The Ghost of Rogers/McKim

I said to Jim that in the last interactions, I observe that the responses given against Scriptural inerrancy is a resurrection of the Rogers/McKim proposal.


What is the Rogers/McKim Proposal?

This proposal was formulated by two Presbyterian theologians Drs. Jack Rogers and Donald McKim and is found in their book The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach.

In a nutshell here are their theses, and I summarize these from the works of John D. Woodbridge's, Biblical Authority, a Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal and in his essay at Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, edited by D. A. Carson and himself.

1. That the Bible is infallible for faith and practice but may contain "technical mistakes".
2. That the Bible is infallible in accomplishing its saving purpose, but not infallible for matters such as history, science, and geography.
3. The purpose of God's written Word is to reveal salvation truth about Christ, not for technically correct information about the world.
4. Small errors made by the Bible authors do not detract from the Bible's authority because they are not associated to its form or words but with Christ and his salvation message to which they point.
5. That the above are the central beliefs of the Church.
6. That the present view on inerrancy only began in late 16th century.

Of course, I reject the above.

I am not able to reply in so many words so I will just use some Augustine quotes found in the above works also of Woodbridge:

• I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.
• Therefore everything written in Scripture must be believed absolutely.

On the last point I have suggested that, sure enough we may not know each and every statements being made by Scripture, but when a passage is shown to us with sound interpretation of its meaning, then we are obliged to confess and believe it, even if it may seem "insignificant". For there are really no insignificant words in Scripture. For if each word came from God's mouth, it is utterly significant - Mt 4:4.

Diligent use of means

This thing called "faith" is so highly priced by God yet it is so contrary to human senses. I was just explaining to somebody that faith in Christ is so contrary to what we are wired for, that when I look at the sinfulness of my heart, I am easily convinced that God could not possibly accept me. Our sins are more believable rather than the forgiveness of God in Christ, so much so that since our sins are more real, we are willing and ready to pay for it.

My purpose for the discussion in the last few posts had one main point, to bring confidence in the Scripture; that it is God's Word (it does not contain it, but IS it), that by virtue of it being God inspired, it cannot mislead in any other way even in the minute or seemingly immaterial detail. For if it did, it will put into question the other parts. Of course, I am saying this because I believe the truths of Scripture are interconnected, that is of course a premise I am operating on. If this premise is not true, then of course, you can have an erroneous Scripture. I do not allow for this because I believe all of God's words are not wasted words, they all point to Christ, yes, even that obscure passage in Nahum.


So, coming back to my point that faith being so slippery and easily killed (for the devil wants that faith destroyed), and adding the fact that it is a gift of God such that you cannot create it within yourself, the BoC authors direct the reader to Scripture and the listening of it, specially at a time when a believer is doubting his future destiny.

From SD XI.

76] Moreover, the declaration, John 6:44, that no one can come to Christ except the Father draw him, is right and true. However, the Father will not do this without means, but has ordained for this purpose His Word and Sacraments as ordinary means and instruments; and it is the will neither of the Father nor of the Son that a man should not hear or should despise the preaching of His Word, and wait for the drawing of the Father without the Word and Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Ghost, however, according to His usual order [the order decreed and instituted by Himself], by the hearing of His holy, divine Word, as with a net, by which the elect are plucked from the jaws of the devil. 77] Every poor sinner should therefore repair thereto [to holy preaching], hear it attentively, and not doubt the drawing of the Father. For the Holy Ghost will be with His Word in His power, and work by it; and that is the drawing of the Father.

,

God's condescension and perspicuity of Scripture

What I have been saying so far is that God has been kind enough to condescend to me ( human beings) in giving me Scripture. He speaks to me (us) using human language and he employs words that relate to human experience, even my rationality and reasoning, therefore he speaks in a manner I can understand.

Critics think that is puting God under the level of man. I think these people think I am very arrogant to suggest I can understand Scripture...

Well to quote Muhammad Ali... it is hard to be humble, when you are as great as I am. (LOL)

I hope you got a laugh at that.

Unfortunately that misses the point, because it is God who is putting himself, condescending to my level. In fact, I find the thought of God's condescension too marvellous for words. Here is God being kind enough to make me understand him. I do not understand all but I do understand some. He could have left me in the dark, but he did not and to demonstrate that love, he even sent his Son to become man, like me (you) to demonstrate what he is. Topping it all his Son even took my sins. If this condescension does not make you wanna shout, I don't know what will.

So I picked up my copy of J. T. Mueller's Christian Dogmatics who is helpful in in this regard and so on p.138. I quote (with my insertions) ...

When we say that the Holy Scripture is perspicuous, or clear, we mean that it sets forth all doctrines of salvation in words so simple and plain that they can be understood by all persons of average intelligence. The Lutheran dogmatician Baier expresses this thought as follows: "Any man acquainted with the language, possesed of a common judgement, and paying due attention to the words may learn the true sense of the words...and embrace the fundamental doctrines"...
....
Whoever, therefore, rejects the perspicuity of the Bible (papists, enthusiasts, modern rationalistic theologians) must also reject the basic truth that Scripture is the only principium cognoscendi [principle of knowing...God], thus compelling the Christian believer to base his faith upon the human expositions either of the Church or of the individual Bible scholars.

Keeping in mind the Holy Scripture is a clear book, the Christian exegete must scrupulously refrain from foisting upon its sacred text his own subjective views (eisegesis) and regard it as his sole function to exhibit the true meaning of God's clear Word (exegesis: the leading forth of the sense of Scripture); in other words, he must allow Scripture to interpret itself. Negatively the function of the Christian exegete may be described as the removal of all textual difficulties by proper grammatical instruction and of all misinterpretations by erring expositors; positively, as the exhibition of the true sense of the text in the light of its context and parallel passages.

Hence a true Christian exegete must possess the following qualifications:
a.) He must regard the whole Bible as the inerrant Word of God;
b.) He must treat Holy Scripture as a book which is clear in itself;
c.) He must conscientiously point out the real sense of the text;
d.) He must be able to refute the erroneous human opinions which false teachers or misguided orthodox theologians have foisted upon the text.

The last bit is classic.

The only wise alternative

Over on the discussion of 24 and the discussion on the inerrant Bible, it occured to me that some folk do not think that their Christian faith will crumble in places where the Bible might be wrong.

Over and over I heard and was told - this and that are not essential to the faith.

I would say they have a strong system of belief and may be wider on the base...

Now, the Scripture says that Jesus rose from the dead.

My question is, if the Bible could have been wrong in some part of it, how could it not be wrong on this part - Jesus' rising from the dead? If it were possible for Scripture to be wrong in spot X, could it not be wrong in spot Y? What special pleading should one give to it?

Just remember today it is Scripture that testifies of Christ's rising from the dead. We do not have the apostles with us, only what they wrote and claim to have seen and declared.

I cannot be satisfied with the idea of the NT scholar Bultmann who saw Scripture as myth but existentially says that yes, Jesus did rise from the dead, in the sense that he rises in people's heart, that is where he rises. I think Bultmann still considered himself to be a Christian because of this.

Unlike my interlocutors, my Christian faith will crumble if Jesus did not rise from the dead as the Scripture testifies. Unlike them, I cannot allow Scripture in to be wrong in one place but right on this one. For me, if Scripture was wrong at one point, how could it be right on another? Its reliability as the Word of God or Word from God to me is in question. It just does not make it reliable and must be un-inspired. It is just like saying, God nevertheless inspires what is a lie or falsehood. If so, then why can he not let you find Christ by reading Aesop's Fables, anyway he can use imperfect means to work through perfectly, correct?

Congratulations.

Unfortunately my Christian faith will go down to the dogs. In fact if Scripture is wrong in one place, it could be wrong here, and guess what is the other alternative...?

IMHO Atheism, that is the only logical and wise alternative.

One thing for sure, it seems, my sparring partners and I do not have the same idea of what it means to have a Means of Grace.

Oiler

There is a name in the maths and physics world that is so famous and so honored, that is the name of Leonhard Euler. 

For some reason in the maths world, it is common practice to name formulas, constants, theorems etc. after him, even though he had no direct involvement in them. However, he did discover quite a good number of them though.

There are a few interesting things about Euler that is relevant to the posts in this blog.

For one thing, he was a believer. He also believed in Biblical inerrancy and engaged in apologetics.

Now it is not known whether or not he was Reformed or was a Lutheran. Assuming he was Reformed and not Lutheran, just to show how he is respected, even the Lutheran Church has a date when they celebrate him. He is listed in their calendar of saints. His day is 24 May.

What can we conclude? If Euler was Reformed, then he would be one of the few people that Lutherans honor from that camp. That is not a small thing, that is saying a lot if you know what I mean!

Lastly, Euler in the course of his life became blind some 15+ years before his death. Yet, even at that, he continued to do his work.

So, what is my excuse? What is yours?

What Godel has to say in all of this

My last recent posts on 24 have attracted some form of controversy. So what else is new?

On thing emerges in the heated discussions, and that is, the role of science in reading the Bible. It boils down to authority and which one has priority. Does one give authority to the language of the Bible, or does one give authority to scientific empirical pronouncements? To whichever we give priority, that one therefore has authority. The two are connected.

There is also a corollary point that has been missed in the discussions, and that people are not aware of the philosophical critiques that philosophers have been making against science (falsely so called). If people only knew, they would not trust so much in it.

So, I turn to my patron (whose picture you see in my profile) - Godel and try to find out what he thought about science and scientific pronouncements....

Here is what he said:

1. I do not believe in (natural) science.
2. I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.

In both counts, my bias says Godel was correct, most specially in #1. The wise scientist should be the first to admit the limitations of his craft.

Besides, we are not allowed to believe in anything and in anyone, John 11:25-26.

On Inerrancy

This is a guest post by A.S. Of course, it is here for your comments and discussion.
----


The "attack" on the biblical doctrine of inerrancy is inextricably linked to the biblical doctrine of inspiration. Inspiration as "theopneustos", i.e. properly and authentically understood as the DIVINE union between "form" and "content", "medium" and "concept" is necessary to safeguard the OBJECTIVITY of the TRUTH of Holy Scripture.

Denial of inerrancy IS a result of the SUBJECTIVE approach to the Word of God. The hermeneutical model in this case is that of the SINNER standing over the Word of God as the interpreter, and hence he assumes and remains in the position of "subject". The proper hermeneutical model is that of the Word of God standing over the sinner as the interpreter. In other words, we are the object to be "interpreted" by the Word of God as the subject.

In this role reversal, two implications emerges:

1. The *words* themselves as bearers of the divine revelation is the LITERAL truth, in contrast to functioning as signs only. The "vis significandi" (mode of signification) is the "res" (reality) itself. Thus, the meaning of sola Scriptura is precisely the self-sufficiency of the EXTERNAL Word. The movement here is an incarnated top-to-bottom pattern, consistent with the formal claim that the Holy Scripture is the Word of GOD.

2. "Faith comes by hearing the Word of God". Faith is not external to the Word of God, i.e. apart from the Word of God. But faith is CREATED by the Word of God. Inerrancy is a faith claim, made on the basis of the witness and testimony of the Holy Scripture itself. As such, it (i.e. inerrancy) can only be grasped by faith alone (sola fide). By extension, the infallibility (authority) and efficacy (power) of the Holy Scripture are grasped by faith alone. The Word as the legal authority (Scripture alone) constitutes the co-relate of the Word as the evangelical power (faith alone). That is to say, faith is not a "discrete" entity consequent on "understanding" as an evaluative tool. Faith is not a posteriori (subsequent) to nor identical with an explicit analytic conclusion. It is an impossible scenario because of the "bondage of the will". But faith is simply the implicit synthetic presupposition to the Word of God. That is to say, faith means being "reclaimed" by the Word of God itself, according to *its* own judgment (spiritual-deductive method), and not vice-versa, i.e. faith means "reclaiming" the Word of God according to its own judgment (empirical-inductive method). Ultimately, our faith is not dependent on our understanding. But our understanding is dependent on our faith which comes extra nos --- an alien faith as a total gift = alien righteousness. Faith and understanding are simultaneous, not sequential. faith IMPLIES understanding. And faith as a total gift co-exists (simultaneously) with unbelief as a total condition: simul iustus et peccator. There is no middle ground approach to Scripture. Our bondage to sin simply and by default disallows a neutral approach. Both the regenerate and unregenerate encounter Scripture either in a mode of belief or unbelief.

If one wishes to speak of movement, then the movement is not the progression of understanding towards faith, but the progression of faith towards understanding.

"Credo ut intelligam".

Seen from this perspective, denial of inerrancy is simply the denial that Holy Scripture IS the Word of God. Instead, Holy Scripture becomes the means by which we *respond* to God's "self-disclosure" in the course of the divine-human encounter - the movement here reverses the pattern of Divine Revelation and Incarnation, i.e. it is bottom-up, a spiritual ascent according a "ladder scheme". But this produces only subjectivism, i.e. the individual-mystic type or communal-academic type, etc.

Ultimately, scholarly consensus (e.g. science), ecclesial tradition (e.g. magisterium), is elevated into a plus sign alongside Holy Scripture. Denial of inerrancy, to be precise, is a denial that the Word of God is the self-sufficient source of truth.

In short, the denial of inerrancy is BOTH a denial (incipient or full-blown) of sola Scriptura and sola fide.
11:57 PM

Antinoms

Augustinian Successor mentioned in one of his comments about Antinomians.

A few years ago, I read of a confessional pastor spoke of how he normally behaves when he is in a gathering where some Babtists[my sic] and non-denom ministers are around.

He said he would purposely drink liquor in front of them.

Now we all know they do not drink, don't smoke, don't cuss, don't go to movies and just all day listen to Christian radio and watch Christian TV, their friends are Christians and their barbers are Christians and even their pets are Christians too.

Please note, now that I know what Pietism is, it really sucks. No kidding, it makes people Pharisees.

However Rom 14:21 came to mind while I was reading this guy's "testimony".

I thought his comment to be asinine.

Then I am reminded of the T-Shirt with the words "weak on sanctification".

Hang on, there seems to be a reversal here. What duh?

I thought that repentance's fruit is being so sorry you are a sinner I thought it should produce shame rather than pride.

That T-shirt seems to say "shame on you Pietists, Pharisees, hypocrites, look at me, I am such a lousy no good sinner, ... and I am proud of it too".

Antinomians suck too.

UPDATE: Look here why I think there are antinoms in our ranks.

Who is your grand daddy?

UPDATE: Issues Etc has a topic for this here.

Inostrancevia.

That was our grand daddy some 230m+ years ago.
....

It so happen I went to the museum yesterday.


I happened to chance upon the skeleton of Inostrancevia.

There was some printed blurb about this creature... what struck me was this portion in of what our museum says about this mammal-like reptile. Printed at the bottom of the platform where the skeleton is displayed, it spoke about its behaviour and so forth, then we get into this part...

"these mammal like reptiles eventually led to modern mammals including humans".[Italics mine]

So, I wonder what some of you think of this statement.

If I take this seriously, my ancestors used to lay eggs..., and that goes for yours too!


If you find no problem with this statement, then it is either I do not know how to read Gen 2:7, or I completely missed the poetic meaning of what our museum just said.

24 and Scientific Reading

UPDATE: Issues Etc has a topic for this here.
Apparently my 24 day reading is a scientific reading of Genesis 1-3.

I find the accusation astounding. Suddenly semantic reading is being scientific. I think there is confusion of categories here. Semantic reading is the proper respect for the ideas that the language conveys. Whether science agrees with it or not, it is irrelevant.

So the ancient Jews and Christians who believed a 24 hour day in Genesis 1-3 are now being scientific? Or were they simply respecting what the text says?

The nice thing about having no commitment on the 24 hour day is that one does not have to be embarrassed amongst scientists who believe the earth is absolutely ancient. You can claim, Genesis does not claim what it claims if you use common sense. It is not a scientific book anyway. Amazing, for an unscientific book, it can be made to certainly accomodate old earth theory, even the theory of Evolution!!!

So the Bible is a non scientific book which happens to agree with science, eyh?
Can you see the equivocation there?

The thing with science and scientists is that they modify their theories at the speed of light. I am not being sarcastic, I worked with high energy physicists and each time protons collide, right there is a new theory about matter and how it came about.

There is another point, when do these non-24 hour believers discover
a.) there are physicists who laugh at big bangb.) there are biologists who reject evolution
so what now if these groups become in vogue?

Well the non-24 hour folk are in a convenient place, since they never committed, they can swing anywhere the flow turns.

Pacman fiesta tonight

This has been a good day for Manny "the pacman" Pacquiao.

Read about it here.

My friends and I were a bit stunned and awed, we thought Ricky "the hitman" Hutton would make life difficult for the pacman, but the fight was over in 2 rounds.

Today, the pacman collected his 6th belt.

Before the start of the fight, the atmosphere was more like what you will find in soccer than what you will find in a boxing match. We watched through our FoxTel and it seemed the pacman supporters and that of the hitman wanted to out do each other with their flag waving and shouting.



Guarding the pacman's corner was another Filipino-blood athlete - the wrestler, Dave "the animal" Batista.

I am just worried for the pacman's future. I hope we Filipinos don't ruin his life by... electing him as the next President of the Republic....

24 and Perspicuity

Comments from the previous post (and I thank the brothers for your participation) make me think we need to discuss this a bit more.

I think it was Luther who said, you may get all parts of Christian Theology wrong, but if you do not get the Gospel, you are dead meat.

It is true, the Gospel is that one central doctrine that we should get right, and get it out to people.

But, does that mean, if we get the Gospel right, we can now afford to get the other things wrong? For example, can you now disbelieve the doctrine of the Trinity? Is it now optional, anyway you believe the Gospel? Same thing is true with doctrine of Creation, can you now plead ignorance on this?

I seem to think that folk are using the Luther quote to mean, all the rest are optional.

Such an attitude, I believe, makes justification by faith, a form of works.

Getting the Gospel right, does not mean, you can now get the others wrong. Why? Because the Gospel is standing on a foundation, it is a truth, that is founded on another truth. If it is Good News, there must have been a Bad News, for what is so Good about the Gospel after all? Why is it Good News.

The Bad News, goes back to Creation, at the word go, not very long, we mucked things up, the good things God did, we screwed up so Genesis 1 - 3 says. I am saying that if you get the Bad News wrong, you will make the Good News shaky.

So here is the point, the Bad News of our sin in Genesis 1-3 requires we take sin there literally. So if you take sin there literally but you are affording to take some things there non-literally, like the word "day", what is your criteria for picking and choosing?

Perhaps would you not say, that the "tree of knowledge" may just be symbolic, i.e., no literal tree? Perhaps there was no fruit at all, perhaps these are just projections of our inner bent qualities that Moses projected backwards to Creation, and it is just a statement of what is, is...?

Perhaps, Moses was just trying to explain how we are bad, but that was just Moses' theory of our human psychology in the end, who knows. An attempt to give reason to what is just reality, but the reason is not factual?

Perspicuity of Scripture means that the "Scripture is plain". It can be understood, some parts are difficult to understand, true, yet, people equivocate here. From Scripture being difficult to understand in some parts, to --- sliding down to --- Scripture not understandable at all.

Experiment. Take the "days" in Genesis 1-3 as non-literal days - tell that to a 5 year old kid. Read it to him. Continue reading, and most specially, while catechizing him(her), you need to discuss the 10 Commandments anyway. So jump sometime to Exodus 20. What will you say when you get to Ex 20:11 if you be honest and be consistent?

It does not work, I suggest you will wind up confusing the person you are catechizing. What we confess to people is not always verbal, what we confess is also gathered by our attitude towards some things, is that not correct? And what is that attitude, effectively, you will be saying? The Scripture is not plain.

Survey says Augsburgeans rank down the bottom when it comes to the practice of bible reading. This is sad, because for a denomination who rallied the slogan "sola scriptura", it is an aweful testimony, it makes us look hypocritical.

However, if right at the word go, they are already told, Scripture there in Genesis 1-3 is a bit obscure, do not take them plainly as what it says, can you blame them for not even attempting to make Bible read ing a devotional practice?

As they say here ... it is your own bl..dy fault.

Let me be clear, I do not believe in 24 hour creation because of this, as I said, I believe in it due to my own linguistic and philosophical analysis. What I am saying, now that I rejected my former belief of a non-24 hour period, is that it so happens that the 24 hour interpretation has a nice side effect, it promotes the perspicuity of Scripture, too. A good thing because it gives people confidence, that the Scripture is plain.

24 and argument for the Sabbath rest

UPDATE: Issues Etc has a topic for this here.
It seems I am belaboring my 24 point of view but I woke up this morning with this Scripture running around my head.

Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The crucial verse for me is v.11.

This is an argument why the Sabbath is to be kept by the Jews. The "for" (though I have not checked this in the Hebrew version) is an argument why the Sabbath is to be kept, because God created the whole world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. So, it says, do no work on the 7th day. God is giving the rational for the Sabbath.

Now if "days" here stood for "epoch", why be stoned for working on the 7th day? You can argue, well that "day" there is not the normal usage of"day", it means a long period of time, it could mean have a rest every 1000 years, so God, why have me stoned for working on the farm?

Exodus 20:8-11 clarifies Genesis 1-3. Scripture interprets Scripture, and this passage interprets Genesis 1-3 for me.


Anyway, I have no care if physics or geology could not validate my faith. It does not bother me at all, like I said, I already believe in things that cannot be validated by chemistry etc., like the Lord's Supper so...if I am peculiar, I have no care. I am more concerned to be consistent with Scripture than being consistent with my senses.

I suggest this debunks the modern understaning of Genesis 1-3. You cannot convince me that Moses and his contemporaries interpreted "days" as "epochs".

It is important to believe Moses because Jesus said something about this.

Multimillionair, yours truly.

There have been a lot of people from UK and in Africa emailing me that I just won several million dollars or someone has got an inheritance and likes to share it with me. They are so eager to deposit loads and loads of money to my account.

My situation is a lot better than a CEO who bankrupts his company and still gets millions of dollars for his payout. I know, you may think I have no advantage over a CEO who sacks his workers and still gets a good sum by making people jobless. But I have the high ground, I just got email and I did not have to do anything. The good people of this world have found me and now are willing to give me their millions.

Now I receive these emails 2 per day. So it must be true, otherwise why will they persist in emailing? They must be serious, why will they nag me about it, if it is not true? Why will they end their emails with a "God bless you"? These must be honest people, so I am going to confirm my account details and collect.

So you better be nice and friendly, or yours truly will not shower you with his fortune.

To be honest with you, I have always been a millionaire even before these emails came, I am just pretending to be poor.

Faith as pressure.

Back in Manila, there are lots of people without means. You either go down under or you believe God pulls you up and over. There is no such thing as social welfare there. Unlike in here, we have Medicare. A few years back, I had a procedure done and I spent 4 days in hospital and I paid no cent for the whole incident. My eldest son was child patient of Royal Children's Hospital, they looked after him from age 10 to age 21, they gave him reconstructive surgery and plastic surgery, and did I pay any cent for this? Not a cent. When I got here it used to be free university education. Ok now that is not the case, but it is still good because today uni students do pay but they pay by way of a tax deduction when they get a job. This is a kinda, study now at the government's expense, then pay later. Another thing, Where will you find a country who will give its citizens money if they do a PhD? You can count with your fingers the number of countries that will do that.

Anyway, back home if you do not use your faith, you either starve or die. There is no such thing as a dole. Dole? you gotta be kidding me. Ask the government for some money? You joking? In general politicians get money from you, rather than the otherway around, unless they want some exchange. So consequently preachers promise if you believe and use your faith, your life will be ok.

So guess which verse they often use to whip up faith in you?

Romans 1:17b

“The just shall live by faith.”

My then Pastor interpreted this to mean that if you were righteous then you would live by faith. So how did this play up? Well, if you are sick, you'd better be believing God for your healing. So it kinda made me nervous one time that I was even thinking of consulting or running to the the doctor. So if you are short of cash, it will make you feel guilty that you are toying of using your Visa card. Your faith is in your Visa not in God. So if you have some need like a wish for a better life, you'd better be finding your joy in the things of God or he will curse you. You shouldn't be having such an ambition. Don't get me wrong but there is some truth and not so true misuse of this Scripture.

Pressure. That was all I could remember and it brought condemnation to my soul.
Faith got turned to a work, a result of the Law rather than the Gospel.

Little did I know that the verse was saying something else. I hate it when some minister mishandles the Scripture and I was stupid enough to believe him. I feel short changed.

Today when I see that verse, I take 'faith' not as a generic principle but very specific faith. I take that verse now to mean that the just shall live his life in faith in the Gospel. Daily life is in the state of repentance, that he sees himself a loss doomed sinner but he wishes only to be forgiven for the sake of Christ, his atoning sacrifice for his sins.

Dumbing down

We are always into the habit of simplifying. We tend to think that people in the pew will always have a hard time understanding theological terms. They sound technical and so we are afraid to even mention them. One need not be afraid, what you do is communicate and help the would-be disciple understand the terms. Just have a little faith that people in the pew are not dumb you have to dumb things down.

So I happen to meet one of the young adult member of my ex-church. I have been away for more than a decade and by this time he is now in his early 30s having spent roughly all of his life active in church. So I asked him, if he ever heard of the thing called "justification". He gave a guess and it was off. What about the "Apostle's Creed"? Heard of it but do not know what it is and what it means or should he have to know it.

So then I spoke to some folk who have been in Augustana most of their lives and I mentioned the "solas" of the Lutheran Reformation, like sola scriptura. "Yes, yes, yes, but ... that was a part of our heritage". Meaning? It is not relevant today? That was way back then but that was it. I somewhat half protested - Huh? It is not something you put on the shelve but something you live by, it is a principle, and principles are always used, even today.

We can cut some slack for the young man I met, he is not in Wittenberg. He does not have the privilege of catechesis. However, I am bothered by the attitude of folk from the Reformation who think the solas are just one nice stuff of history.

I am wondering if these attitudes are part of the dumbing down process, a result of being intimidated by the pressure of being relevant, so much so, that we do not see the need to discuss technical and theological terms/ideas, even historical ones. May be that is also the result of no longer being in "reformation"? That is at least my suspicion.

24

I wil tell you why I believe in a 24 hour day creation. I did not use to but I changed my mind on it a few years back:

Linquistically:

- Because of the linguistic Hebrew use of "yom" in Genesis. By this I mean fiat out of nothing to something creation, a miracle in other words. Normal usage of "yom" implies it to be understood by the contemporaries of Moses as that, I find it unbelievable that his classmates would have understood it as a very very long period of time. So in this case I am being literal here.

- Also linguistically, the ancients do not have a sophisticated view of billions and millions of years. To them, this is packed under the term "myriad". So I doubt if I speak to Moses' contemporaries about evolution he would have accepted it. He would probably say to me, look man - I was there, the Red Sea parted, I have been around miracles my life, so don't talk to me about naturalistic creation.

- Did Jesus believe this? I think so in Mat 19.

Philosophically:

I already belive things that are quite peculiar, for example:

- I believe in the virgin birth and Christ's resurrection these are all peculiar beliefs already as far as naturalism and science is concerned. By statistics, my belief in resurrection as far as they are concerned, is improbable. No one rises from the dead as a normal phenomenon.

- The Apostle's Creed. I doubt if the ancients when they recited the first article - they understood it in evolutionary terms. Ancients were fiat believers. They had no problem believing in miraculous creation.

- Here is the kicker, I also believe at the Supper that is the actual body and blood of Jesus given to me to eat and drink. I already believe this and if the wafer/bread is broken down bio-chemically, science would probably tell me, there is no human flesh here etc etc.

So I do not understand, if I believe already these things that are scientifically odd, why should I not believe in a 24 hour day in Genesis? I do not need science to confirm my faith and I do not care if I am thought dumb for believing in literal day period in Genesis. If I cower to science, I have to justify scientifically my belief in the Supper etc.

Here is also the issue (I credit this to the missus who teaches Sunday school), what do you teach the children about Genesis day period? So you sit down a 4 year old kid, read Genesis 1 to him, you mention the word day. So what do you do? You put a fine print in the text, - actually kids, "day" there means not your usual day, actually it does not mean what you think it means - day there really means thousands and thousands of years. According to the missus, the kids have no trouble believing the literal day period.

You just undermined the kid's understanding/confidence on the Scriptural text. You just told him - you cannot understand this as plain words to you. You just told him that when the text is being literal, you are not to take it as literal, then what confidence would he have that he could understand it when he reads it on his own when he grows up? Don't you think the kids has just been dumbed down?

He is risen!

For you..., for me.

I just realized that at sun rise service as Pr. B. was preaching.
It struck me, and blessed me. Even his rising was for us.

2 Cor 5:
15and he died for all,(A) that those who live might no longer live for themselves but(B) for him who for their sake died and was raised.

The Church as ghetto

Something perked my memory when I was listening to the White Horse Inn broadcast on Spiritual Gifts. No it was not particularly the charismatic gifts that perked it. It was on the idea of a church being started based on ethnic or cultural lines.

I have experience with this because a decade ago I pioneered a Filipino church in Melbourne. There is no denying that birds of a feather flock together, and that feather happened to be 'same ethnic background'. This common root idea is no doubt a rallying point for the church to have a sense of unity. When that happens, church work is easier to do because you got more hands on deck.

Unfortunately it has an ugly side to it. For one thing, it will never break out of its own mold and pre-concieved ideas. For example, a few caucasian folk sometimes would join us and during fellowship lunch, guess what, no one from my church would speak to them. These white folk would just stand there eating their lunches and no one would bother to approach them. I have tried to tell my congregation why they do those un-friendly sort of things and I would scold them, I would say - "hey you people know and understand English why don't you speak to them"?.

People from ethnic churches are comfortable within themselves and they often think they "own the church". The depressing part is that they will not let people break in to them. It rocks their style and they can not be bothered putting up with strangers or people from different backgrounds. You see the church is their gheto. They are there because they are _________(nationality). You can fill in the blank your self. You know what I mean.

Whereas culturally based churches may work for a while, they never work in the end. It does not work because it is being made to be a social club, with a bit of Jesus and some church ritual on the side. What happens is that the social aspect takes over and Jesus becomes a small aspect of the group. So the church dies besides who would like to go to a place where you are not welcomed?

Church leaders that minister to churches that have a cultural background as its root is in a very challenging position, but I think the earlier they get to identify the problem the earlier the solution will be. So what is the problem? The problem is not whether or not people are friendly or brotherly, that is just the symptom.

The problem is if people are there because of culture or the Gospel? Are they there because of Jesus or because that is where they were born, baptized or because they have the same nationality as the rest of the members? This is the reason why ethnic churches become ghetos, they are not united by the Gospel, they are united by ethnicity. This to me is the greater concern, are they there because they have grasphed the Gospel? It is a challenging thing to convert members from being there because of ethnicity to being there because they are Christians, i.e. because of Jesus, because they are fellow sinners just like people from other ethnicity, they know they share the same humanity and sinfulness and above all they know they need a Saviour just like the rest of mankind.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Good on Holden

This year I experienced being sacked, made redundant. I knew consutants/contractors like me will find it hard going this year so late last year I took an offer to work as an employee. After coming from Portugal to give my paper, it was one of exhiliration, unexpectedly we won the best paper award. God continues to surprize me with his grace. Then a day after I went back to work - I was one of those retrenched. Such is life, so says Ned Kelly.

A long time ago I worked for HP here. Back in those days, HP would not sack people, instead, they will take a pay cut and it starts from the CEO all the way down to the middle managers. I am sure it is different now since the merger with Compaq but in those days while one of the founders was alive, they knew that sacking people for a big company was not necessary, all they had to do was to share their profit and go with a bit less. This is what Holden (GM) here is going to do. Read it here. So God bless them.

Big companies really do not need to sack people. They just don't want to slash their profits and share it with their employees. Sacking people is actually a reflection of management failure. It does not have to be the first option when the market gets bad. Sacking people for bad working behaviour is fine but sacking people simply because your profit will be affected if you dont is just plain selfish.