Religious

I know my pentecostal friends think of me as having acquired a religious spirit - this is the term they attach to those who have become traditional in their Christian faith. With my returning to Reformation confessions, I can not help but at times think that they are referring to me when they refer or speak of to "those religious people".

There is a slogan that says "the church that is reformed continues to reform" semper reformanda if you will. I charge though that those who wave that slogan carelessly may indeed continue to "reform" but reform outside Christianity. What they mean by that is progress. Such progress may morphe Christianity to something no longer Christian but may represent it as a form of new age spirituality. I wonder if what is going on in mega-churches (which is predominantly pentecostal) may be a form of pseudo-Christianity. An entirely new religion.

My understanding though is that the Reformers took out the additions and excesses in their Christianity using Scripture as a guide. Yet, they recognized that there was a faith that was once delivered to the saints which was all along there but obscured.

The Reformation that I am learning is that it is a return always to the Gospel and if that so called reformation leads you away from that, it is not reformation but deformation, you may very well overshoot Christianity in the process.

Is Baptism a ticket?

To this question, Walther says this - from Thesis XXI of his book God's No and God's Yes.

Rom 3:28: If I am justified, if I obtain grace by my act of submitting to baptizing or by my act of going to Communion, I am justified by works, and at that altogether paltry works, scarcely worth mentioning. For that is what Baptism and Holy Communion are when viewed as works that we perform. It is a horrible doctrine, wholly contradicting the Bible, that divine grace is obtained if a person at least makes external use of the sacraments. The truth is that Baptism and Holy Communion place any person under condemnation who does not approach them with faith in his heart. They are means of grace only for the reason that a divine promise has been attached to an external symbol. Having water poured on me is of no benefit to me. Nor am I benefited by actually receiving the body and blood of the Lord. It is of paramount importance that I BELIEVE, that I regard, not the water in Baptism, but the promise which Christ has attached to the water. It is this promise that requires the water; for only to it has the promise been attached

(the emphasis is mine).

Not an issue? But it still is.

I used to think that justification by faith is clear and not an issue in the circles I used to roam in (evangelias/charismanias) but it seems that it still is. What do I mean? I mean there is confusion surrounding this slogan as understood by modern evangelicals today. Though sola fide as a slogan is something they affirm, they, as I most of the time observe, make faith as something that man must throw into the mix so that God might justify- to them this is the Gospel. Unwittingly, faith becomes a form of works that one must exercise, otherwise God will not be moved.It is believed that it can be produced by the unbeliever, so the Gospel is understood as a proposition not a declaration, or a promise. A sort of, you scratch God's back and He will scratch yours. It is true though that faith is a condition of justification, but that demand of God is not something produced on our own but also supplied by God through the Gospel promise.

This topic is quite tricky...

A quick test question can be used to illustrate this point. Ask the question "why are you saved"? If the answer is "because I believed",
sola fide has been misunderstood as well as the Gospel. However, if the answer is "because Jesus died for me, a sinner", that is the Gospel and that is sola fide.

The issue is this - the reason salvation is through faith is because it is first by grace! Meaning, the gift has been given first- Jesus - his work, perfect life and person, his atonement - is finished. My point is this sola gratia is the reason why it is sola fide.

In the Apology of Augsburg, Article IV,54-56 we have this

54] Scripture frequently implores mercy; and the holy Fathers often say that we 55] are saved by mercy. As often, therefore, as mention is made of mercy, we must keep in mind that faith is there required, which receives the promise of mercy. And, again, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be understood, namely, the promised mercy. 56] For faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy

The result of putting the accent on one's faith is pride and self-righteousness, when grace is the accent - there is no room for boasting even if you have faith, because salvation is by grace first on account of Christ's work alone. Your faith contributes nothing.

I hope this information is not new to you but if it is, I hope you find security in the fact that God did all that is necessary for our salvation without any of our contribution needed.

PS. My blogging has been sparse due to the pressure of thesis writing, I could use your prayers.

Walther for Devotions

Just to let you know I am still posting I share with you what I am reading for my devotions - C F W Walther's God's Yes and God's No - Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel. I think this should be a must reading for any evangelical minister of whatever denomination. I wish I got this book before I went out to preach.

Dr. Hahn rediscovers justification by faith and works?

As I have promised, here now is the first installment of my analysis of Dr. Hahn's conversion experience in the RCC. This is taken from his book "Rome Sweet Home". I will have to cut to the chase and I suggest a good place to start the discussion would be in Chapter 3, New Conceptions on the Covenant. Here are a few points...
1. Dr. Hahn felt impressed that the RCC was the only denomination that thought against contraception. This is in lieu of the fact that every marriage act is a covenantal act such that the "two become one" in the covenant of marriage, the "one" they become is so real that nine months later they might have to give it a name! The child embodies their covenant oneness. Thus Dr. Hahn was apparently disappointed that it was only the RCC who opposed contraception amongst the many christian denominations in the world. He says, the RCC got it right. He admired their courage and integrity in teaching this unpopular truth. This was the hole through which he entered and entertained favorably RCC teachings. I surmised that Mr. and Mrs. Hahn were
practicing birth control such that he said "a change in our theology had produced a change in Kimberly's anatomy". It is interesting that part of this chapter's title had the word "conception" on it. Was there pun intended? I am getting ahead of myself so ...
2. Scott says that in Scripture - contracts involve exchange of properties but covenants mean an exchange of persons such that it is a form of sacred family bond.Covenant kingship was stronger than biological and in the OT case, God's covenant with Israel is God's fathering of that nation as his own family. Thus Scott was not happy and consider it inadequate the courtroom justification language of the Protestants. For him justification is more than being declared righteous or treated righteous. Justification was not in the courtroom but in a family room. He discovered through his study of Romans and Galatians that St. Paul did not teach justification by faith alone, he shared Prof. Shepherd's conviction. By virtue of James 2:24 and 1 Cor 13:2 - St. Martin Luther was wrong.

Some initial comments now...
1. In my reading Matt 19:5, "oneness" of one's flesh in marriage did not pertain to children. What I am saying is that the husband and the wife are not one because they have children. They are already one by virtue of marriage. The marriage covenant makes them one. But even if the person is married and have never performed a marital act with his/her spouse, that person is still one with his/her spouse. That is what marriage does, it defines oneness. It seems to me that the Hahns were not impressed by what they saw in the protestant circles they were in, in that these folks probably acted like the world in their unshameful use of contraceptives. Scott considered the marriage covenant as a bi-lateral covenant, but in the Protestant sense, at least in some Calvinistic churches, they see the covenant that God performs to be unilateral not bi-lateral. If Scott were in a Lutheran church he would probably not get enamored with covenants because Lutherans look at the term covenant as synonymous with "testament" - the last will and testament (the New Covenant). In Lutheran thinking - a testament is a gift, you perform nothing to receive it. It is more precise rather than the word covenant because a testament is a desire for the departing to make something happen by way of bequesting a gift. Human beings may impose on each other conditions on their covenants but the way God depicts the New Testament, Jesus said it was his will and testament - his death was a gift - that is why he died before we were even born. We were not consulted, he gave his life as a gift to sinners.
2. Court room or family room language - that is the issue. Well sin is missing the mark, human beings are not God's children who wondered off the path - well that may be true in some sense, but human beings are sinners - sin is the transgression of the Law. In otherwords, human beings are lawbreakers according to the Bible - that is the language the Bible uses to describe us. The Bible does not speak of human beings as overall God's children, it speaks of us as sinners/rebels - law breakers thus, between court room or family room language was St Martin Luther wrong? I do not think so. In fact in this respect, he seems to be on target, on the mark. Spot on.

More to come...

One Mile Wide, One Inch Deep

We interrupt this broadcast for a short break. I have not forgotten my assignment on analyzing Dr. Hahn's RC conversion experience, I will get on to it next time.

I got this from Cyberbretheren. Here is an article on megachurches and the depth of their beliefs. This is not something new, many observers and experienced Christians have been saying this now for sometime.

Why the fascination and attraction 1?

Pr. Andrew B. asked if I would care and write something about the attraction of the RCC. Here it is...

They say that the RC church is facing some crisis in the priesthood because there are less and less young men wanting to enter the ministry in their church. I remember when I was a younng man, a priest coming to my family home and asked my mother if he would given time to encourage me or to mentor me to become a priest. He attempted to convince me to give my life to the priesthood. I guess after much talk he failed because I remember while I was escorting him out to get a ride, I told him I was not interested or something to that effect.

Today that crisis in the priesthood is being answered by former evangelical ministers converting and becoming RC priests or RC Apologists. I read their stories - I will just name a couple - one is R. Neuhaus from the Lutheran side and S. Hahn from the Presbyterian side. First let me speak my mind about the coversion of Fr. Neuhaus then in the next installment that of Mr. Hahn. Please note that I was a RC up until my mid-twenties. As a boy and young man I practiced the teachings of the RCC, I was baptized ( I got my certificate), catechized, confirmed, studied in an RC school and was a great devotee of St. Jude, faithfully dedicated to his novenas. So I think I can say something on this phenomena of being fascinated with the RCC.

As I read his article in First Things I can sense some semi-sarcastic tone directed at some teachings of the Lutheran church he belonged (the LCMS). For example, he said that the LCMS also has a Vatican - Concordia Seminary. When you start looking at your church in that paradigm, the RCC will win and your church will lose. Let me now enumerate some salient points that I feel I need to respond.

1. Firstly which "idolatry" do you rather have? Fr. Neuhaus said

For the ecclesial Christian, the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church are not two acts of faith but one. In an important sense, every Christian, even the most individualistic, is an ecclesial Christian, since no one knows the gospel except from the Church.

If Protestants (Lutherans/Reformed etc) idolize the Bible, then Fr. Neuhaus idolizes the RCC. This statement is significant, notice that he says that faith is an action and that faith in Christ is not enough, one must have faith in the Church and by Church he means RCC. No longer is the church the body of believers who confess faith in Christ's work, it is now the organization itself. Also he believes that no one can know the 'gospel' except from the RCC, so what happens to the HS and the Scripture He breathed? The truth is that you can have a believer proclaiming the Gospel and unless HS moves on the proclamation it will not be believed.

2. Then he was influenced by Romanizing Lutheran thinking and admits to be Piepkornian and rejects Tillich's Protestant corrective . But these Romanizing Lutherans were not raised RC and they see the RCC from an anglo-saxon, mild mannered Mr. Clark Kent type of lens (my suspicion). They think they can be evangelical and still be RC. They have not seen RC practice and lived it the way the Latin Americans and Latin Asians do. I have so much to say but the bottom line is this, each time you emphasize the Sacraments more than the ministry of the Word, you will levitate towards what is more. Each time you sharpen the distinction between pulpit and pew and make the pulpit superior than the pew, you will always have less and RCC has more. Each time you tie the validity of the sacraments to the minister you will always have less, and Rome has more. You might as well get the right pedigree, get the right bishop laying hands on you. Rightly according to Fr. Neuhaus, the RCC has more, and for me (unlike him), more here means more than the Gospel and more than Christ! Fr. Neuhaus without me realizing is a classic example of taking Romanization of Lutheran thinking to the final conclusion, become a RC. At least he is honest, he ran out of answers to the question why he is not Roman Catholic so he swam and kissed the Pope's ring and now feels secure he is in the "True Church". I just wondered if he took the Smalcald articles seriously while he was a Lutheran pastor.

3. The RC is big, as an organization it is older than us (but so does the EO and it claims it to be so also). It is big enough to accomodate everything, you can be an atheist and claim to be RC, you can be a liberal and still be RC, and you can be an evangelical and still be RC. Back home priests believe in the rapture do not wear their habits but a suit and tie - they sing pentecostal songs, speak in tongues, shout amen and hallelujah and venerates Mary. You can be evangelical in many ways and be there, until may be you start practicing popular piety of the Latin kind. Back home, there is a Fatima, an ancient statue made of wood, dark and not even resembling a woman in figure, it is small. Historians claim that the statue was an anito, an animistic god worshipped in ancient times. This is found in an RC church, it has been given golden hair and been dressed up nicely with gold plated sash/robe. The worshippers venerate the statue, I wonder if Fr. Neuhaus would join the devotees of this Fatima in touching and worshipping this statue(ok vowing and kneeling down and praying to it - because the RC does not claim these activities as worshipping). The RC church has not banned such adoration, it is still there and people are not disuaded from making vows to that statue. It seems to me that Fr. Neuhaus unlike his other Lutheran friends, does not substitute the word 'christian' for the word 'catholic'. For him it means, the ancient practice of christians though though such practice may not be scriptural in reality.

If the Lutheran believes it has connection with the early church not by association or grouping but by belief and doctrine, what is the need to merge back? If a Protestant truly loves the RC as people needing the Gospel, the best thing a Protestant can do is to remain a Protestant and call out the same - repent and believe the Gospel, the same as it does for other people.

In the end as I am often comfronted in this life, I am often brought to the crisis of asking the question, is my faith in the promise of God or is my faith in the comfort that I belong to a group/people or Church? Where am I standing, am I standing on the Word of Scripture or something else? Is my comfort in my belonging to the one true church or is my comnfort in life and death on Christ alone? Often Jeremiah 17:5 scares me.

But what if I am wrong, well, I am reminded of what Luther said with regards to the Supper in believing that it is his body and blood. Why can I not say the same thing - Lord I took you at your Word? I thought I am saved by what you have done, not by what I believe or the good that I could do.

More later for Mr. Hahn's.

4 Fast then 4 Slow

I have not been worshipping in a Pentecostal church now for the last 4 years as far as I can recall. I have been beaten down or burned out. They say we charismatics do not go for rituals but actually we do. I can always predict what is going to happen in the worship service. Really, the worship service does say something even though it DOES NOT say things explicitly.

I have been invited by my Pentecostal minister friends to join them in worship when I am not preaching in other churches, but I can not get myself to go to the worship services. Why? I am scared.

You see, I got beaten down with the worship style- first the fast happy praise songs and then followed by the slow solemn songs. Over and over again this is what happens on each Sunday. As if we are there to work up a feeling. The message seems like this -- God is here because we 'feel' him. As if we are seeking some kind of emotional validation that God is with us.

When someone just got through some tough emotionally draining stresses of life during the week, you got nothing to give come Sunday. The last thing you want to do is work - specially less is on your emotions because you got nothing more to give, besides I am a lazy bum.

Sunday is the time I do not want to look inside myself because honestly, I have not been that spiritual during the week. But what do I get? - Hillsongs with sentimental themes. This line used to be a blessing to me...

hold me close, let your arms surround me, bring me near, draw me to your side. And as I wait, I'll rise up like an eagle and I will soar with you, your Spirit leads me on in the Power of your love

But lately the same theme has been going on and on, it gets tiring. I do feel touched and I do not mind that, but it should be due to the truth content of the song not through the sentimentality that is in it.

Sometimes I do not want Jesus to cry with me, I want him to deliver me. I do not want him to be sentimental with me and then he and I can have a good cry, I want him to do something for me - but ....
I guess that is what he just did - 2000 years ago, in a place called Calvary.

J. Edward's Famous Sermon

Do you know Jonathan Edwards? He was a revivalist preacher in New England, USA in the 18th century. He is considered to be the finest American philosophical theologian.

I have a copy of his sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". It has been sitting for years in the book shelve so I decided to do an exercise of Law and Gospel.

They were right, as I read Edward's sermon, I could really feel the tongues of fire licking the soles of my feet. It is terrifying to read. A fine sermon on the Law. As I read the sermon I was kept hanging. It was the experience of watching 24 or Lost. I was on the edge of my seat because I was looking for the suspense, the climax. I was saying, hang on maybe good news is coming up, may be in the next page. Nope not there, but may be towards the end?

I finished the sermon. Unfortunately it never came. There were spots here and there of the need to be converted, born again but nope, no Gospel forth coming. Sorry. This has really puzzled me a lot and I wish someone can explain to me my sense of hopelessness. Why is it considered a good sermon? Why do people hail it?

The sermon sounded to me more like "Sinners in the hands of an Angry Preacher".

I am really sorry, that is honestly what I think. I only got the problem, no solution.

From Westminster to Wittenburg

I thought I should post here a link of Pastor Rick Ritchie's journey to Wittenberg here.

There are many reasons why I can not go to Westminster too but that is another story for next time.

For now, this is just to feed the discussion should you care to comment.

Me!Church

I got this from the list I regularly join in the discussion, courtesy of Rev. Bob Vincent. Click here for the Me!Church. But I warn you, if you get stomach cramps from laughing, please do not sue me.

A few years ago, in the city where I live, a bank promoted its name by giving out an advertisement that went along this line of thought --"It is ALL about YOU".

Waytaminit, I thought church was all about Jesus?

Calling Dr. Phil?

I tell you, I have never seen a man so loved by the world, a man with fatherly encouragement for those who are in a hole. Dr. Phil, is the man, he has the formula for everything. Tell him your problems specially about yourself, your relationships and finances and he has the solution for you. Are having problems raising your teens, having a wayward spouse, struggling with some addictions in life - you know who to call - Dr. Phil. You got a problem with weight? No worries, Dr. Phil has a diet program you can get into and it'll straighten you up. Attitude is everything and Dr. Phil is a master of articulating how you can improve and perfect your bad attitude.

So, if you want some advice on how to improve yourself, I recommend you give Dr. Phil a ring. There is one thing I have observed though that Dr. Phil can not do for you. If you have a problem with God because of your sin, well, I doubt if Dr. Phil can help you.

You see, you need a Christian Pastor for that. It is just a pity though that manythem are becoming insecure because of not having the same therapheutic skills like Dr. Phil, when all along they have the message that will always be relevant and always be the true message of God - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the pastor is holding this message, he has something Dr. Phil can not give, and this is the message of forgiveness. When your problem is God, no amount of theraphy will do, you need Dr. Jesus for that and the pastor ought to know how to connect you with Him, real fast. Jesus will not tell you to get your act together, he will point you to His Cross.

A Religion to Make Us Happy?

Thanks to Dave Gosse who directed me to this interview with C. S. Lewis. Here is Lewis' answer to the question...

Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the greatest happiness?

Lewis:

Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshipping oneself is the best. I have an elderly acquaintance of about eighty, who has lived a life of unbroken selfishness and self-admiration from the earliest years, and is, more or less, I re­gret to say, one of the happiest men I know. From the moral point of view it is very difficult! I am not approaching the question from that angle. As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity. I am certain there must be a patent American article on the market which will suit you far better, but I can't give any advice on it.

But this is the great irony. Today Christianity in popular preaching and worship services is presented just exactly that - the lifestyle to make you safe and happy. Jesus is there to make us happy, right? Why, to think otherwise is considered strange, unbiblical and even heretical, correct?

A statement of faith - what do you say?

This was taken from the statement of faith of a fast growing church attended mainly by young people. The church is in my city ...

We believe that in order to receive forgiveness and the 'new birth' we must repent of our sins, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and submit to His will for our lives.

Off hand this looks ok but I suspect, some may take issue on the way this is stated. What do you think? Give me some comments. I'll put mine last.

Split here, split there, split everywhere

By split, I mean church split not banana split. I have been studying this phenomenon in the ministry of pentecostal pastors. I wondered how come we pentecostals experience a lot of splits and intrigues in the ministry? Fortunately I am no longer holding a congregation and my job today is to fill in their pulpits when they need it. I am thankful that one or two still invite me to come and preach for them even though they have been made aware of my Lutheran views lately. I know it is a solitary road for me. However, my heart aches for them because their churches have been split more than a couple of times, some of them for 4 or 5 times through a span of 10 years of ministry, for example. Their present experience was once mine.

Here is an example, some keen and industrious disciple rises up in the midst as a leader, and before long, that disciple creates an issue in the church. Soon a few families will now move out of the church and follow this leader. Another usual occassion is that a pastor from out of town starts a small congregation right up close to another pentecostal pastor and soon some folk leave the church to join the new one that has begun. I do not deny that there could be lots of valid reasons for leaving the church but why is it so easy in pentecostalism to split a church up? But how come almost no effort is involved in doing this?

The reason is I think two fold. Firstly, in pentecostalism right doctrine is not stressed in the church. In otherwords, pentecostals do not require their pastors to be theologians. The pastors hardly discuss theological issues. They do not warn their congregation that wrong doctrine can hurt them and may destroy one's faith. In pentecostal circles, doctrine is not important, what is important is spiritual experience. The requirement to be a leader is that he is born again and holds some spiritual gift, like tongues and prophecy etc. Because of this, their members find no reason to stop, look and listen before they follow a new leader. They believe anyone has the right to lead so long as that person is manifesting some form of superior spirituality and maybe showing some care and concern for them.

Secondly I think is lack of communal responsibility. Most pentecostal ministers operate their churches like they are CEOs. Though they hate Roman papacy, yet, they are little popes themselves when they act in church. There is a lack of collective community responsibility to each other, both inside the body and outside the body . Have you noticed how many pentecostal churches are independents? Internally there is a lack of clear elder/deacon structure. Externally there is a weak notion that they are their brother's keeper and are responsible to the society they are standing in. This is not taught. The diet of pulpit food centers more on the christian and how to get blessed from Jesus.

One of my friends belong to a major pentecostal denomination and his church was split several times by leaders who found shelter and endorsement from the same denomination my friend belongs to. Don't you find that a wonder, well you could be asleep.

My hope is that my pentecostal friends may wake up and realize that the phenomenon of split frequency is a manifestation of upper level flaw in pentecostal theology and practice.

Christmas-sing

I recently put on a Christmas CD of the St Michael's Singers of England. The song Once in Royal David's City touched me and I felt moved by the solemness of the way these boys sang that Christmas song. There were no drums or up beat rhythmic guitars in the accompaniment, just an organ in the background.

Something in it touched my heart.

I know what you may be thinking, I have become religious, traditional, dead and old fashionedly boring. You are right, but I also have become lazy. I find todays church music hard work, it has to be up beat, loud, and lots of happy bubbly melodies - in short it is really really hard work to create some kind of feeling. With the type of music the St. Michael's Singers sing, you just sit, listen then tears start flowing from your eyes and you weep. I did not have to jump up and down and clap or shout myself to a freenzy to get this feeling of adoration and tranquility. It is for lazy people like me. I just sit, listen and they do the job for you.

What does a Filipino mean by being 'saved'?

We have receieved our old copies of Patmos, the journal of ISACC. While reading through the February 1999 (Vol. 14, No.2) issue, I was attracted to the article of Sylvia Palugod with the above title.

The thesis of the essay is that the Filipino concept of being 'saved' is summed up by the the Pilipino word ginhawa, meaning - comfort or well being. The author equates this to the Hebrew word for shalom(peace). However, the ginhawa concept pertains to the present experience of having good health, a bit of wealth, harmonious relations with visible (and invisible) neighbors. My observation is that this thesis is true.

The main concern of the Filipino is finding total well being in all of life's concerns on the here and now. The reason? Well, the Filipino is well aware of his/her bad lot in life. The Filipino struggles daily to meet his/her daily bread i.e. food, shelter and clothing. This is the reason the Filipino can be found in all parts of the world. They have been exiting their homeland with the hope of bettering their chances in life - to find a bit of ginhawa.

What does this imply? Because of the Filipino's notion of salvation focuses on the here and now, the Filipino is susceptible to a Gospel of health and wealth. He/She is vulnerable to receiving a misrepresented Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This explains why the American preachers of a gospel of health/wealth that promises salvation in the here and now gets a good hearing in the country.

The Filipino is already deeply spiritual. He has a natural notion and longing for a close friendship with the Almighty. Fortunately, what cushions them when their prayers are not answered the way they like it to be as taught by 'prosperity' missionaries is their seasoned experience of suffering.

Lord Jesus, do not let false teachers succeed in misrepresenting your Gospel to my people. May you deliver them from those that will corrupt/contaminate the greatest news they can ever hear, peace with God today and life with you tomorrow, all because of your dying for their sins. Amen

Altar Call No More

I have been reading the sermons in Acts lately. I should stop doing altar calls after preaching. I feel like a salesman or an auctioneer. Here was how it went...

Is there anyone else here in this room who wants to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? Thank you I see that hand, you may put them down. Is there any one else? How about the others? Thank you, you may put your hand down. Is there any one else?

In Acts when people get agitated with their sins, they cry out "what must I do to be saved" - Paul would reply "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved with your household". It does not say there that they prayed the sinner's prayer, rather they got baptized.

4 Square Gospel?

I have been thinking about this for sometime. In the Pentecostal movement there is a teaching about the Four Square Gospel. This is the term that encapsulates the maxim - Jesus saves, Jesus Heals, Jesus fills with HS and Jesus is coming again. This misunderstands the Gospel. There are no four elements of the Gospel, there is only one simple fact - the Gospel is the declaration that Jesus died and rose again for the sins of sinners. That is the Gospel.

When one lumps with this message - healing and being filled with the HS and Jesus coming again, then the Gospel has been re-casts and no more Gospel. Do I not believe that Jesus heals, I do. Do I not believe he fills with the HS? I do. However, this is not the good news that the preacher should preach about. These benefits (in my thinking) flow from the Gospel - the forgiveness of the sinner's sins, but they are not part of the Gospel. What about Jesus coming again? Well for the believing sinner (the Christian) this is good news but this is bad news for the unbelieving sinner, this is terrible news. For when He comes, He will judge the whole world, so bad news for the world.

In some Pentecostal denominations, they even call themselves Full Gospel. Some have the motto pridefully shown in a car sticker - All the Gospel. That is to say, the preach all of the Gospel, as if there is more than one Gospel. This is not right because when one equates healing with the Gospel and the believer is not healed, disillusionment happens rather than hope. It hurts believers rather than keep them steadfast in faith. It puts them in condemnation.

There are also those that refer to the Bible as 'the Gospel' Again, a misunderstanding, because the Bible contains two kinds of messages - the Law and the Gospel. This could turn what is the Gospel as Law and what is Law- Gospel.

I'd say, there is no better gift that we can get from God than to have our sins forgiven. This He did when He nailed our sins in Jesus' body at the Cross of Calvary. When a Christian walks in heaven with Christ, he will always see the nail pierced hand, the scars on his back and the scar on his side. Each time he sees those, he will be reminded that the greatest thing Jesus did for us is to take our sins and God's wrath that was meant for us. The Christian will exclaim with great ecstasy - thank You, thank You, thank You, I am so glad You died for me.

Unbelievers too can be saved, says Pope

I got this from the cyberbretheren blog (whose blog I am also enjoying - do visit his blog and look around).

Well according to Zenit.Org of November 30, 2005, the Pope says that unbelievers so long as they are good and sincere (basically), can be saved without believing in Christ.

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).

On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father's meditation, addressed to more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square, concentrated on the suffering of the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile, expressed dramatically in Psalm 136(137).

The Pontiff referred to Augustine's commentary on this composition of the Jewish people, noting that this "Father of the Church introduces a surprising element of great timeliness."

Augustine "knows that also among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire," Benedict XVI stated.

"They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption," explained the Pope, quoting Augustine.

This spark

"And he says that among the persecutors, among the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live," the Holy Father continued.

"With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ," he clarified.

Continuing with his quotes from Augustine, the Pope added that "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance."

The Bishop of Rome concluded by inviting those present to pray to the Lord "that he will awaken in all of us this desire, this openness to God, and that those who do not know God may also be touched by his love, so that all of us journey together toward the definitive City and that the light of this City might also shine in our time and in our world."

So what happens to fervent evangelism and faith as stated in Mk 16:15-16? Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life. No comes to the Father but through Me"? Benedict is following Augustine rather than Christ's Words. He is trying to pontificate over and against what God has revealed. It is better to do evangelism rather than make such a statement that will only confuse and perhaps make complacent believers.