I got an idea about online confessions

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

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

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

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

Give us some more, we can do it

The Vatican has new 10 Commandments for Drivers

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

No Gentleman

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

I tell you why God is not a Gentleman. He does not need to consult me if I wanted a gift, he does not ask for my approval, he does not ask if I like to be saved, he does not negotiate, he does not bargain. He does what is good and has no regard for people's opinion. Proof? Read Romans 5:8

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

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

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

Mossa's Gospel Collection

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

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

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

Not only 2, there is 3.

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

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

For a quick view of differences you can study it here

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

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

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

Sorry for her

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

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

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

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

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

Punishment for laughing

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

I got this from Random Dan.

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

Here is what happens.

Click here with subtitle

Debating Atheists

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

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

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

Those un-Reasons

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

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

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

(bold is mine).

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

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

Those reasons

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

I came to this bit, he comments...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superfluous

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

Returning Rider

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

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

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

All done in the name of Christ

I passed by Cyberbretheren and I saw him discussing The Secret Files of the Inquisition on DVD. I so happened to pass by too in one of our suburb's DVD rent shop, and I browsed at the DVDs for sale, and guess what, I saw on the rack the DVD for A$26.95. It was good buy so I took it home.

What made me more curious of this documentary on the Inquisition was the event that happened to Jews and to a couple of Venecian Lutherans. Firstly there was the case of Fr. Baldo Lupitino, a Franciscan monk who became Lutheran. He was supposed to be publicly executed - the plan was to behead him and his body burned on the spot, but this was bad for "business". Instead he was indefinitely imprisoned and after 14 years of ordeal, he was executed in secret. He was drowned.

Then there was Pomponio Algerio, a university student. He was given time to re-consider his Lutheran convictions and sent to jail. But in the jail, his conviction all the more grew. He wrote

To my most beloved brothers, fellow servants of Christ, I must tell you that I found comfort in a dark cave, serenity and hope in the place of bitterness and death. For he who had been far away is with me now, and offers me his hand. I am in the company of those who have been crucified, stoned, hunted, beheaded or sent to the flames. It has been written, if we are accused in the name of Christ we will be blessed for the honor and virtue of God rest on ye. Goodbye fellow servants of God, be strong and pray for me unceasingly.

He was spoken to and asked to recant and in exchange, as a act of mercy, he will be strangled instead so that he does not have to go through the agonizing process of execution. The Venecian authorities refused to carry out the excution order of Paul IV, so he was extracted to Rome where he was boiled alive, in oil, tar and turpentine, a new technique devised by the Inquisition.

What is also interesting is the comment made by the Vatican Undersecretary interviewed in this documentary. He insinuated that one should understand the Inquisition in the context of its time. Killing people because of their ideas may be horrible to us today, that might be true, but he said that it is possible to understand it in context of sociology of religion. Hmmm.

But you see, the Inquisition of the RCC, killed people because of their ideas. This is bad in our time. I agree. However, the RCC with its Inquisition did not kill people simply because they have bad or oppossing ideas - they tortured and killed people in the name of Christ! The Magisterium who claimed to be the True Church, the one "founded" by Christ, ordered the killings and even divised torture chambers in the name of Christ! So they killed for Jesus. I know of another group that does that, kill in the name of their faith.

Those Re-Conversions

As was said in the last posting, there is much publicity on famous evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism. Over at Bill Cook's blog we see the reverse of what happened to Dr. Frank Beckwith. Mr. Cook went from SDA to RCC and then to SDA again. I am going to be side tracked a bit and tell you what intrigued me in the comments to Mr. Cooks reflections. Someone who converted to Roman Catholicism commented to him, said this...

When I became a Catholic I was spiritual both a Jew and a Muslim and I didn’t have to give up either to become a Catholic.

This comment confirms what I have been suspicious of, those Lutherans, Baptists (or whatever) who became RC , have they really converted or did they just carry over their spirituality inside the RCC? No one knows the heart, hence you can be in RCC and be a crypto-evangelical, crypto-Jew, crypto-Muslim, crypto-Mason etc, like this gentleman commented. The label you used to wear is no longer there but it is still the same clothing, like new wineskins for old wine. This is what I observed in my younger years and here it is again. So have they really converted with that philosophy in mind?

Now, back to the topic of what Prof. McKnight said of conversions from Evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism. I will just comment on one aspect; he says that the person gets into a crisis situation,a crisis of transendence. One of them is the crisis of certainty (but others would be that of history, unity or authority). I will focus on certainty. These are questions of the type "how do I know I am saved", "how do I know that this interpretation of the Bible is true", "how do I know this is the true church", "how do I know I am in God's will"?

These are legitimate concerns, I had them. I go through crisis of self-doubts too. However, because evangelicalism focuses you on yourself, these crises are made accute. For example, it makes you find out these questions within your inward experiences. Evangelicalism is not the same, it is now post-Evangelical. It has departed miles apart from the Reformation. Whereas in olden days, justification was the core focus, it is now regeneration. The first makes you look outside, the second makes you look inside. It became "Christ for you vs Christ in you", and the latter won. So there will be a lot of swimming going on for a while, until the likes of Mr. Cook come out of the woodwork.


Indeed if you are going to find certainty, you got to find it somewhere outside you, it can not be in you because that is circular. There is no certainty inside you. So, the converts rely on the RCC Magisterium's claims that they are the TRUE Church, and they hope so. This gives security because it has claim to history, has claim to authority and works for unity, what more can you ask? Or does it? Some who went to the RCC have gone beyond and become Sedevacantists.

Going to another authority like the RCC Magisterium is outside yourself indeed. But apparently Calvin said that the RCC and the AnaBaptists are the same. The latter makes you point into yourself as an individual and let's face it the Evangelicals today are highly AnaBaptistic. The former, makes you point in yourselves (us, we and our - The Church). Hence, according to him, they are ruled by something in them, not by something above them. Of course, I have some disagreements with Calvin but here, I think he is correct.

So where does one go? Is this spiritual journey like walking in the wilderness, like the Israelites of old, always going around in circles whereas the Promised Land is just a few miles away? The good thing is that crises do not last very long, what we feel real is not that real. When crises of certainty happens, experience tells me it is an opportune time to go back to Jesus through His Word. And, let's face it, you will miss God's will for you if that is your concern, you will have a feeling that you may not be in the right "church", you may doubt if you have the right interpretation of Scripture etc etc. but if you get all of these right but you get the Gospel wrong, Luther says, you still got error, you still have uncertainty, you just made yourself believe you no longer have them because you belong to the "Church".

13(A)These things I have written to you who (B)believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have (C)eternal life.

1 John 5:13

Seems to me, there is only one thing that we need to be sure of, this thing trumps all uncertainty - Did Jesus died and rose again for your sins' forgiveness? Scripture says "YES". If so, then what is the problem?

Those Conversions

I have been reading Prof. McKnights' paper published by the JETS on September 2002 entitled From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals Become Roman Catholics. I have been reading it in the light of famous and prominent convesions lately, like that of Dr. Francis Beckwith's and now in Lutheran circles that of Prof. Koon's. Now isn't that embarassing? I can hear RC friends hollering... "Jump ship, join the bandwagon, your ship is sinking, see, they are leaving the Titanic".

I have few random thoughts here.

1.) I wonder what those Lutheran martyrs and other Protestants of other stripes who gave their lives rather than recant during the Inquisition, would say? Those people who were murdered, tortured, killed, burned rather than renounce their confession. I wonder what the Evangelical converts would say to them - could it be this - you died for nothing, bad luck, you should have listened to the Pope , the Mother Church has been right all along, you got what you deserve. I hope not.

2.) I have not read Prof Koon's paper, but I have just browsed through it, I have no time lately, my thesis is 3 years late and I can not afford to be side tracked like blogging! But I noticed he quoted Cardinal Newmans' work - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Now again, I have not read the whole work of the Cardinal, just read sections here and there. I was a bit turned off, because he would say the Church Fathers believed this and that but there is not much reference for me to check. But here is really what has got my mind thinking lately. Cardinal Newman said in that work this

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

Now pause a little and feel the blow of that statement and now put your mind on what was the theme or spirit of that paper? - the theme was on how the doctrines of the RCC are historical. It tries to defend and justify how one can believed in RCC dogmas even though historically the evidence for such is nil, e.g. - supremacy of the pope, papal infallibility, immaculate conception of Mary etc. That art and process of defending and arguing speaks from an outsider and ignoramus like me this thing ... as if he was saying - no, the RCC is deep in history even though you can not find in history that our doctrines have been believed by people of apostolic times, it is there - you just could not find it in Scripture or history. Duh? Go figure.

3. Lastly for today, Prof. McKnights's paper outlined several reasons for conversion, one factor is the crisis, but more on that later.

Mum's the word

Last Sunday was Mother's Day. As I recall, in the church calendar, there is no such thing as a Mother's Day.

Anyways, for the first time, I was happy in church for a Mother's Day Sunday worship servce.

I was happy because at the sermon, I was not scolded for not being a good husband, not being a good dad. I was not lectured on how lowsy I treat my wife and ugly a father I am. Instead, I was convicted of how I do not really love Jesus yet Jesus still loves me. I left church, broken but strangely paradoxically blessed.

I remember when I was in ministry how I hated these special day Sunday occassions. I hated it because it gets in the way of my chosen agenda of trying to correct a situation in church, like people's lack of spirituality or their lack of prayer etc etc. Goodness, I would mumble, this is the opportune time to address church life issues from the pulpit, and I must give way! Instead I had to preach about moms if it was Mother's Day or dads if it was Father's Day. In all cases, my agenda was, come to think of it now, wrong headed too. For my agenda was not a talk about what Jesus did but rather what the Christian should do.

I also am not impressed with these special day occassions, for another reason. I mean surely there is one for me, like Father's Day after all I am a dad. I don't like them. I tell you why, it gives my kids the excuse to ignore me the rest of the year but suddenly on that special day like Father's Day, suddenly they start giving gifts to you, sort of, to make up for the days they pre-occupied themselves with themselves, a day they can relieve themselves of the guilt of being self-focused. Everyday ought to be a day to love your neighbor like you love yourself.

I knew it

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

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

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

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

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

You're soooh mean!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theology and Mis-Theology in Spiderman 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts?

The Small Cat

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

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

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

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

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