A case of hijacking, again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signing the Manhattan Declaration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word Evangelical is the one that makes me hesitate.

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

Now that is a worry.

Where Luther and Calvin are different

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

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

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

Another idea I see is this verse in Gal 2:

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

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

Here is IssuesEtc feature on this.

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

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

Madam Huldah, faith is justificaton - Luther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pacman did it again

He surprised us. He showed amazing athletic abilities.



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

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

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

When faith is removed

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

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

Consider now Ephesians 2:8-9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maier's Paper

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


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

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

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

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

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

[emphasis mine]

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

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

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

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

Purgatorial musings

HT: Carrie, Acroamaticus

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

Hungry Souls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So now what?

What do I do now?

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

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

So meet my Prof.

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

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

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

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

So it is our fault again?

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

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

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

As my Reformation treat - I'll do Bach

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

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

Calvin and the art of obfuscating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outward sign of inward reality - jive

I have been thinking about the jive I often hear and have been taught many years ago by my credo-baptistic pastors, in that baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality.

Now, that bit - "inward reality" technically does not play up in Scripture neither does Scripture speak of such construct. If there is one, I like to be shown which Scripture that might be.

I go back to Acts 2:38

³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.³⁹ For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

This passage is commonly interpreted by Baptistic folk to mean, 1.) repent first, b.) then be baptized.

So only those that are to be baptized are those who have repented. Baptistic commentators also make bones about that repentance comes first before baptism.

The question is, how do you know you have repented? Hence, this makes the baptizer and the baptizee (sic?) look at the "inward reality" so that they may adhere to the command to be baptized. Honestly neither the credo-baptizer nor the baptizee know of such "inward reality" yet they have it in their language.

And this brings up another point, Acts 2:38 is looked at by the Baptistic person as a command.

This the reason why they have a hard time undestanding why a Lutheran can affirm JBFA and have real Sacraments of Baptism and Communion, they view the passage as a command to be performed, a Law.

If I have a Baptistic reader here, I like to throw another posibility of reading the text. That Act 2:38 passage is not a command but a promise! A gift. In fact that is what the passage says - "the promise is to you and to your children". Also the connection between the forgiveness of sins and baptism should not be ignored as some of you do. If you do not believe that forgiveness of sins is a gift, then you have to believe it is earned. Yet the passage speaks of baptism as a promise with attachments - forgiveness of sins and the gift of the HS.

That baptism is the repentance. That is why in Church History, it is not possible for someone to be considered a Christian if he is not baptized. Also in your circles, you have people questioning, "if baptism does not save, why do I have to be baptized, since I have given my heart to Jesus and I have already asked him to come in"? You have this paradigm and a conundrum of convincing the professor of the need to be baptized to fulfill a command.

In Lutheran circles, that paradigm does not compute because baptism is the gift itself, and the receiving of the gift...itself, in the name of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins.

Feeling forsaken

I wanted to post something on Calvin's take on John 20 but I thought about suffering instead.

How come when you are going through trials and temptation, through sufferings, the Lord seems so far away and you feel left swimming on your own. Then I thought about Jesus feeling the same at the Cross.

Psalm 27:9c

You have been my help;
Do not leave me nor forsake me,
O God of my salvation

I wish I could stay on top of the mountain but part of the trip is going through the valley.

Update: Each Tuesday Phoenix' eyes gets tested, so far dear brothers and sisters, they have not detected a noticeable decline. Please continue to pray for him and his mom.

A shout for Arnel and Journey

I heard some quip, we were born singing with a guitar in our hands. Well I am not a good singer but I do music, piano, guitar and now trumpet.

When I was growing up, the typical picture motif in our house was the picture of the Indio (The Spaniard's label for a native Filipino), lazin' away seating and leaning under a coconut tree, with his sombrero (palm hat) on his head strumming his guitar.

In the interview, you can detect some hispanic accent in the way he spoke English. I am puzzled myself, it is hard to pin down a Filipino - is he Asian or Hispanic? May be Latin Asian akin to Latin American?

Anyway.

Thanks Journey, for believing in Arnel.

Baptistic missing the point?

I got this from a Statement of Faith of a Calvino-baptistic group.

Baptism is an important action of obedience for a Christian and signifies a person's identification with Christ. It is not necessary for salvation. It is an outward manifestation of an inward reality of trust in the sacrifice for Christ, of conversion, and of identification with Christ. The act of water baptism does not save anyone. We are made right before God by faith, not by faith and baptism (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:3,5; 5:1; Gal. 2:16, 21; Phil. 3:9; see alsoActs 10:44-48).

Now I can see why it is so hard to understand how Baptism could be a gift. I was thought the above and that paradigm is so rationalistic it for a while makes sense, until you live the Christian life and observe that it leads Baptism to nothing. So when Jesus commanded to baptize, it was some whimsical idiosyncratic idea that Jesus decided to cook up at that time.

I just notice how Acts 2:38 is missing in the above:

³⁸ Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

The baptism part of the verse is passive, i.e. it is being done to you. Then the kicker - "for the remissions of sins". Part and parcel of repenting is the belief that baptism is connected with the forgiveness of sins. The statement of faith extrudes the two from each other. This is what rationalistic interpretation does.

This one is the Lord's

Rev. George F. Borghardt III, wrote to me and we want to share with others the thoughts and hope that are found in that email. May those suffering as we are, find comfort that our sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, as much as they have been baptized, are also the Lord's.

That is God's guarantee that goes beyond here.

Here is his post.

Pause

I have not been posting lately. Something happened to my family that I am still processing until now. I cannot foresee myself posting for a while. Consider, for the time being, that I am having "dead air".

My children are young parents themselves, so far they have given us grandsons, the oldest is 4 years old. Last month, my oldest daughter gave birth to a premature baby boy. A few weeks ago, they did a brain scan and the doctors met us for a discussion and a meeting. Doctors say he has severe brain damage and we are looking at cerebral palsy. Needless to say this has brought despair to my daughter.

I feel like I have been hit by a baseball bat, right in the head. I am still down on the floor, perhaps never wishing to get up.

Why is it that doctors are very sure of what bad things can go wrong, yet they are never sure of good things that can possibly go right? Nowadays, they seem to have the last say and usually the final say about what goes on.

I would appreciate your prayers for Phoenix and his mom. They both need God's help.

I am going to make what I belive to be a fair statement; whether God heals my grandson or not, my Bible says, there is only one person here who has the last say in anything, God, the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, no one else.

Don't you hate it when people, knowingly or unknowingly, usurp the position of God? I do. My very being rebels against it.

Thank you for your prayers.

LPC

Target Market

Many moons ago, in my wanderings I attended an AOG pastor's meeting in my area.

It was lunch, and a young pastor sat beside me. At that time, my congregation was getting bigger and had a few outreaches. The pastor relayed to me how he was getting tired of evangelizing an elderly Greek lady in his church neighborhood. Hearing that we were growing, he asked me if we had any young people. I said "yes, we have some". It was like an "aha" moment for him, when he said "That is it, I better concentrate my efforts to work on them" and stood to get some sweets. I choked on my food as I looked at him finish our conversation. Didn't that elderly Greek lady need the Gospel?

Well, targetting the youth does make sense. The young are strong, they can do lots of manual work in church. You do not need to pick them up and bring them to church. They are abled bodies they can drive themselves to the meetings. They can do follow ups, and no need for much visitation, they are filled with energy. Our utilitarian needs are well served by them, not like these old ones who live off coins from their pension. So in many respects, the young people are the best market to attract. They are low maintenance.

I love it when I am being facetious.