be used also for pushing again the ordination of women. All those who want this to be a reality is attempt to put it again on the next synod. They know how to wait, but you just got to admire the tenacity of the movement.

Friday, August 03, 2007

Do you think I am a super star?

Ahh yes, the world of Superstar Apostles, Swash Buckling Preachers and Adorable Master Jedi of Communicating Therapeutic Prosperity Get-All-You-Can-Get-From-This-World Message, where else, but in CCW (Crazy Charismaniac World)?

I got to share with you the world of celebrity preaching, read here at a Charisma Mag editorial. Something is wrong isn't it? It starts from its root doctrines that are wrong to begin with, how come my pastor friends find it hard to see? This sort of thing is the fruit of false teachings. How crazy does one need to get?

The sad thing is that this American Pentecostalism is being exported in Asia, South America and Africa, in short 3rd world nations, and they are being misled by it.

Saved *from* 'good works'

I said one time in a correspondence that God has saved me from good works! Someone read this took objection, "how can God save you from something good"? "He saves you from evil (nut head), good works is not something God has to save you from"!

That is the question, are my good works looked by God as "good works"? Or is it me, by fiat, declaring my works, good? If you are going to come to God for acceptance based on what you believe to be your good works, may I have a suggestion? You'd better be sure that those works you have are darn "good" and God judges them to be so.

God saved us from our "good works", he is not requiring us to rely on the good works that we might thought we have performed as the basis for being in a right status/ relationship with him. God has released us from looking at our "good works" as a basis of having a relationship with Him, that is what I mean by saying God saved me from (my) good works. I forget the words of Luther, he even said somewhere that we should repent of our good works! Good works when used to front up to God is no longer "good".


I believe St. Paul's attitude towards his good works were the same, he said (one of my favorite verse) in Phil 3:9
...
9and be found in him, not having(V) a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but(W) that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—


Having good works is not the problem, having faith in Christ is.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

We got groove





In the last couple of years I came to see that God has given us many gifts like music and culture. The thing is that we misuse and abuse these gifts. I thought I should share something personal, this was the type of songs my buddies and I used to like when we were in high school. Its got groove, its got soul (Funk Bros & Joan Osborne). We liked these types of songs because we were a bunch of lonely cowboys hanging out figuring out the meaning of life. Besides we were Filipinos boys, what could we do but sing. Imagine that, I am posting something "un-spiritual" and I do not even feel guilty about that! Just tells you how much of a baby boomer I am. If it looks unclean in Firefox, let me know, Safari Beta isn't handling this well.

I know I got to find, some kind of peace of mind, help me please.


Thank God, the words of this song is not the last statement that can be made to the broken hearted.

UPDATE
I have been praying for the Korean Christians being hostaged by the Taliban.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Prots 'ave 'em

I remember when I was in my teens, a local RC priest came to my mom, asking her to encourage me to enter the priesthood. I remember him chatting with me trying to convince me to enter the RC ministry. I can still picture him even today walking with me towards the bus station encouraging me to become a priest. Where I came from, it is a pride and joy of parents to have a "Father" as one of their offspring. My mom never spoke to me about it though after that incident. I associate RC priesthood with celibacy and I am happy that I did not have such fortitude, it is kinda scary. I was not cut out for the RC priesthood.

Now when I see these Protestant pastors entering the RC priesthood and being allowed to keep their wives, I kinda like shouting - foul! How come they get to keep their families but when an RC priest gets married, he is kicked out of the RC ministry?

Ever thought about that, eyh?

That is not fair! However, may be there is a good strategy here. My advice would be, if anyone wants to be an RC priest, first enter the ministry via the Protestant communion, get your family, then switch over to the RCC. That way you get your cake and get to eat it too; you have your wife, and you have those magnanimous looking vestments too! What more can you ask? That is bliss!

Friday, July 27, 2007

Christ-full Grace

I have been thinking (though it hurts my brain) about grace once again. This brought back memories of preachings that I would do at the start of a new year. I thought it would be good for my hearers to be encouraged again about the fact that God has grace for them as they face a new calendar year. Each new year brings with it new life challenges, that is obvious. There was something wrong with those sermons.

I am in firm belief that the Evangelical Charismatic and Calvinism will one day merge. It is happening now, I know of a couple of friends from Charismania who are now Calvinist/Calvinistic today. People like Dr. Piper, Dr. Storms i.e. mainly from Baptistic/Charismatic traditions are providing such doctrinal harmony. With Charismania lacking substance and a Confession, thinking Charismatics are migrating to Calvinism helping to bolster their numbers. The thing is that both streams affirm the Sovereignty of God. In the Charismatic stream, they believe God's miraculous powers are still true today, and in the latter, God is Sovereign and can save whomever he wants to save. I can affirm both, in some sense.

But there is still something amiss. How can I know or how do I know that God's Sovereign Power is for me rather than against me?

This is what I observe, when I was in Charismania/ Evangelia, people speak of God's Grace as a separate concept or as an entity on its own. It may be taught as a doctrine that stands out in isolation from other concepts. I heard people preach on Grace and speak of Grace as a stand-alone idea. When they speak of Grace, it is not Grace because it is some kind of infusion of Power that God gives in exchange for some satisfactory action performed. In other cases, it is not a favorable attitude of God towards a sinner as it is just an arbitrary predilection without demonstration.

What is missing? Christ. He is shown not to stand in between the sinner and God's Grace. It seems to me whenever we speak of Grace in isolation from Christ, this is not essentially what the Bible means by Grace. How do I know God has favor for me, since as a sinner I have no claim from God? I am his enemy, I deserve no mercy. I can not know, unless I see Christ, for Christ is the demonstration of that Grace. It is not arbitrary, it is decisive, it is firm and it is for sure, for the sinner. It is not partial.

God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us--Romans 5:8b.
.

If I look away from where it is found, in Christ at the Cross, I will live life in wonder, like a sheep without a shepherd, a ship without a rudder. There is just despair with an occasional swing towards self-elation when things are going great.

Today when I get my prayers answered, I tend not to think God has Grace for me as me. Rather, I tend now to think that God answers my prayers because of Christ, because as a sinner, I am one of those Jesus died for. I have no claim, neither a right to approach God, but I do, only because of Christ since he has been provided as my Mediator.

There is no such thing as God's Grace without Christ, Christ is God's Grace for you. A Grace that has no Christ and no Cross in it, is just simply, -- not God's Grace.

grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. -- John 1:17b

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Jimbo's Book



One of the greatest delights of this internet world is that you meet new friends, brothers and sisters in Christ. My buddy Jim Cronfel, a Reformed guy (one day he will come to the light ;-)), sent me a copy of his first book. The subject is the idea of annihilationism, and Jim does the job of critiquing this concept with a passion. Congratulations to Jim, it is not often that one writes a book that the masses can read and it is about Christian faith too. I know of only a few in Evangelical world that believes this, one is Dr Stott mentioned in the book and I think the Adventists believe in this concept too. He would appreciate a comment or two.

Speaking of books, I think it is a privilege to have written a book. Perhaps also, I can turn my thesis into a book one day, when it is finished. Its tentative title is "Contextualizing Description Logics" or something like that. My wife is looking forward to it as she thinks it would be a wonderful gift idea. She says it has lots of uses for every day folk like her. She says, it can be used as a door stopper, paper weight, or a decorative item. She is a very perceptive and clever girl.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Godel's Theorem and Religious Assertions



If you are not a geek, you may be intimidated by this post, please don't be. What I am posting here may sound way above your head but hang on a bit, you may find this post interesting if not intriguing as it is related to Christianity in an indirect way.

You must have heard of Albert Einstein (you haven't? you must be gen X), but very likely you may have not heard of of Kurt Godel (see my picture? That's his photo). If Einstein is to Physics, then Godel is to Mathematics. Both of these figures discovered major results that revolutionized their fields. In one way or another, you must have heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, remember your high school physics? I doubt if you have heard of Godel while you were doing your high school algebra. You encounter him only if you are taking logic or number theory subjects, that is quite true but let me reduce in a nutshell the point I am about to make.

Godel is known for his Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems. Skip the first one, but let us focus on what his 1st Incompleteness Theorem because this has a relationship to theology.

In a nutshell, Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem may be stated this way on a popular level - there are some true things or statements that can not be proven. Remember this is my popularizing of it but technically what he stated was in the realm of arithmetic about arithmetic truths (about numbers and their properties). Since our language includes arithmetic (human language does) then simplistically, there are some true statements that have no proof in our world. This line of reasoning sounds reasonable but let us for the sake of argument, agree to this even though such popular notions is just an analogue of Godel's.

Now this has plenty of implications for the people of faith. For the one committed to sola scriptura, beliefs must be gathered from assertions made by Scripture. For those who are not committed to sola scriptura, then they may employ this theorem to their advantage. They can assert a statement of belief with nothing to back it up.

Let me give an example, take the RC belief in the bodily assumption of Mary. There is no direct support of this from Scripture and no matter how one tries, the Scripture just does not give even a suggestion that this has happened. Try as one may, it only winds up in frustration, making hard for Protestants to be convinced. Now to an RC apologist who is quite an expert when it comes to Philosophy ( they really are philosophically savvy and sophisticated), Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem may be appealed to for support - they can say "Mary was assumbed bodily into heaven" is one of these true statements that have no proof!. Let as call this statement - M.

There is a catch though, it won't work. The reason is that in order for them to say that M is true, they are still left with work to do, they still have to prove that M is a G Statement ie it satisfies the Theorem's properties. Hence, they must demonstrate that M is one of those statements that the 1st Theorem speaks about. Where do you go to prove M has the property of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? You wind up showing a proof which is a type of question begging exercise.


(for amusement see here for weird reasonings based on the fact that since the Bible does not speak about all things we may derive many things)

Monday, July 16, 2007

Yom - don't be ridiculous




Did God use evolution in Genesis 1-3? I did a study of this several years ago and as I concluded then, the more I conclude now, my answer is : I do not think so.

I came to this conclusion by studying the word "yom", the Hebrew word for "day" as used in the Hebrew Bible in Gen 1. Now, I am no Hebrew expert but I did take university subjects in Biblical Hebrew for a couple of years and I think I was taught enough to know what are the arguments going on surrounding this word. I believe the word "yom" stood for "24 hour day" as we know day to mean in the normal day to day usage of day (pun intended) to mean, ie just that. Why? I have several reasons, both linguistic, philosophical and theological.

1. If Moses wrote this to his contemporaries, "yom" could not be understood as a very very long period of time. The reason is that the ancients do not have sophisticated arithmetic notion of millions and millions of years. (My knowledge of maths come here too). So, in order to give a notion of evolution, Moses would have to say God took myriads and myriads of time for things to sprout on the earth. Also, ancient people are so into changes in seasons, they have this notion of cycles and at home with it. Evolution counters the notion of cycles, even if theistic evolutionist say that "yom" means epochs. This granting of cycles for day is an argument itself against the notion of evolution, for evolution has no cycles. It is just one long continuum of time when you come to think of it.

2. If theistic evolution is the way to understand Gen 1 narrative, then it rids itself of literalness. If day is not literal then, was there a tree? Was there an Adam and Eve? Was there a serpent? Or are we to understand these as representing something else? Was there an actual eating of the forbidden fruit? In effect, was there sin? This completely throws off the need for atonement. If Jesus died for a literal sin, then there must have been a literal Adam too, and so on, and hence it has to be a literal day for there is a literal world that God is stated to have created.

3. Evolution requires and implies death of previous life forms. Then death happened before sin came, and collides with, Rom 5:12. According to this verse, death only happened due to sin. Evolution presupposes dying and decay prior to sin thus it does not square with the other implications of Scripture. A friend of mine even suggested that the lions around have always eaten other animals during Adam's time. I said, then it was possible for Adam to have been mauled by a ferocious beast and could have died then. Think of these lions stalking and pouncing upon weak isolated water buffaloes, look at one here

4. Lastly, I do not have to resort to the validations of Science to affirm my faith. The concept of fiat creation is at home with the nature of a Supreme Creator who is by definition the Judeo-Christian God. I find it weak to say, God had to use evolution in the process. God does not have to be patient here although he is patient with sinners not desiring their destruction but their repentance.

This reminds me, of Balki, one of the main characters of Perfect Strangers, one which I enjoyed watching very much. His famous line is "don't be ridiculous". I hear some people out there telling me that now.

Frankly I do not mind being called ridiculous because I already believe in something that sounds ridiculous, one of them is the Gospel. Let me challenge you, if you think that the Gospel which says that this God takes the sins of the wicked world, dumps it and punishes it in his innocent Son is not ridiculous, you may have a natural understanding of the Gospel. The Bible says the world calls this thing foolishness. If I believe in something the world ought to be calling foolish, why should I not let them call me a fool for believing in a fiat Creation which Science says is contrary to "evidence"?

If our minds are not astounded by the Gospel, if it does not say "this thing is so good to be true", we may have gotten the Gospel wrong, it should sound ridiculous and radical. Of course, it is out of this world. Am I making sense?

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Fair Dinkum ??!

The Vatican says as usual they are fair dinkum here and for a news item covering the document look here. They have been in the news lately. IMHO, the theme of the document is Apostolic Succession(AS), if one notices how that point always turns up! As far as I can remember as an RC kid, it was hammered in my brain that what makes the Sacraments valid is the AS. The one performing the sacrament must have been ordained in the line of AS. It does not matter if you believe in the Real Presence of the Lord in the Supper, if your minister is not in line with the AS, that Supper is not valid. Besides your pastor is bogus too if he does not have AS. So if you as a minister want to really have valid sacraments you must get AS, i.e. come to the umbrella of Rome. That is the bottom line. If one elevates the Office of Holy Ministry (Pastoral Office) to the level that you attach validity to the Sacraments to your office, you lose out on RCC, they claim the right pedigree of AS, and no else has it, you certainly don't have it. Just my humble advice, if you really want confirmation of what you are doing, get your AS.

Also then over here, on the matter of indulgences still around, we say Fair Dinkum??! No, not really, honestly I am not saying that. We Prots who come from Latinized countries got experience, we are not that naive. We knew that it has always been there to this day. The ones who are probably saying "fair dinkum?!" in amazement are the ones who signed the JDDJ. Poor people, they seem to be in bewilderment. Seems like the signers are feeling the offense of this. At any rate, the RCC has clearance of this. The RCC can turn around and say that they never signed anything containing indulgences in the JDDJ anyway. They can turn around and say," but why cry and complain, you won't be using them, right"?

Pardon my usual sarcasm, I hope they are learning some lessons now.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

No Apologies

Some have observed and question why there are not too many apologists that come from a Lutheran background. Whereas there are many professional RC apologists, Reformed and non-Denominational ones, yet there are very few that stand out from the Lutheran camp. So far the most well known ones are Prof. John Warwick Montgomery and Prof. Rod Rossenblad. Even my finding KFUO was an accident (providential). So not too many.
They are obscure and when you do see them engaging in apologia, you do not see them debating topics like the existence of God, the Bible etc.

There are several reasons for this obscurity, and I think it is due to their philosophy.

1. For them the Pastor is Theologian and apologetics is done in the context of the parish environment. All Christian work, like apologetics is done in the context of a pastoral sphere. This is a different concept when compared to idea of para-church organizations.

2. They got the Book of Concord, their confession, which is highly apologetic in character. So in a manner of speaking, they can throw to you "the book". It codifies there their defense for believing what they believe.

3. They won't discuss with the atheist if God exists, or the issue of the Bible being the Word of God. No, they will discuss with the atheist Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. This is a different philosophy and it makes sense. One can convince an atheist to be a theist but that still misses the point, one can be convinced that the Bible is the Word of God but that still falls short. None of these makes one a Christian. So, they will discuss Jesus with the atheists as foolish from a logical standpoint that might seem.

The point is that Jesus Christ the Lord has come already and that has changed things. God proved he more than exists, he went further, he proved he loves us. The atheist does not need a God who hates him and who simply makes demands. He also needs to know that the God he does not want to believe in, actually loved him. Christ is proof of that. You hit many birds with that one stone. God, the Bible, life's meaning falls in place when the atheist sees the Christ...given for him.

See also blogologists of Lutheran stripes at aardvarkalley. Follow the links there.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Johnny B. Good

As you can see, this blogspot has been rated G, suitable for the consumption of the general public, G is for general, not G for good.

It always makes me smile when my wife and I email each other and she would sign off with...

Be good, love
(then signs the name I call her)

"Be good". That is an internal joke between us. She knows I have the habit of putting my foot in my mouth, I just have a way of rubbing people the wrong way. I do not mean to, but it comes out that I am liable to offend when I speak. Even my jokes are just funny to me and my kids but not to the public. I do not have to work hard at it, I am just a natural. One of my great gifts, the ability to annoy people without trying.

It gets worst each day. I learn each day to abandon all hope of acceptance, from God and fellow man, and rest in the hope that I might be found not having a righteousness that comes from "being good" but that of simple faith in Christ who is the one who is Good ... for me. He is my Righteousness, not only in front of God, but also in front of man - Phil 3:9

They have a vision

I don't know much of Federal Vision. This is a movement inside confessional Presbyterianism and my light reading tells me that they are making strong attempts to bring more value and take more comfort from the Sacraments.

I am a very simplistic thinker, and the way I see it is that they are like people in a race track. They are running towards the finish line that has the label Lutheran on it, but just a few meters before reaching the finish line, they fumble and fall. They do not quite make it. The reason being their ankles are chained to a post labeled TULIP. It can not be done without mangling severely Covenant Theology.

It seems to me that once you become Lutheran thinking in your Sacraments, you will have to go and put your stress on objective universal justification because it is the center of the wheel that gives life to other parts of its theology, it is the heart and foundation of Lutheran approach to Christian faith. It is like a magnet that will pull you in its orbit, unless you are careful to resist it.

I am sorry for being reductionistic of course but that is the general drift of my impression. I am willing to be educated though.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

How did they do it?

I have been wondering how Luther and Calvin get to write so many things in their short life span. Take Calvin for example, he wrote The Institutes and commentaries on the books in the Bible. Luther wrote so many sermons, tracts and for example the Bondage of the Will. They were living book machines, tons and tons of them. They wrote so much in such a short span of time and what they wrote are still being read today!

How did they manage this? I have no answer, all I can think of is the fact that they did not have TV back then.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Church Reforming or Switching

semper reformanda, always reforming. It has been said that the church that has been reformed continues to reform.

I have been reading quite a bit on what is happening in the Christian scene, mainly my experience of course is limited to the Evangelical side of things. If you look deep in the bowels of my archive you will see that I have written on several aspects in relation to denominational switching of which I am one denominational switcher myself. What I mean is that it seems that the Christian world is evidently in a crisis. There is no question, the Protestants are, I don't know though if there are RCs who would admit that the RCC is in crisis too, perhaps the level headed ones, well maybe. Ministers and lay people have been making switches and I would cite a few. For example, we know that the Episcopal/Anglican Church (ECUSA) has been struggling with the ordination of female and homosexual ministers. The same is true with the Lutherans like those in the ELCA. There are those that are faithful to the orthodox Christian beliefs and practice in these denominations and they are hurt by what is going on. Most of the moves I have read was a move towards Rome and a very handful to Constantinople.

Now you might say, those are liberal leaning denominations anyway but there are those moves too from confessional denominations like the LC-MS, to either Rome or Constantinople. But the disatisfaction here is not something I understand since I am not in the thick of these things.

In most cases, the move seems to go into this type of reasoning -

1. "they have departed from the faith, we need to jump ship".
2. "they do not have the right faith in the first place, we need to jump ship".
3. "their faith is no different from ours, only much fuller, we need to jump ship".


From what I noticed with what happened to Luther, he believed that his Church, the RCC came from the true faith but has departed from it, and needs to go back. He did not jump ship, rather, he stayed as much as he can until kicked out.

Some reason that because point 1 is present, it must mean point 2 is the case. This is not true. I have seen wherein points 1,2, and 3 have been used to justify with good force the ship jumping. For this reason there are those in ECUSA and ELCA that are trying to reform their church body and have not jumped shipped yet.

Reformation is messy, but it is only taken if point 1 is the case. It is like fixing your car and evolving it to be a hot rod. It is much more expensive and time consuming exercise, so why not simply just buy a hot rod off the shelve? Some have done this to find out that the hot rod they got is not so hot after all.

So what happens if those from ECUSA and ELCA who jump ship see their former denominations repenting? Would they return? Most likely no, because point 2 kicks in already. Is repenting for a church not possible? It is - look at the World Wide Church of God, they have aligned more to orthodox evangelicalism and still in the process.

So what about my relationship with Pentecostals? I still try to be connected with them even though I have been shunned and been barred from their pulpits. I want them to return to the Gospel, I did hear it 25+ years ago even though haphazardly intermittent. We can not be bitter towards the people we are trying to reach. At first that might be the reaction but after a while you get to understand that falling into error is what sinners do. I feel for those in reform groups, they have a tough road ahead. Like the Lord said to Elijah, he still has people who have not bowed down the knees to Baal.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Who should believe the Gospel

Seems, to me that the one who should believe the Gospel first, is the man behind the pulpit. He is not only to believe it personally but he is to believe it as the very means God uses to bring others to Himself. If that preacher is not convinced in the promise of Romans 1:16-17, that it is the Power of God to save, he will cook up weird strategies to prop his ministry.

Today, pastors are so much under pressure to play along with secular culture. When you have 40 people filled with folks who are about to make an exit from this world and you see besides you another church which is overflowing with young people, there is so much temptation to lose confidence in the Gospel and make a switch. There is every reason to justify the use of some marketing gimmick to compete. This is when the message starts getting skewed and the diet given to the pew becomes more and more messages for self help and tips for living.

So if I was a pastor should I not give a seminar on "controlling your finances", "relating to your teenager" or something like that? I will but, I will not be the one to give it, and neither will it be done on a Sunday. I would probably ask an expert to tell my people about this stuff on a mid-week seminar, but not me.

The thing is, if your church is growing and people are coming there for various reason, except the reason of the Gospel, then whatever got them there, you need to tap into and make it bigger and better. You will have to refine that thing that is getting people in. If it was excitement, then more excitement up ahead is needed. Do you think people will not get bored with it? That is the nature of sin. So , you need to adopt new techniques then when the time comes, right?

If people in church are excited but their excitement is not in the Gospel, well some serious things will be happening down the road and it is just a matter of time before disillusionment sets in.

What more could be better than being the person to tell people where to find peace with God and show them how their sins are forgiven? That is the pastor's sacred niche, he should not give it away nor sell it out to what felt needs people may have. Besides, people really do not know what they need anyway.

I think today, preachers are under the testing of God. He is testing them to see if they themselves are cleaving to the Gospel, testing to see if they will be faithful to the simplicity of the promise of salvation. If the Gospel is not the message that is preached in season and out of season, then whatever that message coming from the pulpit happens to be will not bring lasting substance. If the preacher himself is bored with it, then maybe he needs to hear Law and Gospel also preached to him. That is the common trick of the devil, to make us doubt the promises of God and one of them is to make us doubt in the power of the Gospel to change lives.


As St. Paul said (and I apply it to them) : Woe are they, if they do not preach the Gospel.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Those 25K denoms and counting

Over at Fearsome Pirate, we read a reply to the criticism that the Protestants are to be faulted for the proliferation of these sects, specially Christian sects. The Pirate's thesis is that religious freedom makes such a phenomenon happen. I got nothing much to add to his great insight.

I will only add $0.02, to why is it that most of the time the sects that sprout out come from the non-Catholic "christian stream", meaning they invariably promote the idea of Scripture Alone or sola scriptura. OK, to what authority will one appeal to when a group is digressing from another? Of course it will be to the group's sacred text. This is not the fault of sola scriptura, for sola scriptura as a principle is inherent to every religion that has a sacred text. For example, the Muslims have two major streams each has its own take on the Qu'ran. The Jewish people have several sects or denominations in them all having their take on the Tanakh- the Orthodox, Conservative and the Reformed movements. Each nevertheless appeals to how they interpret their own sacred text. The Buddhists have their variations too on the teaching of Budha. Having various opinions is not the fault of the sola scriptura, it is a phenomenon that comes with the turf when a group has a revered text.

Monday, June 25, 2007

I got an idea about online confessions

NO doubt you have heard the concept of online confessions offered by church bodies and self-help groups. Rightly so, the problem with these is that the most important aspect that of absolution is not there. In this past blog I pointed that even those who come from denominations that do not practice confession-absolution long to hear sins absolved.

I got an idea - why not online absolutions! Weird? What do you think online confessions are? Normal?

But hey, look, we can make some money on this. We say ok, after you've done your confessin, and braggin about your great sins, hit this button to hear your absolution (for a small fee). Voila! We pop open Media Player or iTunes and there the one confessing gets to hear right there through the computer speakers a pastor's absolution.

Good idea? What do you think? Shall I program a web site for this? Don't forget to give me royalties for this idea!

Friday, June 22, 2007

Give us some more, we can do it

The Vatican has new 10 Commandments for Drivers

I guess we should have more since the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20 is so easy to do. Ok , go ahead bring it on, hit us with some more, we need more commandments, life is getting so easy with out them and gets boring.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

No Gentleman




I have been thinking about what I have heard so many many times articulated by people and by my former pastors - "God is a Gentleman, He will not force Himself on you". No he is not! That is why the Gospel is so good.

I tell you why God is not a Gentleman. He does not need to consult me if I wanted a gift, he does not ask for my approval, he does not ask if I like to be saved, he does not negotiate, he does not bargain. He does what is good and has no regard for people's opinion. Proof? Read Romans 5:8
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


Christ died, took the blows of God that was meant for me/you before you/we were born. He asked no one if this was a good idea. He does what is good. We do not even know what is good for us, so Jesus comes to save.

In Arminianism (modern Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism) as well as in Roman Catholicism, it was possible for no one to be saved. In the first, it was possible for no one to decide to give their lives to Jesus. In the second, it was possible for every one not to use the the infused grace for one's justification. In Calvinism, Jesus did not die for the whole world, "whole" does not mean whole (it really means some). In Lutheran theology, Jesus died for all. So how come not all are eventually saved? Because of faith, Scripture says not all have faith (2 Thess 3:2), but not because Jesus did not save. God does what is good - provide a sacrifice, a gift for sins. If He consulted us first before He acted, we would have debated, argued and quibbled. Finally we would have said "No Thanks, I am not so bad, I can do it".

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Mossa's Gospel Collection



I have been listening to James Morrison's Gospel Colletion CD given by a brother in Christ for my birthday. This James Morrison (there are many out there with the same name) is Australia's King of Jazz, akin to Wynton Marsalis. James is a multi-talented, multi-instrumentalist musician. Name a brass instrument and James can play it. From trumpet, flugels, trombone etc to even piano, he can deal with it. My former trumpet teacher the late Cal Martin said James is a master technician. He is The Screemer (the guy who hits the high C and over in the trumpet). He is the real trump(et) geek, if I met one.

I did not realize he has a Christian upbringing and that he writes Gospel music too. In this CD he has a couple of those he wrote. Jazz can be disrespectful when not done properly to sacredly recognized music like the hymns of the Church. In this CD there is respect and reverence for what has been regarded as property of the Church. Yet there is swing! The wow factor is high. There is a tint of Dixie/Trad flowing in some of the songs but very subtle, you have to really hook your ear to it but it is ingenious because it is not that obvious.

My favorite is "Jesus Loves Me", I kept repeating it in the car's CD as I drove to work.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Not only 2, there is 3.


It is customary for the average Evangelical to think that there are really two systems of theology in Protestantism. They think either you are a Calvinist or an Arminian. This is naive, and really not true at all. There is a theology that is neither Calvinist nor Arminian and in fact older than both - Lutheranism. It is older than both because in the Reformation world, it was the Lutherans who wrote their first Confession, called the Augsburg Confession. In fact Calvin himself signed a variation of the Augsburg Confession also known as the Variata.

Classifying Protestant systematic theologies exclusively into Calvinism vs Arminianism is simplistic and plain wrong.

For a quick view of differences you can study it here

I have a recommendation, if you want to evaluate what you would be between these three, do not start with the Sovereignty of God because that is not how God speaks to us. God speaks to us through the person of His Son. Start with the revelation concerning Jesus Christ and His Cross.

And oh, was Luther a Calvinist? No. Though Luther acknowledged double predestination, he did not go to its logical conclusion in fact he rejected Limited Atonement and Perserverance of the Saints. In this regard, the Lutherans followed Luther contrary to the rumour. You can read an analysis of Bondage of the Will here

Lastly, as one Lutheran blogger said, the beauty of the Lutheran Confessions (BoC) is that you can subscribe to it in good conscience, you do not have to make it appear that it is not saying what it is plainly saying. Unlike those who subscribe to WCF who put their own spin on the sharp edges of that confession, that is why sometimes you would like to ask now will the real Calvinist please stand up!. You do not have to do that in the BoC. You can repeat and assert verbatim what the Bible says even if you sound philosophically inconsistent, you are still Biblically accurate. There is no need to be defensive and do creative (even spectacular) exegesis. It gives you intellectural honesty, it even allows you to be guilt free in your ignorance. You can say - I have no idea, I don't know the answer to that question, I leave that to the wisdom of God. No such pressures at all to be obsessive.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Sorry for her



You know I feel sorry for Ms. Paris Hilton (see here). I know some would disagree with me but I do feel sad for her. I have been reading the comments in ABC news web site and some of them are pretty hard and nasty. Some are quite obscene comments that show no sympathy for this young woman. I feel sorry for her for a couple of reasons.

First off, I feel sorry that she touted herself as the life of a socialite party. I mean, you know, she hanged out with the beautiful people like her, she made her life public and even displayed who she is like. I think there is no denying that she has the reputation for being "bad" and for her peers, and what she seems to promote...this is "good". She has been right there doing and practising the moral value system of the pop/entertainment culture she belongs in; and I do not think this is something to be proud of. Let's face it, she is media fodder, they made bucks from the news she made and she welcomed the media attention too. They found someone to use and they are using her well.

She behaved as if she was invincible in her being "bad", she appeared to be gaining the world, appeared to be getting away "with it". But now when she is down, humiliated and put in her place... she weeps and then gets kicked in the head - by, I believe, the same people who shared her values. I am sad and feel sorry for her.

I am reminded of a saying, if you swim with sharks, do not be surprized if your legs get eaten.

I pray she learns quickly to distrust the empty promises of happiness this world gives and may the words of the Saviour come to her who says "what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul". She is young, and it is never too late to realize, our ways do not work. May the light of the Gospel reach her rather than some "spritual" junk that will lead her no where.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Punishment for laughing

[UPDATE: The embedded YouTube messes up in Firefox so click here ]

I got this from Random Dan.

Imagine if you get hit by a kendo stick on the bum each time you laugh? Like what is the english for 27? It is ten ten seven.

Here is what happens.

Click here with subtitle

Debating Atheists

I like to debate them having once an anti-believer myself. But now a days, it is impossible to conduct a meaningful conversation with them. For example, which Athesist's version is the official version of beliefs by Atheists?

I mean, do these people have a Statement of Faith? If they do, then we can start somewhere, that way I am not misrepresenting or need to deal with an individual Atheist. It would be nice if someone can point me to say The Joint Declaration of Atheists or something like that. I mean, what Confession of Faith does an Atheist have? I heard Atheists subscribe to some belief in morality but which statement of morality do we get to read and examine? As an aside, what parameter of truth can one use to conduct a meaningful conversation with them? It is like pinning a jello on a wall.

The exercise is just too much trouble and besides, I can not take them seriously anyway, so, they must not exist.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Those un-Reasons

Over at Internet Monk, and interview of Dr. Wyman Richardson, a Baptist minister, can be read there. Much of the interview touches upon Roman Catholicism. I think Dr. Richardson is one of those Reformed folk who are wanting to go back to the "catholicism" (small c) of his faith forefathers. He is a contributor to www.reformedcatholicism.com.

I am drawn on the first question as to why he did not become an RC. Here is what he said...

But I do believe that the unity must be a unity in the truth. Ultimately, what caused me to pull my toes out of the Tiber can be summed up in one word: justification. I reached a point where I realized that I was simply unable and unwilling to abandon the doctrine of sola fide and the idea of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, an abandonment that I believe I would have to make if I am reading the anathemas of Trent correctly.
(bold is mine).

Justification? Right, Dr. Richardson is not alone in making this conclusion, ie. that this doctrine is the one that gets a beating when an Evangelical becomes an RC. This has been pointed out again and again.

Justification? Ask an average evangelical/pentecostal if he/she has heard of the concept or knows what it means or knows what Protestants teach about it, I am pretty sure they would not have a clue. Now, I do not mean to be hard on my former affiliations. I still assert that I love my people (my former Christian idengtification) and you may not believe it, I weep for them. Love in truth, not in words only but in deed, so says St. John. The truth is that they have not been taught about this concept. But ask them whether Jesus likes them to have the best wife, best career, well behaved kids, beeming bank account, good health - for them to be happy, wealthy and wise - they will say "yes" and will tell you the how-to's of that! They can tell you how to let Jesus come into your life, or how-to be "born again". But justification? I doubt it. For once, please surprize me.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Those reasons

I am reading an analysis of Dr. Beckwith's ratonale for coming back to the RCC. It is found here

I came to this bit, he comments...

For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.


Either he is re-reading Trent with his own sets of presuppositions or he missed some portions of it, for I do not think he could have missed this bit...from Trent

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. (Trent Session VI, Canon XII)


Here Trent was not condemning naked faith or mere faith or assent, it is condemning "trust alone" or "confidence alone" ie "faith alone" as the Reformers defined it.

Now if you are an Evangelical and you are not condemned by these words, please check again, perhaps your notion of faith is not as the Reformers defined it, you may be functioning RC in you ideas of the nature of faith etc.

If as Dr. Beckwith thinks that Trent and the Reformers in their confessions are saying the same thing about "faith" ie mere "assent" is not what they mean, why convert? My point is this - ok, he thinks that the RC position has been mis-represented by his evangelical communion, that is, no, the RCC actually is saying the same thing as his evangelical friends are saying. What is the difference then if he converts back? Is he not simply bringing along what he already affirms? or is there something else more profound underneath?

Then I wonder if he studied the Fathers and the confessions made by the First Evangelicals and compared them?!? Frankly I don't think he did. I think he did not dare bother about the Book of Concord. On the otherhand, if there is a pre-disposition already, perhaps the BoC would have been irrelevant anyway.

Kinda, "I have made up my mind, do not confuse me with facts"!

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Superfluous

Sometimes I think the work of RC apologists gets knocked down by default - by its own doctrine of Magisterium. I really think it is pointless debating to no end with RC apologists. Not that they have no interesting things to say but their work becomes irrelevant. Firstly, if there is an Infallible Magisterium, then who decides to be the proper interpreter of its teachings and pronouncements? You might say the Magisterium itself. So it just revolves around them. Hence, if you go on debate with RC apologists, what is the point? For after all, they are not the official spokes people for the Magisterium. They are not officially sunctioned, so, the situation is superfluous.

Friday, June 01, 2007

Returning Rider




I am a returning rider. There is something about bike riders that is by default ingrained. When bike riders pass each other on the road and in viewing distance they sorta give a nod at each other or some signal to tell you, they noticed. Sometimes when a fellow rides on your side of the rod, a friendly look or a gesture is expected when you pass each other. Like, when both of you are in traffic on a stop position waiting for the traffic lights to turn green. You are expected to be sympathetic and polite. The nod is a kinda secret handshake that says "you and I are on this road together, I know how it is like to be on the road on your own, we have somethings in common".

That culture should be the same amongst Christians, don't you think?

By the way, I ride a Honda Magna. It is a fun machine but I complain, it is too soft noised for me. Motorists don't know I am there, like the HS?