Broome and her beach rocks

People, you should visit Australia and you should plan to see the Kimberley's. As Bob Barker used to say "Come on down". The missus has a project with the Aboriginal people of the Kimberleys and she wanted to bring me where she works. Once a month she is with them, in the desert. So a few weeks ago, I went to Broome where she stops over before she goes to Fitzroy Crossing.

Broome, is a small town north of Western Australia. The weather is quite hot and humid. I like it. You will sweat a lot.

Broome has beaches that is filled with interesting rock formation.


The above is my failed attempt to catch the camels at sundown.



You can see them in the photos here.

In one side of the town you can catch the sunset and also the sunrise.


Me and the missus.










Notice the interesting rock formation. It is quite amazing to look at. This one is a about 3 stories tall.









Another example of how the ocean has influenced the rock formations here.

This is not a very big bridge. It used to be that in Victoria, there was such a thing which was a real bridge which you could walk on. It is no longer there because it collapsed.

This one is solid rock. I could give more examples of the shots I took.


















Have a look at this rock pillar. Now in this photo, yours truly happened to be a few meters in front of this rock pillar. It is about 2 stories tall.













Now what about this figure here. Now does that not remind you of something in the Middle East?

Clue. Starts with the letter "S".

Mind you, this is not a complete attraction in Broome. My eye just caught this angle. From this side, it looks like the one in Egypt.







This is the sunrise. See the colors of the sky? This is quite common in Broome. It is the colors that will captivate you. It changes as the sun rises and also as the sun goes down.

I wonder if this redness might be caused by the red earth that is so characteristic of Northern Western Australia (which by the way WA, is 1/3 of the continent).








Here is the example of the red earth I was talking about.

See how red this is? You see this all around northern WA.

BTW, this is a small plateau.

iTeach

Whoever said those who can't do, teach --- must have been a guy who had no education.

I have been there and done that.

After 25+ years as a software developer/engineer I have had it. I work for myself as a consultant. The pay is good but I am now tired of programming. I mean I am really tired of it. I want to share and handover some ideas to kids out there. Teaching is a lot of fun but lots of admin work too.

I still have consulting work but I like to tone it down. I like to interact with people now, not with machines. So this semester I am teaching for two regional universities who have their presence in my city. Universities are discovering there is money to be made from foreign students. So even if they are from out of town they look for city partners which can give them access to big cities like mine, where the people are and where foreign students would rather settle. So in my classes, I kid you not, all of my students are foreigners, majority from East Asian origins.

So today I had a long day lecturing. One of my students sat in the corner. I allowed him to listen from time to time as he played with his drink bottle and some paper envelopes.

When it was time to go home the students said good bye and he passed by my desk. As he walked away - he showed me his drink bottle wrapped in envelopes. As he exited the class room, he said - "look sir, I made a bomb", then he walked off. His name is Muhammad.

Grinding my ax.

I want to go back to the Walther quote I mentioned here. To repeat, C. F. W. Walther said...

C.F.W. Walther wrote in 1868: "…you often hear pastors preach, 'You are saved if you believe.' What they should be saying is, 'You are saved so that you might believe."

The quote may be found in http://www.franzpieper.com/.

My journey before coming to Wittenberg was that I considered myself a Charismaniac Calvinist (if not Calvinian) for 4 years. In those years I studied Reformed writings specially on the TULIP and I was worshiping with a wonderful group of Presbyterians near my home as I studied their confession. I was, you might say, a Christian looking for a Confession. A few things bothered me but in the end I cannot, in good conscience sign my name on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Calvinists, by enlarge, do look at faith and their fruit to find out if they are Christians. However to me the system warps itself down because the "L" in the TULIP does not guarantee that the Atonement is yours. Then also there is no means of grace, I mean concretely delivers what is promised or concretely promises something to you, I mean what God did with Abraham when he walked in between the carcasses of dead animals through a smoke etc.

I think Walther and his mates were combating the Revivalism going on around them which taught people to look at their faith. So when people say "I am saved because I believe", Walther and Co. think that people are confessing this in the Wesleyan sense. Meaning looking at their faith, made a commitment, a decision etc. I think there is a sense that this accusation is true and I wrote about this too. However, is the accusation necessarily always true?

So now, I read blogs, listen to radio programs of Lutheran persuasion and the expositors are allergic to even mentioning faith at all.

Rev. Paul McCain says I have an ax to grind in his post here. I got in to that post because Dr. Ichabod blogged about it here, so I went there and chimed in. There was a follow up reply I made but Rev. McCain won't publish it, fair enough. It is his blog.

Do I have an ax to grind or is it my conscience saying something fishy is going on and it does not seem right ? I mean, why is it a dichotomy that being a Christian and having faith (in the Gospel) must be separated? I feel disturb about this. So I return to the Walther quote for I think it is Waltherianism to have such an attitude, and I am bothered by that attitude for many reasons:

1. In the incident with the Philippian jailer, we see St Paul saying something differently when he was asked what must the jailer do to be saved. St Paul answered like the pastors Walther criticized, and I take it that these pastors he criticized were Lutherans too!
2. In the ordo salutis, or order of salvation. Amazingly, Lutherans were the first to coin the phrase! Yet, Lutherans do not have a formal position on this unlike what the Calvinists have done. Their ordo affects their evangelism, apologetics and any other philosophizing and even psychologizing of justification. Look at that Walther quote again. I find Walther being Calvinistic in that quote., because in Calvinism, salvation happens first or regneration happens first before faith comes out, faith is an off shoot of regeneration. Though Walther despised Calvinists, he was quite like them in that quote.

So below is the comment I wrote to the Rev. McCain, which he won't publish, I said:

If a person is looking to Christ as his savior, i.e., the one who paid for his sins, is this not faith?

If this is not faith, then what do you call this phenomenon?

What do you think, how will you answer my question?

Christian Life

Take Up the Cross and Follow Him

Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.

--- Jesus


Jesus did not say, follow me when your life is calm and in order and all the knots have been sorted out.

I wish I have more to say but this says it all.

Not your grandpa's church

You must have heard the saying: "this is not your grandfather's church".

This comment made me laugh...

...and guess what, your grandfather's church wasn't really a true Lutheran church either! It had more than a nod toward Pietistic doctrine.

---Bruce Church (no joke, I believe that is the real surname of Bruce).

Imputations, one more time

The other day, I was wondering why, when I was exchanging responses with folk who claim to be Confessional, they got amazed when I spoke about two imputations. They do not believe the Scripture speaks of two imputations.

First the imputation of our sins to Christ (2 Cor 5:21), then the imputation of His righteousness to us (Rom 3:24-24; 4:21-25) . The two are not the same and they are not simultaneous nor are they equivalent. The first happened outside my space-time. The other happens in my space-time. Then I got to read this post from Brett Meyer which quotes the BoC, it was so on target and spot on. This was taken from the Solid Declarations III.

10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. 11] This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the father, and are eternally saved. 12] Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3, 28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4, 5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5, 19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5, 18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. 14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. 15]

For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life.

17] Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3, 9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Prov. 17, 15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Is. 5, 23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Rom. 8, 33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits

I highlighted some words for reflection specially the ones in red are a way of proving my point. I am at a loss as to why the Confessional guys I interchanged with in my blog a while ago found it rather odd of me speaking of these imputations. We might ask - the Word of the Gospel, how is this understood?

From the BoC, AP IV, 291-2

The Gospel shows another way. It compels us to use Christ in our justification. It teaches that through him we have access to God through faith and that we should set him, the mediator and propitiator, against the wrath of God. It teaches that by faith in Christ we received the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, and victory over the terrors of sin and death.
....
Faith alone accepts the forgiveness of sins, justifies, and regenerates...As we have already stated, we teach a man is justified when, with his conscience terrified by the preaching of penitence, he takes heart and believes that he has a gracious God for Christ's sake. This faith is accounted for righteousness before God (Rom 4:3-5)

Now look at what Walther said...found or quoted here.

C.F.W. Walther wrote in 1868: "…you often hear pastors preach, 'You are saved if you believe.' What they should be saying is, 'You are saved so that you might believe."

I thought Walther was Confessional? Huh? What is the point of faith if you are already saved? Walther seems to be saying all are saved, they just have not believed it yet. That manner of speaking is as universalistic sounding to me as anything. The Scripture speaks of all being paid for by Christ's propiation, but not all are justified/saved because not all have faith, not all are using Christ as a shield against the wrath of God, this is obvious. So I repeat what the Apology said... use our Saviour, set him against the wrath of God, against the wrath of the Law, because the wrath of the Law is still there for those who reject Christ. Outside of Christ, there is still wrath, the Scripture is not kidding. The good news is that God has provided for us his Son as the one who answers the Law for us sinners - John 3:16. So we run for safety and cover, this is the Lord Jesus.

Now have a look at what Abraham Calov said, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei ( R. Preus' Justification and Rome)?

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.

How is that different from Walther. Between Walther and Calov, I would go with Calov.

I thoroughly enjoyed SC III, I was salivating as I was reading it. Hope it has been a blessing.

Don't sing Sinatra's My Way...

...if you are in Manila and you still want to see tomorrow.

The national sport of Filipinos used to be baseball, then it became basketball. Now it is karaoke.

This song can literally get you killed. I was telling my pastor a long time ago that I have heard no less than 2 guys who died after singing this song in a karaoke bar. They got shot.

My pastor led me to the news here featured at The Age. It has been going on now for some time.

No one knows if these people got killed for singing My Way, their way, or horribly off tune. Another theory is that the song evokes arrogance, and that is something Manilanios love to hate.

So there you go. Skip My Way if you decide to sing karaoke.

The treasure - confessional or synodical?

I have been thinking of the means of grace again - Word and Sacrament. I have been thinking about it in relation to the common question - what about those people whom the Gospel has not reached? I thought about this relationship for only when the Gospel is proclaimed in the Word and Sacrament and the faith which Word/Sacrament latches on to what the Word/Sacrament declares, only then is the benefit of the Atonement enjoyed, forgiveness of sins and justification.

Hence, it is important to believe what the Pastor says in the absolution, in the sermon of Law and Gospel, in the giving of the Supper, that at those points, since they connect us to the Atonement, our sins are forgiven to us through faith in the promises they bring. Romans 1:16-17.

I got these Luther quotes and BoC quote from Ichabod's Thy Strong Word:
From Thy Strong Word:

J-520
"It is a faithful saying that Christ has accomplished everything, has removed sin and overcome every enemy, so that through Him we are lords over all things. But the treasure lies yet in one pile; it is not yet distributed nor invested. Consequently, if we are to possess it, the Holy Spirit must come and teach our hearts to believe and say: I, too, am one of those who are to have this treasure. When we feel that God has thus helped us and given the treasure to us, everything goes well, and it cannot be otherwise than that man's heart rejoices in God and lifts itself up, saying: Dear Father, if it is Thy will to show toward me such great love and faithfulness, which I cannot fully fathom, then will I also love Thee with all my heart and be joyful, and cheerfully do what pleases Thee. Thus, the heart does not now look at God with evil eyes, does not imagine He will cast us into hell, as it did before the Holy Spirit came...." Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 279. Pentecost Sunday. John 14:23-31.

J-528
"Faith is that my whole heart takes to itself this treasure. It is not my doing, not my presenting or giving, not my work or preparation, but that a heart comforts itself, and is perfectly confident with respect to this, namely, that God makes a present and gift to us, and not we to Him, that He sheds upon us every treasure of grace in Christ." Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV. #48. Of Justification. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 135. Heiser, p. 36.

In a nutshell, no one gets saved without Word or Sacrament.

When I was an Arminian, I heard Pentecostal preachers making faith a form of works such that it can be used to condemn you when results do not happen. For example, you lacked faith if you are not healed etc. The problem is that they corrupted the idea of faith. Rather than something that is produced by God's Word, it is something you work up, so they preached.

However, now that I am Lutheran, I hear so called "confessional" Lutherans ( in the Internet and around ) do not even want you to mention faith at all, in fact, it is somewhat spoken of in a condemnatory fashion. I suspect this is a Waltherian inspired attitude. How come? St Paul was not shy to answer the Philippian jailer when he was asked, what he should do to be saved - "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved and your household".

Whereas faith may not be necessary to be mentioned in a Law and Gospel sermon, it is also not wrong to mention it either, for the Apostles used the word and Jesus is even called the author and perfecter of our faith, correct?

Do not get me wrong, I think C. F. Walther's book - Law and Gospel book is quite helpful in some respects. I have also read some of his essays that I hmmm about. In my early walk, I did hear of a pastor or two ( I cannot remember may be they were from my synod) expressing concerns about Walther. What they said did not register with me at that time. I now have an idea why.

Honestly I have even read of folk declaring Walther to be their hero. I am now sceptical of declaring this dead guy or that, to be my hero. I now hold no sacred cows. But here is what I observe, seems to me for some "confessional" people, it is okay to disagree with Luther but you'd better not disagree with Walther or Pieper, or you are going to get it.

Huh? No offense, I do not think these guys have insights at par with Luther, or with Chemnitz etc. So today when I hear folk claiming they are "confessional", I stop and think, now does that mean they are faithful to the BoC? Or, do they mean they are faithful to the teaching of their "synodical fathers"? For frankly , "confessional" does not mean what it used to mean, it could mean, the guy is "synodical" (following the heritage of their synodical fathers).

Just thinking out loud.

God bless.

Bach BMV645 - Sleepers Awake.

This is like being in heaven. What joy to listen to Bach and to hear this talented lady interpret it. It moves me to tears and never bores me. I have been listening to many versions of this many times over.

It is music fit to welcome the King of our Salvation.

Why settle for dried fish when you can get a steak?

Enjoy.

Acts of God

A long time ago, I heard of a book authored by Rabbi Harold Kushner, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People". This book begs the question in the first place, are there "good people"? Yet there is a much bigger question, "Why Good Things Happen to Bad People"? I am getting side tracked.

We can expect, the more we live longer, the more hardship we will see and experience, that is for sure.

I am a migrant to Australia, but I grew up in a country often visited by national disasters. To be specific, it is mainly typhoons that flood Manila. Last year, 2009, it got hit by no less than 4 typhoons, displacing millions with many lives lost.

When calamities strike, like the tsunamis and earthquakes we hear in today's news, we are tempted to ask, has God something to do with this?

How should you answer such a question? Would you prefer to say it was just an accident, a fluke of nature? On the other hand, I question, well, why won't God have anything to do with this? Is there something that God is not aware of? Does not God see the sparrow that falls dead to the ground? Why won't God have anything to do with such a thing? Are we not Christians, but then why do we answer such questions like Deists?

Jesus' disciples seemed to ask a similar question about well known disasters of their day in Luke 13.

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."

Answering the Pietist in us, I notice Jesus did not say they were worst sinners than the rest and that is the reason for their misfortune. Hence, in a way Jesus is answering Pat Robertson. In other words, you do not have to be extremely vile for bad things to happen to you, being a plain vanilla sinner is enough for you to get the disaster.

But I also see Jesus answering the Antinomian amongst us. He said unless you repent, you will, like them, perish or suffer the same fate. He did not say, it was an accident. God had nothing to do with it, Jesus did not succumb to such speculations. And mind you, labeling such calamities as shear accidents is easier and more politically correct. Telling people to repent is a bit cruel, if you know what I mean.

When we hear of disasters, should they not strike fear that such incidents can happen upon us?For clearly God had something to do with the typhoons, the earthquakes and tsunamis. Should we not ask, why are we spared (at least for now)? Humbling ourselves in front of God, we admit we are worthy of eternal and temporal punishment, we are worthy of the calamities to come upon us and a wonder, why we at the moment are in the position of helping those struck by the misfortune.

While helping our fellowmen, perhaps we should at the same time be repenting towards God and trust in the Lord Jesus that for his sake, we have the favor and mercy of God. Then, perhaps my/our disasters do not have to remain that way.

God bless.

Future side of righteousness

I was reading St. Paul on Galatians 4, when this verse struck me:

4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

I have read the NT several times but as the old adage goes, it is like a treasure box, you go back to it and there is always something that it teaches you even though you might have read it countless times.

The Word of God assures us that for Christ's sake, God reckons us the righteousness of Christ upon faith in his atoning work, and not before. There is also the future aspect of this reckoning which the Word of God is assuring us - as St. Paul says, through the Holy Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. This future aspect of God's promise happened to Abraham too, he already believed God when he was promised, but there was an aspect of waiting for the fruition of that promise.

Is it not good to hear that it did not say "For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness according to works"?

If God's Word is not capable of assuring us, nothing will do. We will just be chasing our tails with no relief. I struggle with doubts from time to time and I am tempted many times to look away from where I can find peace - God's Word.

I remember a gentleman sometime ago who told me that God was already treating Abraham righteous even before Abraham believed. I objected to this, I quoted Gen 15: 6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

He pointed out to me that the fact that God was speaking with Abraham, God was already treating him as righteous. Now, you will search high and low from Scripture and you will not find what this gentleman claims he believes God was doing prior to Gen 15:6. What he means is that God treats people as righteous even though they are unbelievers. Now this is a different category and all we need to do is look at John 3:16. God makes his sun shine on the just and the unjust; the fact that God's sun is shining on the unbeliever does not imply that he is treating the unbeliever no longer condemned and no longer under his wrath. IMHO, to conclude such a thing is a great blunder in logic.

The said gentleman was not arguing from Scripture, he was arguing from reason, rationalizing what could not be sustained.


To the point: It is then the Holy Spirit who helps us wait for this hope of righteousness, such a hope is created by the Holy Spirit once again, through His Word.

God be praised for he supplies what we do not have but we need - hope and righteousness.

God bless.

Careful who you like

A dear young man has been having good friendship with a young lady. He has begun to really like this young woman and the young woman likes him very much too.

I was speaking to him last week. He shared how he was so heart broken when the young woman shared what she did. She posed nude in one of those smut magazines, warts and all. I do not need to elaborate.

I felt the great hurt and disappointment of this young man as he shared with me his great sadness.

This is a porn generation.

I pity the young people today. There is no category called decency anymore. Who knows, the girl you like may have some sex video with her former beau?

The young people of today can no longer be secure.

But sometimes I wonder if I should bother, looks like they can simply get over it.

In the midst of the muck and mess he comes

I needed to hear that. Pastor Brett, my pastor preached a sermon this Christmas how Jesus comes in the middle of the muck and mess of the stable. Muck and mess, that is sometimes an appropriate description of what I am in, personally. That pretty much sums up also what the world is right now. Yet silently, ubiquitously, Jesus comes. It is hard to believe that Christ could be with me, in my muck and mess. To tell you honestly, I sometimes think Jesus is not in the radar of my life, like the radar has gone blank. Yet by God's word, He is Immanuel, the God who is with us. The trials that happen in my life are quick to distract me from sensing the presence of Christ. I have been noticing that. There are many things that can pull you away and so you think Jesus has gone off the chart. It is hard to believe that he is there even though all your senses say NO.

I also observe how deceptive the enemy could be. You look at the world, its glamor and glossiness, it sedates you to the fact that the enemy of our souls is also at work in the lives of others. The enemy does not advertise himself to the people he deceives and they have no inclination that they could be under his sway. I was speaking a few days ago with an elderly gentleman who taught in university and since have retired. He expressed concern at his teenage grand daughter's bland mind, how she has not been prepared for the basic tenets of life, she seems like wondering off and following where ever the wind blows. One of my children has been affected by this too in some degree or another.

The battlefield is in the mind because once this field is conquered the one in possession of this territory, takes control. It is indeed a faith-war. It is a cultural war and the media is also employed by the enemy to promote his false way of thinking - a false mindset. It is a battle of belief systems. He does not do this blatantly, he does it by suggestion, subtly. I suppose this becomes prominent as Christianity weakens its influence in society. Where as the tools the HS employs are countable by our fingers - Word and Sacrament, they are spiritual, but the enemy employs all the resources he can find to lure our minds to his agenda, he employs the flesh and appeals to our flesh.

May God (as Luther prayed) keep us steadfast in his Word, because without the Word, we would soon be sucked up by the mentality of the world.

I am interested in any insights you can share on this ubiquitousness of Christ and deceitfulness of the enemy.

Worst Gospel Song Ever

If you think this was created by a Pentecostal, you are wrong. Stupid gospel songs are not confined to Pentecostals. This came from Sonseed, an RC group.

I could not believe myself, I watched through the whole thing. I did not realize I got some stamina for punishment.


Happy Christmas anyone, you could all use a laugh.

PS. We are not giving gifts this Christmas, at least not in terms of material gifts. Except for the grand kids, we decided to give each other time and service instead.

Getting desperate are we?

Watch this CNN report of a church that does lottery.

Now, why can't my local church have something like this?

I sure will be in church each Sunday.

False Doctrine - allowed

A few weeks ago, I got a text saying that the latest Hillsong album has been released and I was enjoined to support it saying "remember we are in this together". This is probably a pun on the title of the new CD etc., I am not sure anymore, I am not a fan. It implied to me that I should buy it. It came from a Pentecostal pastor.

I must have been kept in their list. Years ago I was active in ministerial fellowships around Melbourne, that was back in the days as a Charismaniac. But almost 5 years ago, I wrote to my Pentecostal pastor friends of my change in confession and how I believe the Book of Concord is the correct exposition of Scripture. Amazing, no body asked me what happened, why the change? Nope, none of that.

When I got the text, I immediately text back to the sender saying - "I do not buy into that Hillsong stuff". You would think I would get a reply asking, why? Nah.

The same thing happened a few months ago, I was sent an email by an old friend promoting Joyce Meyer's and Joel Osteen's teachings and I replied, saying they have false doctrine and did I get an inquiry why I said what I said? You know the answer.

In present day Evangelia/Charismania, there is no such thing as "false doctrine". When you mention such a thing, it does not register. They have no such category. Everything is ok, I am ok, and you are ok, ok? This completely gets me stumped. Mention false doctrine and they would not know what to do with it. They do not know how to process the remark, it is even a wonder if they think they should process it anyway. Anything goes in this crazy world.

So I go back to that time when I wrote my minister friends of my change in conviction, when I became Lutheran. I was just thinking, what if the letter that I sent said - I have become a JW or a Mormon, would people in my previous circle care to dialogue with me?

There are a few possibilities why nobody dared to speak to me. Either they think I was going to false doctrine and they are happy for me to be lost. Or they are happy for me because I am leaving some false doctrine behind and going to something true. Or, they just do not care about my soul (and probably their's too).

There are more possibilities than these but these ones come to my mind.

Obamessiah at the mosque?

This President certainly looks like praying at the mosque.

Of course, another possibility is that he was in Japan and it is customary there to take off your shoes when entering a Japanese home. Was he entering a Japanese home or was he visiting the Emperor of Japan?

What do you think? It certainly looks like a mosque to me.

A Muslim prayin at a mosque certainly deserves no news.

The thing with The Obama is that he claims to be "Christian".

So how does one reconcile a Christian praying at a Muslim mosque? Unless of course, you redefine what "Christian" and "Muslim" means, then you will find no disconnect in your actions.

Are we using the Tiger?

I can almost bet, like me you have been reading about Tiger Woods lately. I do not know how he has been billed in the US; I have read only that he has been held up as a role model for young people. Over here we do not see his face in advertisements but no doubt he has many fans here. As a celebrity golfer, I am sure product makers would want their products to be endorsed by him. That may change now.

The world is clamoring for heroes. They have become rare commodities. They have become rare because Christianity in the West is now in decline. What used to underpin the moral stability of the West, is no longer there, it is shunned and even hated. It is even skewed in what they think is a hero.

I have been thinking much about the Tiger. I am sad. I am sad because as a fellow human being, he is going through a dark spot in his life. Someone (I can almost hear) ,I am sure, would say - what are you so sad about, the guy has billion dollar bucks coming out of his ears, no sympathy is required.

I was wondering if the job of being a role model was too much for him to bear. What if the pressure was so big, he knew himself that he did not fit the bill and he cracked under the pressure. What if fame made his life complicated? What if he himself needed a hero? What if?

Was the media too much in a hurry to turn him to be a hero? Why can’t a hero be somebody who lives a simple life, someone who battles daily to support his wife and kids, someone who does not have enough yet is happy simply to pour out his life so that his family might survive. Why can’t a hero be someone who gives whatever little he has to his family and to others? Why can’t a hero be someone who can’t point to a skill or talent or fortune in himself, but only has his clean name?

I have heard and am aware of husbands who had more affairs than the Tiger and who fathered many children (lots) outside marriage, but they don’t get in the news. If we would ask Jesus, all of us should be in the news, if you know what I mean.

The media used Tiger Woods, and who knows perhaps Tiger used them too. For sure, they are using him again. I feel for his wife, his parents and children, of course, for him too.

I would think if I were in his shoes, I should envy that suburban husband down the street who struggles to make ends meet, yet has no complications and lives relatively at peace in the company and support of his wife and kids. I know I would trade places with such a man.

I hope he seeks some pastoral counsel. That is what he needs right now.

I pray he (we) might understand that our first sin is not towards others, and that before we commit those sins against our neighbor, we commit them first towards God.

Is self-reference required?

I often read other people's blog. My teachers here taught me that in order to write, you should read. So I read some comments and interactions that take place in other people's blog. Recently I have read of an RC Apologist saying that Scripture does not teach the Reformation principle -Scripture Alone, or sola scriptura. Hence, it is not taught by Scripture.

His objection (I paraphrase).

"There is no Scripture in Scripture, that says Scripture alone is sufficient for faith and practice".

In logic, this is called a self-reference. It is a statement that speaks about the statement itself.

Here is another example:

"This statement is a lie".

Our language is capable of self-reference, but such referencing is not capable of being evaluated. It goes into cycles. So in the above, if that statement is false, then it is true and is not a lie, which it said it is etc etc, you can go crazy at this.

So going back to the requirement of the RC apologist, he seems to be saying that in order for sola scriptura to be true, you should find a statement of it in Scripture. There is one in Scripture such as 2Tim 3:16-17 that matches this but this is dismissed by RC apologists because it is not explicit enough.

There is a fallacy going on in the apologist's requirement. There is no necessity that for a document to be true, it has to state something about its own truthfulness and if it does not, then it is not adequate to inform.

Another point is this, even if there is one such explicit statement, the apologist can come back and say - well self-reference is not valid anyway because you are simply stating your statement is true, does not make it true.

Sophistry is like that, your system is able to prove or refute too much. At first blush they think this is virtue, but as I often say - this is not virtue, instead it is vile. A form of reasoning that is able to prove anything you like is not a good thing because that means you have falsehood also inside it.

Ex falso quodlibet - from a contradiction (falsehood) you can deduce anything. This is the fallacy that sophistry includes and is hidding inside that form of reasoning and for this reason is able to prove anything.

As fallen people, we are capable of sophistry. Even in culture such as the pop culture of young peole, you can observe this happening today.

When people are swimming in their own sophistry, they are not aware of it or fanatical adherence makes them deny it. It is like telling the fish - hey do you know you are swimming in water? Huh, what water?

A case of hijacking, again.

A few years ago, I think I posted about how the word "Evangelical" has been hijacked from the First Evangelicals. Please note, that observation was not original to me. So now, the word has been so used and misused, we do not know now what that word means.

I have been reading of what has been happening in the Calvinist/Reformed world.

Dr. R. Scott Clark, a Reformed professor of historic theology, wrote a piece here, arguing that the label "Reformed" should be confined to paedo-baptists Calvinists who confess the Continental (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort) and English Calvinist Confessions (Westminster, Savoy, etc).

Famous Reformed Baptists, like apologist Dr. James White of AOMIN.ORG took exception to this.

So in a sense, Dr. Clark's point is that technically the word "Reformed" should be the proper label for infant baptizing Calvinists, and it should not be applied to credo-baptizing ones. Hence, it is not proper for credo-baptists "Calvinists" to call themselves Reformed as another variation of that term, there is no such thing as Reformed Baptist, I think this is what Dr. Clark is saying.

I think Dr. Clark is right, historically Calvinism has a distinct pedigree and paedo-baptism is one of them.

On the other hand, Dr. Clark should know that Calvinists stole many concepts from Lutherans and rehashed them and gave them their own spin. I think this mostly happened in what Lutherans called The Interim.

So, all I can say is, what goes around, comes around, no?

Signing the Manhattan Declaration?

In case no one has heard yet, the Manhattan Declaration, is a statement by Christians (mostly in USA) that affirm

1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

Quite a number of well known US Christian personalities have signed it. On the other hand, I looked at the list of Christian leaders who signed the document and wonder why I see no one from the Lutheran synods who has signed this.

An interesting aspect is that I heard well know USA apologist like Dr. James White of AOMin and Christian leader such as Dr. John MacArthur would not like to sign this document. Not because it is wrong, but because the Catholics and the Orthodox are there and these denominations do not affirm JBFA.

I like to sign the document. No, I am serious, this document looks good. The thing that prevents me from signing it is the line...

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered...

The word Evangelical is the one that makes me hesitate.

Lutherans are supposed to be Evangelicals, in fact they invented the word themselves! It first started with them. Unfortunately, I do not know what that word means now or how that word is used today, it has now been modified, hi-jacked if you will. Evangelicals are more Revivalistic than evangelical. I am not sure if I should be identified the term as it is used today. Someone said the Evangelicals are so wide, they cover from people of the likes of theologian R.C. Sproul to the faith healers like Benny Hinn.

Now that is a worry.

Where Luther and Calvin are different

In one interchange - Brett, a dear Internet friend, quoted this passage from Galatians 3.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of
you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

When I was a Pentecostal, I was taught that "baptism" mentioned in v.27, was not water baptism but "Spirit baptism". By this they mean, when I gave my heart to Jesus, or when I got converted, made a decision etc. that was when I got baptized into Christ. Pentecostals, being baptistic, separate the HS from water baptism, because they do not believe water baptism does anything. Hence, they separate the HS from where He is found. This has impact when you are doubting your Christianity. Because by this, Pentecostalism makes you look at your sincere commitment, sincere decision etc. Thus, this makes you look at some mystical experience, yet even if you do and are able to point at one experience, you are not certain if that is the one that the Bible describes. You are uncertain still.

Another idea I see is this verse in Gal 2:

20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith
in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me

I wondered, when did Paul die with Christ, how could he say this? I now answer my own question this way: at his Baptism.

Here is IssuesEtc feature on this.

Note what Luther says when attacked by the devil with doubts about his Christianity, he says to the devil: I am Baptized.

Luther pointed to the Means of Grace that happened to him.

Madam Huldah, faith is justificaton - Luther

A dear friend, Brett Meyer has been sharing with me for sometime now Luther's Sermon on Galatians 4:1-7, found here. It is about time to feature some snippets of this sermon but note that the highlights are mine, for my own thinking and perhaps that of the reader's too.

8. Do you ask: "What then am I to do? How shall I make myself good and acceptable in person to begin with? how secure that justification? The Gospel replies: "Hear Christ and believe in him, utterly despairing of yourself and resting assured you will be changed from a Cain to an Abel and then present your offerings." just as faith is proclaimed without merit or work on your part, it is also bestowed regardless of your works, without any of your merits. It is given of pure grace. Note, faith justifies the individual; faith is justification. Because of faith God remits all sins, and forgives the old Adam and the Cain in our nature, for the sake of Christ his beloved Son, whose name faith represents. More, he bestows his Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit changes the individual into a new creature, one with different reason and different will, and inclined to the good. Such a one, wherever he is, performs wholly good works, and all his works are good; as taught in the preceding epistle lesson.

9. Then nothing else is necessary to justification but to hear and believe in Jesus Christ as our Saviour. But that is not a work of the natural man; it is a work of grace. He who presumes to attain justification by works, only obstructs the way of the Gospel, of faith, grace, Christ, God and all good. On the other hand, nothing but justification is necessary to render works good. The justified man and none other does good; all he does, being justified, is good, without distinction of works. Therefore, the order of man's salvation, the beginning and the sequel, is first to hear and then believe God's Word as supreme, and then to act. Thus shall man be saved. He who perverts this order and acts accordingly is certainly not of God.

10. Paul prescribes this order where he says (Rom 10, 13-15): "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent?" Christ teaches us to pray the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into his harvest; that is, faithful preachers. When they come they preach the true Word of God. Hearing it, we are enabled to believe, and such faith justifies us and renders us godly; then we call upon God and do only good. Thus are we saved. So then, the believer shall be saved, but he who works without faith shall be damned. Christ says (Mk 16, 16), "He that disbelieveth shall be condemned;" here works avail nothing.

11. Now, observe what people commonly do and say. "Yes,"' they tell you, "I expect to become godly. Yes, we must be godly." But if they are asked what we are to do to accomplish it, they go on to say, "Indeed, we must pray, fast, attend Church, abstain from sin, and so on." One will enter a monastery, another some order. One will become a priest, another will don a hair-garment. One will punish himself in a certain way, and another in another way. They are like Cain and do the works of Cain. Personally they are as at first--without justification. They but assume an external change, an alteration of works, clothing, condition and habits. They are really apes, assuming the habits of saints but remaining unholy. Unmindful of faith, they rush along with their good works toward heaven--as they imagine--torturing themselves.

Relative to them, Christ in the Gospel (Lk 13, 24) says: "Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able." And why not? Because they do not recognize the narrow door. It is faith. Faith humbles one, reduces him to nothing, until he must despair of all his good works and cleave only to God's grace; for that he must forsake all else. But the Cain-like saints imagine good works to be the narrow door. Hence they do not humble themselves. Nor do they despair of their good works; no, lading themselves with the cumbersome bundles of their collected deeds, they strive to pass through the door. They will pass as the camel with his great hump passes through the eye of the needle.

12. Mention faith to them and they scoff and laugh, saying: "Are we Turks or heathen that we must first learn what faith is? Is it possible that our multitude of monks, nuns and priests do not know? Who can be ignorant of what believing is when even they who openly sin know its meaning?" As if having finished with faith, they imagine they must henceforth devote themselves to works. As before said, they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not understand that it is our sole justifier. To accept as true the record of Christ--this they call faith. The devils have the same sort of faith, but it does not make them godly. Such belief is not Christian faith; no, it is rather deception.

13. In the preceding epistles we have heard that to be a Christian it is not enough simply to believe the story of Christ true--the Cain-like saints possess such faith--but the Christian must without any hesitancy believe himself one to whom grace and mercy are given, and that he has really secured them through baptism or through the Holy Supper. When he so believes, he is free to say of himself: "I am holy, godly and just. I am a child of God, perfectly assured of salvation. Not because of anything in me, not because of my merits or works, am I saved; it is of the pure mercy of God in Christ, poured out upon me." To such extent will he appreciate God's precious mercy, he cannot doubt that it renders him holy and constitutes him a child of God. But he who doubts, disparages to the utmost his baptism and the Holy Supper, and censures as false God's Word and his grace in the sacraments.

14. The Christian should entertain no fear--he should not doubt--that he is righteous and a child of God through grace. Rather he needs to entertain anxiety as to how he shall endure steadfast to the end. There is where all fear and anxiety are due. For while he assuredly is given to possess full salvation, it may be somewhat doubtful whether or no he will steadfastly retain it. Here we must walk in fear. True faith does not hang upon works nor rely upon itself; it relies only upon God and his grace. Grace cannot forsake the individual so long as reliance continues. But he knows not how long it will continue. Should temptation force him to lose his confidence, grace also will fail. Solomon (Ecc 9, 1) says: "The righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God; whether it be love or hatred, man knoweth it not; all is before them." He does not say it is uncertain at present, but in the future,because man knows not whether he will withstand the attacks or temptation.

15. When the Cain-like saints hear the doctrine of faith, they cross themselves, both with hands and feet, and exclaim: "God forbid! How could I call myself holy and righteous? How could I be so egotistical and presumptuous? No, no; I am a poor sinner." You see how they make faith of no value to themselves, and so must regard as heresy all doctrine based upon it. Thus they do away with the whole Gospel. These are they who deny the Christian faith and exterminate it from the world. Paul prophesied concerning them when he said (1 Tim 4, 1): "In later times some shall fall away from the faith." The voice of faith is now silenced all over the world. Indeed, faith is condemned and banished as the worst heresy, and all who teach and endorse it are condemned with it. The Pope, the bishops, charitable institutions, cloisters, high schools, unanimously opposed it for nearly four hundred years, and simply drove the world violently into hell. Their conduct is the real persecution by Antichrist, in the last times.

16. Tell them what the prophet says in Psalm 86, 2: "Preserve my soul; for I am godly"; and Paul's words in Romans 8, 16: "The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God;" and they reply: "Yes, but the prophet and the apostle did not mean by these statements to establish a doctrine or leave an example of what others may claim. They were enlightened and their holiness was revealed to them." Similarly, they construe every passage relating to the subject as not doctrinal in design, but exhibiting a remarkable miracle, a special prerogative of certain individuals not to be possessed by every believer. This explanation is a mere invention of their own minds. Themselves unbelievers, tasting not the Spirit, they think no one else should so believe or taste. By such conduct--their own fruits--they may be clearly identified as thorns and thistles; not as Christians, but as enemies and destroyers of Christians, and persecutors of the Christian faith.

The Pacman did it again

He surprised us. He showed amazing athletic abilities.



My buddies and I were offended while watching the fight. We detected a slight cockiness and that annoyed us.

Cockiness is not something we accept in our culture. Flaunting your gifts and abilities is an offensive trait. True enough Manny does not have false humility either, but he does not have to be cocky. We do not tolerate such none sense and shame on him if he develops such a trait.

Fortunately The Age did not notice what we detected, maybe because they are accustomed to it and comparatively, his was mild. Here is the article.

When faith is removed

The last post has caused me to think much about how Revivalism has made a mess of the doctrine of JBFA, such that faith as a concept has been turned to a form of works.

Because of this, people who first cried sola fide i.e. JBFA proponents, now get allergic to any slight hint or suggestion that faith could ever be a condition for justification, even though they are taught that faith (in the Atonement of Jesus) itself, is a gift and a condition created by the HS through the means of grace and hence, not a condition they can arrive at themselves.

Consider now Ephesians 2:8-9.

8For(Q) by grace you have been saved(R) through faith. And this is(S) not your own doing;(T) it is the gift of God, 9(U) not a result of works,(V) so that no one may boast.

Let us chop off any suggestion of faith in this verse. It now reads...

For by grace you have been saved not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I leave you to think about the implication of this version.

Indeed some make faith a form of works, but if you stick to the Biblical teaching, goodness, if you believe the Gospel story, what has your faith got to do with it, since it simply receives the story! Scripture says if you are saved by grace through faith, you got nothing to boast.

Conversely, if you have a faith that can boast, it is faith that is not founded on the story. Surely that is the case. So why be allergic to faith? Such faith boasting faith, means you got a Gospel that is not THE Gospel.

Let us do it in elementary logi, if you have faith (let this be A), you got nothing to boast (let this be B), then Ephesians 2:8-9 says, i.e. A => B. Therefore NOT B => NOT A. Say your condition is a condition of boasting, then you do not have the faith described by Ephesians 2:8-9. Oh you do have faith, but it is not in the Gospel.

So in as much as faith can be looked at as a form of works, I do not have to be allergic to it in the discussions, because Scripture uses it. We did not invent the words and statements in the Bible, the HS did.

Maier's Paper

Dr. Ichabod is sponsoring a discussion on Maier's paper "A Summary Exposition of The Doctrine of Justification By Grace Through Faith".


I am interested in such discussions primarily because justification is something I have been quickly ushered out of when I first believed as a Pentecostal. They have a notion of "being born again" but have no clue what justification is, when asked.

I believe Maier's paper is a finely written paper. It is a fair and good critique of Pieper's "overstatements", and based on my observation that term - "overstatements" is an appropriate label to use as to what has happened. Maier says

It appears, however, that some of the synodical fathers particularly in using and defining the expression “objective justification” (or “objective reconciliation”) have made certain overstatements which have created semantic difficulties and may in our day give rise to misunderstanding of New Testament teachings regarding justification, reconciliation, and related doctrines

Maier is spot on, it has created semantic confusion (I dare say) in the discussion of a so important topic. Here is an example from Pieper:

Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal.

[emphasis mine]

Huh? Righteous? You mean the Muslim and the Atheist and what nots, who do not believe in Christ, are righteous before God's eyes, before they believe? Hang on, they presently do not believe in Christ so - they are now righteous even without faith in Christ? That sounds a bit universalistic to me.

Maier praises and gives credit to Pieper where he spoke consistently with Scripture but likewise, Maier points out where Pieper overstated his case. This overstating is also something I find in a few of the venerable C. F. W. Walther's essays.

I know Pieper and Walther are holy church fathers of Lutheranism in America. However, I doubt if these people, had they been living today, would feel bad about your disagreeing with them.

As I was reading this - one of the titles of the Lord - Redeemer came into my mind and how appropriate that title is for Jesus. I think in that title we get all the doctrine of justification implies and in great precision. Redeemer as a title denotes the truth that he is the payer of the sinner's sins; it also denotes the ransoming of the sinner from the punishment of God.

Purgatorial musings

HT: Carrie, Acroamaticus

See the HT. I have been looking at interchanges on this subject. One thing that attracted me is this book:

Hungry Souls:

Supernatural Visits, Messages, and Warnings from Purgatory
By: Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg

What got my attention is that this is purported to be written by a Luther dude. It says:

After a week of hearing ghostly noises, a man is visited in his home by the spirit of his mother, dead for three decades. She reproaches him for his dissolute life and begs him to have Masses said in her name. Then she lays her hand on his sleeve, leaving an indelible burn mark, and departs...

A Lutheran minister, no believer in Purgatory, is the puzzled recipient of repeated visitations from "demons" who come to him seeking prayer, consolation, and refuge in his little German church. But pity for the poor spirits overcomes the man's skepticism, and he marvels at what kind of departed souls could belong to Christ and yet suffer still...

Hungry Souls recounts these stories and many others trustworthy, Church-verified accounts of earthly visitations from the dead in Purgatory. Accompanying these accounts are images from the "Museum of Purgatory" in Rome, which contains relics of encounters with the Holy Souls, including numerous evidences of hand prints burned into clothing and books; burn marks that cannot be explained by natural means or duplicated by artificial ones.

Now think about this for a moment. So, God allows souls in Purgatory to bop up and down, visit earth and speak to people like this Lutheran pastor? And rather than this Lutheran pastor going to Scripture and rejecting his experience, no, he gets to become and Enthusiast.

Precisely, what kind of departed soul who belongs to Christ and yet suffer still.

When Saul visited the Witch of Endor, Samuel apparently appeared to him. Consulting mediums is not something God approves. I guess my point is that this pastor should have gone with his first impression, that these are demons coming to help spread false doctrine.

I do not believe Purgatory is Biblical for a very simple reason - If Jesus did not pay it all, Jesus did not pay it at all. (J.K. you might recall this is a Baptist quote). No matter what RC teaching on it happens to be and how nuanced their presentation of it happens to be, it is a spurious doctrine that has immense impact on the doctrine of justification.

So now what?

What do I do now?

Yesterday felt surreal. I was in a daze as I drove myself to the uni. The project that began almost 6 years ago has finally reached the finish line. The one big mistake I made, getting into a doctorate program in logic, finally culminated, is now off my hair. I submitted my dissertation/thesis. Now it is in the hands of examiners. We'll see what they say later.

I was one of the lucky ones in that my supervisor allowed me to take a problem and run with it. Other times, it is not that way. Normally, the supervisor has a line of research topics and you come on board with him. But my supervisor whom I lovingly called "Prof" watched and guided me like a father, standing behind me, urging me on, yet often looking ahead for me, telling me where to turn and what to expect when I do. He did not give me vague directions. That is the difference, my Prof was a master logician and mathematician. When he gives directions, they are always specific, unless he wanted me to learn things by myself. He gave me no philosophically hazy comments.

So meet my Prof.

There is something providential with my relationship with (Emeritus) Prof. Crossley that I now realize. When I was finishing my undergrad in Manila, my logic teacher took us to a seminar where I sat down and listened to this Oxford man give a lecture on some esoteric topic relating algebra to logic (if I recall). I could not recall what was said really, I did recall the tall lanky gentleman with a beard writing on the black board. Little did I know some 30 years later he would be my supervisor. I wondered about this turn of events and I am still mesmerized of how providence (I would say the Lord) cooked this up. I owe this man a lot for my education and the Lord for his mercy. I told the Lord I would not be studying again but I went back on my word, so this thesis was punishment for braking my vows. I have been disobedient yet, the Lord has mercy.

Well that thesis project was a part of my life for more than 5 years. I toiled, went through highs and lows, deprived myself of job offers, deprived of sleep, deprived of rest and recreation, left me with dreams of formulas, left the missus on her own watching TV, she sometimes went to bed on her own while I was tied to the desk typing till 2AM. One time I noticed sleeping on a problem and waking up with those symbols banging on my head. I would say, "honey, just one more theorem to prove, just one more proof and I am done", not true. No wonder some maths geeks go nuts and become mental. It can crack damage the brain. So this thing pre-occupied my life, I was at a loss when I submitted the dissertation yesterday. So I think I owe the missus also for my education since she felt the effect of this project, the sad effect, the part that hurt.

I feel like I was going through some withdrawal symptoms. I was disoriented wondering, so what do I do now? It was for sure a journey, so where do I go now?

Lord Jesus, thank you for letting me submit, you must have thought of me as being silly when I enrolled 6 years ago. I love you for your mercy towards me, I do not deserve it.

So it is our fault again?

I heard someone said that the demise of Evangelicalism is due to the Baby Boomers.

Why is it our fault now? We are the market, it is not our fault if the marketeers attract us and customized their product for our consumption, is it?

Go easy on us baby boomers. Most of us have aging parents, and many of us are caring for those who have gone before and those who are going after us. Most fellow baby boomers I know are in this situation. Many of us are gradually becoming mourners, burying their loved ones if not their friends. Like me, they have nothing for their retirement.

As my Reformation treat - I'll do Bach

When rendered properly, Bach's music, can lead me to tears. I am not joking. I am serious, his music does sometimes make me weep.

Pr. McCain has one in his blog but I am putting this version on Bach because it has documentary discussion on the Reformation of Luther.

Calvin and the art of obfuscating

I was reading a book about the theology of Calvin and the author said that what Luther began, Calvin completed. I have read a bit of Calvin's expositions and I find it astounding why he is the greatest theologian after Augustine. Take the case of Calvin's comments on John 20:19.

And while the doors were shut. This circumstance was expressly added, because it contains a manifest proof of the Divine power of Christ; but this is utterly at variance with the meaning of the Evangelist. We ought, therefore, to believe that Christ did not enter without a miracle, in order to give a demonstration of his Divinity, by which he might stimulate the attention of his disciples; and yet I am far from admitting the truth of what the Papists assert, that the body of Christ passed through the shut doors. Their reason for maintaining this is, for the purpose of proving not only that the glorious body of Christ resembled a spirit, but that it was infinite, and could not be confined to any one place. But the words convey no such meaning; for the Evangelist does not say that he entered through the shut doors, but that he suddenly stood in the midst of his disciples, though the doors had been shut, and had not been opened to him by the hand of man. We know that Peter (Acts 10:10) went out of a prison which was locked; and must we, therefore, say that he passed through the midst of the iron and of the planks? Away, then, with that childish trifling, which contains nothing solid, and brings along with it many absurdities! Let us be satisfied with knowing that Christ intended, by a remarkable miracle, to confirm his disciples in their belief of his resurrection.

Calvin has a way of speaking one thing and meaning another, kinda convoluted way of saying it was a miracle, not that Jesus used his divine powers to enter the room but an angel must have helped him come in. Jesus need the assitance of angels, no? I believe the allusion to Acts 10:10 is a typographical error, I think it should be Acts 12:10. Calvin did not want to admit that Jesus' body has the capacity to appear and disappear thinking by doing so, he is capitulating to the Papist doctrine, probably of the Eucharist. Calvin is able to do this double talk at once in the same paragraph. A remarkable effort in being obfuscating. I am being polite when I say I find him confusing. I like to use the real word but this blog is rated G.

In saying that it was a miracle and in saying it was similar to what happened to Peter, he actually said more than what Scripture said. That is the drift I am getting at.

This is where Luther was different. Luther was careful not to throw the baby with the bath water. As an exegete Calvin was more rationalistic and humanistic than Luther.

So I do not know why Calvin is given such a high esteem. I donot think he completed what Luther began, it was more like over shooting Luther and even over shooting Biblical Christianity which to me, is bordering on sub-Christianity.

Pope says to Anglicans... swim the river, the water is warm

Here is the article.

Looks like the Pope is making it easy for those un-easy Anglicans to switch their affiliation. Well if you are a conservative in the Anglican Church, and you are disheartened with what is going on with the your denomination, for it is obvious, the liberal group has the upper hand. They are into homosexual clergy and women's ordiantion, why not just jump ship? Kinda, take off from the frying pan, and dunk yourself down to the fire.

This behavior reminds me of the time when I was a Pentecostal. You hear of a congregation losing its pastor and another pastor hovers around and wheels and deals with members of the congregation who just lost its leader. They are like vultures (maybe the better word - wolves) circling the spoil.

Lets us face it, the Pope is a business man.

So I ask, if I was an Anglican, what am I buying when I go to Mother Church? Like I said to people I know, the Pope will allow you to be a Lutheran, Anglican and a Baptist or whatever, he will allow you to practice quietly what you will just don't make it formal and don't buck the Pope. The Pope will allow you to hold your views, so long as you know who is your daddy.

This could start a mass exodus from other denominations, there is power in what the bandwagon can do, you know.

This should give some ideas to people in the ELCA (perhaps even people from my own Synod?). Because just recently they have now allowed practicing gay/lesbian ministers to hold pastoral positions, so the conservatives in ELCA may have another option. Would that be the answer?

Why not go back to your Scripture and hold tenaciously to the Confessions? Would that not be the better option?

I guess if your loyalty is to conservatism per se and not to Scripture, you can make any excuses with your decision and won't loose sleep over where you belong.