Born Again -st-ness-ism

There is much correction needed in my former evangelicalism. I agree. I would not be where I am standing now had I thought all was well. It was in the process of observing the things going on inside and those outside me that made me try to understand, how is Christianity "suppose to work"? I had questions, questions like - what really is the Gospel? What is the nature of faith and Christian life? Is it a trip of one victory to another? Is the Bible about me and how I could have good success? I did discover that what I formerly thought was true was not all that true and it needed adjustments. Like any naive believer, I was influenced by people I admired who lived behind the pulpit. They were sincere dynamic and yes, charismatic pastors whose teachings I absorbed and parroted. They represented what Christianity was all about. They were well meaning people, they taught what they believed the Bible said. But, there were things that were wrong. Now, I am like a boy who seemed to have discovered where the real goodies are and enthusiasm gets ahead, often it being manifested in a somewhat critical way.

I hope my readers who visit from all over the world (mainly in the USA, Australia, UK, Canada) [but I do not mean to imply I got tons of them, but this is the world of the internet, they can be in India or Malaysia, no matter] do not judge that this one blog site is just against anything going on in evangelia or in Romanism. I hope they do not visit this blog to entertain themselves by joyously wondering, now what is he against this time? That would be boring wouldn't it? Besides, such novelty will wear out. I hope they find that somewhere in the bowels of this site, they find some of my blogs that does not kill but rather make alive, make the soul sing through Christ and His Gospel. I hope so.

So I put the picture of Whitfield here for a reason, to discuss the subject of "born again-ness". I have to thank Steve for jogging my mind on this. When I realized the work of Jesus was for me, I did not know the term born again. The pastors of the Assemblies of God felloweship where I first attended after believing told me that this was what happened to me. The term was foreign to my consciousness, I knew about being "saved", but not about "being born again". From then on I heard about it and even going to ministry that was the subject of my teaching and my theme. Like Whitfield I preached on "you must be being born again", as if one can do something to do that. Sometimes questions are good and so a few years ago, I did an exercise to see if the Apostles in Acts preached on this theme. So I scrutinized each sermon I could find in Acts. Shockingly, I found no sermon enjoining people to be "born again" like I did (and like my pastors did).

In John 3:5, being born again does not mean it is a command, rather it is a description of what should happen to us to see the kingdom of God, it does not imply nor taught that we can do something about it. Indeed the verses even discuss the role of "water and the Spirit" in John 3. As Steve said, Nicodemus wanted the "how". In Acts, the disciples did not focus on this for this is the effect of something - it is the effect of the Holy Spirit. I noticed the disciples in Acts concentrated on proclaiming the Law and the Gospel to their hearers. Their sermons were different from mine - and I should say, far different from Mr. Whitfield's too. Under the disciples, people came to faith, they were indeed born again, but the effect was not their theme, the Gospel was the disciple's theme and focus.

So do I want people to be born again? Yes, but that is something I can not do for myself nor for someone else, nor for themselves. The same way I did not decide to be born, neither did they, so I nor they can decide to be born again. But here is what I as a preacher can do - I can faithfully tell them the problem of their sin, and tell them the solution that Jesus did for those sins. Now, let's see if they don't get born again.

Not In Limbo Anymore

While growing up as an RC kid, I was well aware of the RC teaching that babies who die un-baptized go to limbo - an unknown place, a question mark spot, neither heaven nor hell. Of course, there is no official teaching about this - not in the sense that there is a document signed by the Magisterium, but RC pius folks and priests followed this line of thought.

Now the RCC is stating through its Vatican International Theological Commission that babies that die un-baptized go to heaven, or atleast we should have a hopeful expectation that they are there. You can read about it here.

Modern evangelicals have always believed that babies that die go to heaven. For them it did not matter wheather or not these babies got baptized, besides, they do not baptize babies anyway. They go there because they are innocent by default - I remember John MacArthur teaching that babies that die are by default elect because they go to heaven straight away. This new position or a bit official position (I do not know what to call it) complies with the modern evangelical teaching.

So the RCC is lining up closer to the modern evangelical view. Though this official document by the RCC commission carries no official dogma, it is pre-cursor to future official teaching pronouncements by the Pope. Realizing that this weakens their doctrine of baptism, the paper was quick to assail such possible implications.

My evaluation is that their attempt fails. It does indeed weaken their doctrine of baptism. So could being aborted the best thing that can happen to a person since it brings them to heaven? I am being cynical as usual. Then there is another question - the same question that can be hurled at modern evangelians -- at what age when an un-baptized baby or child dies is it dis-qualified for heaven? When is a child no longer a child or a baby stop being a baby, at what age? If they changed their traditional mind on this, I am not surprized if they change their minds in other things too. Perhaps one day they can canonize Luther, that way one day the Lutherans may well burn their BoC.

Lutherans believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, though it is not absolutely necessary. However, there is no sure place we can stand on, and baptism is that place where sure hope is found, for there the promise of God is sealed. Hence, we dare not weaken the gift that God gives. Excuse my lack of pius speech - but there you can hold God's feet to the fire.

Time for some repentin'

I tracked for some time the Virginia Tech tragedy (VTT). Yes, you can say Virginia Tech killings. I thought about the families of those who were killed and the family of the killer too. The whole incident makes me dream of a better society.

I looked at those who died and almost all of them where younger than me, I am now in my middle years. The age of the killer and that of those he killed where in their late teens or early 20s, young students not yet lived half of their years. Their lives were cut short by the gun man and he cut his life short too. I asked my self the question, why them, not me? In times like this when we see the awful effects of our own sins in this world, yes, our own sins, not just that of the killer's, we can see that it affects those that have nothing to do with it. It hurts, even destroys both the guilty and the innocent. I think of families. I think of parents who had nothing but better wishes of a good and peaceful life for their lost son or daughter, now cut short, no longer with the living. Those who died may have never even seen the gun man before. The gun man's family undoubtedly innocent of the actions of their son will be affected as well. Shame, dishonor, sadness, these are just a few that they will be living with. Then, I am reminded of what Jesus said, in Luke 13.

1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

When tragedy and horror happens to our fellowmen, we need to realize, that such can be our experience too. Its time to re-evaluate. Have I refused to stop and listen to those who are unable to talk, those who are not as sociable than others? Have I replied their lack of trust by my lack of trust towards them? Have I valued the proud, the strong, the beautiful and those which society admits more than those who are timid, the weak and those that society welcomes? Have I been so pre-occupied by my own self agenda, that I could not care any better for the ills and troubles of my neighbor? Have I refused to offer compassion to those who are less fortunate than me? Have I been a party to the promotion of greed?

I have.

Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, he forgave the woman caught in adultery, he allowed a woman with questionable character to wipe his feet with her tears and commended the unclean woman with the issue of blood for touching his clothes. These were just some of the things Jesus did to those who were not, we might call beautiful people.



The question is not why bad things happen to good people, the real question is why good things happen to those who are bad, like me.

We smile and we laugh, so relax.

The smile is a very important behaviour of Filipinos. They smile when they are happy, they smile when they are shy, they smile when they do not know the answer, they smile when they are embarassed, they smile when they are angry and they smile when they are sad. They even smile when they cry.

Then they laugh. Filipinos have another trait, a very Filipino trait of laughing at themselves. The greatest Filipino jokes I have heard are jokes about Filipinos. Well what is left to do if your economic and social condition has no hope of ever changing? Take it easy anyway.

So in line with this trait of laughing and joking about themselves, I am featuring here Betty Butterfield when she went to a Lutheran church ( I have heard of her the first time in horn+swoggled).

Proverbs 17:22

Dr. Piper on Hearing God's Voice

Here is more cherry blossom pictures. I am back in my home base now.

I used to be a great fan of Dr. Piper, back in those days when I was toying with Calvinistic thinking. Over on this article, he gives a critique on the experience of a Christian university professor in "hearing the voice of God". I think his critique in the extra-Biblical experience of the professor is well taken. The professor believes God speaks today because he (the professor) felt an inner movement or an inner voice in his heart, telling him to give the monetary proceeds of his book to a needy student.

However, in this written piece, prior to his critique, Dr. Piper too first relates his own experience with hearing the voice of God, and this is through a reverberation of a voice which is Scriptural in content. This experience convinced Dr. Piper to attest that God speaks today. Such reverberations for him is a clear cut evidence that God still speaks today in our space and time.

I wonder about Dr. Piper's experience. Don't get me wrong, I do have such internal experiences, I have countless of them and I can relate to what Dr. Piper says. The effect of such feelings is exhiliration, you walk away with a shout of joy.

Here is my question, why is Dr. Piper's experience valid rather than that of the professor? Is it because Dr. Piper got his with some Scriptural content? What makes his inner experience more proper that that of the professor? Both of these are experiences of spiritual nature - that of Dr. Piper and that of the professor are experiences - perhaps even mystical experiences?

What am I saying? Are they not both walking by sight and not by faith, in that they conclude God speaking by way of inward experiences?

Rather, should we not think that the Scripture is God' Word today whether or not we experience any innward movements in our hearts? Read it and you hear God's voice speaking to you. Indeed, God does remind us of what he wrote in his Bible, but the proof that God speaks to us is Scripture itself revealed in what he has done through Christ.

Over at KFUO, Dr. Hein discusses mysticism here, there he says that there is one thing that God wrote in our hearts - the Law and the convicting power of the Law is what is internal that God promises to do, all the rest are external - like the Gospel.

Land of Cherry Blossoms and Gamba-te

I am spending my Easter holidays here in Japan.This is the second time of being here but this trip is deepening my sense of appreciation for the good things I see in Japanese culture and creativity, my... what a humble and hospitable people.

I came just in time when the Cherry Blossoms are just opening up and now, they are fully opened. Some of the petals have started to drop. Cherry Blossoms are so beautiful but it has a very short life span - 2 weeks and it is gone. This is so similar to life on this old world, our lives are like these Cherry Blossom flowers, it is there for a very short time and it is quickly gone.

Gamba-te (do your best) is often used as a farewell blessing to someone you want to wish well. I realize now how happy a Japanese can be when he hears this encouragement said to him. Unfortunately from "doing one's best" one can switch to "being the best". This second shift has produced so much pressure in the lives of those who take this concept seriously... it has produced depression, tiredness and guilt/shame for we know we always fall short of being the best in our class/group/community. I observe that this is the Law... and as we know it produces despair, and if not this -- going over the top with honour or pride. Hence, as I see them, many are tired, weary, often sleeping in the train as they go to work. They are not only physically tired, they are emotionally tired as well, it is like a vicious cycle. The reality is that "you can be the best" and still leave yourself empty inside. We must help them realize that there is One who is the best in all things and He became so -- for them, that they might rest in what He has won for them.

Lord, be merciful, send workers in Japan to show the light of the gospel on these people - she needs your Cross, they need the freedom and the acceptance of still being forgiven for not being the best.

Chadwick on Table Talk

I always find it funny when I read propaganda material on how of bad character this Luther guy happens to be. Similarly I find it interesting when I see those non-Lutherans who come quickly to his aid. Then there are Lutherans who are not bothered at all and could not care less what rude thing Luther said or what private devotional practice he exercised etc. etc. blah, blah and more blah. Most of the time, the contoversy is launched from what is alleged to have been said by Luther published in Table Talk. The supposed intent of this is to show ill character in the man with the hope that "his followers" might abandon their cause. This of course, underestimates the basis of why "his followers" appear to be "following him" ie his interpretation of certain Biblical passages. In reality though, these detractors are giving him lots of credit than he deserves, an effect of which they have not anticipated.

Here is what Owen Chadwick says about Table Talk in his book The Reformation, p.74-75

The characteristic memory of Luther is of a man presiding at his own table, with is his colleagues and friends around, arguing with him, or listening to his divinity, his politics and his humour, One of the friends shamefacedly took out a notebook and began to jot down Luther's remarks. The habit spread, and twelve different reporters made collections. Luther sometimes mocked nut neither resented nor forbade these deferential scribes. Twenty years after his death, one of them, Aurifaber, published a collection from a variety of collections . Thenceforth Luther's Table Talk became a classic of the Reformation. Rude and outspoken he might often be; 'Dear husband', said Catherine, 'you are too rude'. 'They teach me to be rude" replied Luther. He was so outspoken that his enemiesleaped to make capital out of the Table Talk. It is unreliable as a source for details of history, particularly when the events occured many years before the date of the reported conversation; and Aurifaber's text was not untouched by improvement or interpolation. But iit is a unique and authentic picture of a man and a divine; he who would understand Luther's person and mind cannot neglect it. It is impossible to apply any epithet to him less than the old classical epithet magnanimous, in its original sense of great-hearted.

I observe that Lutherans are not bothered at all by the assasination of character hurled at Luther, primarily because they are not bound by what Luther said, they are bound by what is in their confession, though some of it were written by him. For after all - Luther himself was both iustus et pecator, just like any other Christian, hence he is treated like any other Church Father, capable of error, respected but no idol.

1And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. - 1 Cor 2

Secret JBFA teaching of the Apostles

Chris Rosebrough a Biblical Text archaeologist has uncovered what is said to be a fragment of the Apostles' teaching on JBFA. Listen to his report here.

To me the logic of JBFA is very simple by taking key Scriptural declarations - if one confines what Jesus paid for to the ceremonial Law, then that means to say that there are sins that Jesus did not pay for, and to believe that is to deny the testimony of Scripture that says "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" - John 1:29.

To confine the Law to ceremonial or dietary laws is to commit a fatal blunder for in Romans 3:28
28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

The law here is singular it stands for the Torah collectively, the whole that encompasses moral, civil, ceremonial and dietary Laws.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".

Not for himself, but for those who do not and are not capable of fulfilling them. Sinners ............like me.

A Product of Luther's Libido?

I found this article at The Ark here amusing. It discusses the theory that Protestantism is a product of Luther's Libido. That is ,Luther wanted to be released from the sexual tensions within him so he devised a plan for freedom to marry - the Reformation. It is a really interesting theory and it was propagated by his detractors at that time. However, there are I suspect still those who really believe this theory. So we are a product of his sex drive eh?

The article featured an interview with a Professor of Gender Studies in University of Wisconsin, Prof Merry Wiesner-Hanks. It is an interesting and discussion specially on the way Luther appreciated and praised his wife so much. Wiesner-Hanks believes that Luther had a healthy and robust view of the sexual dimension of life, and for Luther the libido started at the fall.

There is also a discussion on Luther's use of explatives and vulgar talk, something many are offended and have used to attack his character. Here is what Prof Merry said

Rachael Kohn: Merry, much has been made of Luther’s coarse language, his vulgarity, his frequent scatological references. What do you think they indicate about him?

Merry Wiesner-Hanks: Well first of all I think they indicate that that’s the way that people talked in the 16th century, and wrote.

Again, including people like Thomas More or Erasmus, I mean the most highly learned people wrote in what language that we would now think of as vulgar and scatalogical, particularly when they were dealing with things that they saw as powerful or things for which they had powerful feelings. And that of course then comes to include one’s religious opponents, for Luther and for many others, includes his remarks about the Jews, or the Turks, it is the way that Luther talks about the papacy, it’s the way that his Catholic opponents talked about him. So that it’s not specific to Luther, it’s simply that people were perhaps a bit more forthright than we sometimes expect them to be. But it’s not peculiar to him.

I observed that many of these vulgarites often used to put Luther in wicked light were quoted from Table Talk and historians have pointed out that these were not necessarily also the words of Luther for they were written by his dinner guests - his students. Later I will post what one historian says about the Table Talk.

Hannity Hannitized

I do not have FoxTel, so I go to Fox News online. I do not know much of Mr. Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes. Apparently he is Conservative in his politics and a practising RC Christian and is an advocate for birth control methods. He was criticized and taken to task by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer of HLI

The RCC says that Birth Control is sin but according to Hannity this is much better for non-RCs than abortion. Looks like he is advocating two rules for humanity which the RCC is saying not so, for if RCC considers Birth Control a sin, it means it is a sin whoever commits it. When Hannity asked the reverened Fr. Euteneuer if he would be served communion in Fr. Euteneur's church, the good Father said - NO! Hannity should at least be a good RC and believe, teach and confess what his church teaches and not run as a public heretic (Fr. Euteneuer's words, apparently one can be private heretic in the RCC which can also happen in Protestant Churches). The good Father is right in denying him Communion but I think too that Hannity thinks that the RCC is wrong in condemning Birth Control.

However, in this development, there was a Fr. Morris who spoke in favor of Mr. Hannity found in HLI web site, or at least disagrees with Fr. Euteneuer's method of correction here

I note though the reply of Fr. Euteneuer giving the reasons why he engaged Hannity in public correction. I was glued to the end of one of the paragraphs, where Fr. Euteneur said...

I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.

Those were his italics, not mine.

Life Coach?

I was in a party a couple of years back. Since the host happened to be a Christian, there were lots of pastors in the party, so they sat me there at the table with a handful of pastors around. So I got to talking and exchanging pleasantries. I normally like to listen than talk, don't wonder, I am really like that!

Anyway, I had a could talk with the pastor beside me, he has a growing congregation in the city where the party was being held. So in the middle of the party, we got to talk about contact numbers and better yet we exchanged calling cards, business cards that is. I looked at his card and at one face of the card was his pastoral title, and location of his church etc, but I happened to flipped the card over and it said there that he was a life coach. It says that he is available for consultation on how to get your life organized, in order and successful. Life coach. Hmmm, interesting.

That passed. I was in another meeting and again with some pastors. Same thing happened, I exchanged calling cards with one fellow I met. I flipped over his card and there again - a Life Consultant of some title like that.

I got to thinking, if a pastor wants to burn out and run his time so thin he is counselling people one after another, then that is what he should bill himself - a Life Coach and present the Bible as the manual for successful living. Pretty soon, he would be so flooded by people wanting to see him for consultation he has to hire a secretary. No doubt the church will grow, but I got bad news. Don't think it is growing because of the Gospel, because the notion that the Bible is there for successful living...well that is not the Gospel. That is a baby boomer understanding of the Bible and Christianity. The ancient Christians knew no such a thing.

Trusting in Scripture...alone - a gift

I am sure we have heard a lot on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". The documentary which I have not seen myself has been upsetting some and not because it seemed to be true but the pathetic amateurish scholarship found there.

However, my gig is tangential to that. I am more and more getting convinced that in the same way that in Eph 2:8-9 says that faith is a gift, I am also convinced that believing in the testimony of Scripture alone.... is a gift too! What prompted me to entertain this idea is based on lessons I have learned from my friends who deny Sola Scriptura. However, today that idea got re-inforced when I listen to the excellent treatmeant of Pr. Tom Baker on his program Law and Gospel found here. In this program, Pr. (Dr.)Baker was reacting on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". I highly recommend for your listening edification.

To jump ahead - the point is John 20:24-29. Pr. Baker says that he had no desire to appear rational to the world because our faith is foolishness to them, appealing to material evidence is a "milky" was of defending the faith. Rather, the lesson is found in Thomas' experience, in that passage there Jesus said to him - "blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe".

Come home now to where we live. We have no evidence that Jesus' death was for our sins, only Scripture says that. We were not there at that time and place. You find no proclamation of that except from Scripture. Hence, since believing the Gospel promise is a gift and since that promise is in Scripture alone and in no other evidence, then believing Scripture is a gift too, absolutely it is.


It is futile exercise to look for hope somewhere else or even withing what is in ourselves, if the Scripture promise does not suffice, nothing else will.

real caths

Jaroslav Pelikan in his book The Riddle of Roman Catholicism p. 47 has this to say...

Hence the Reformation was indeed a catholic movement. If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. With men like Augustine and Bernard on their side, the reformers could well protest against the usurpation of the name "catholic church" by their opponents. A leading irenic and orthodox theologian of the seventeehth century, Johann Gerhard (4. 1637) spoke for all the reformers when he said:
If the papists want to prove the truth of the name "catholic" as applied to their church, let them demonstrate that the dogmas of their church are catholic, that is, that they are in conformity with the catholic writings of the prophets and apostles!...
If the papists want to deny us the name "catholic", let them demonstrate that we have seceded from the catholic faith and that we deny the mystery of the Trinity.

Not a new "Protestant" gospel, then, but the gospel of the true church, the catholic church of all generations, is what the Reformation claimed to be espousing. Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures; but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There were more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition.

There is more to quote of Pelikan too but space and time does not permit in this instance, yet inspite of Pelikan's move to Eastern Orthodoxy in his later years, I have no knowldege that he has retracted this positive evaluation of the Reformers. Let me know if you do.

According to Pelikan and to the Reformers

...for the church is truly catholic and apostolic when it relied upon biblical teaching, and it became sectarian when it admitted human opinions into the body of its teaching

.

In light hearted conversations, I have heard of orthodox Protestant theologians/pastors quip - "we are the ones that are catholic, it is they that added the Pope". For Pelikan, this seems to be true.

But more to the point, what makes someone, a something? Is it the sign on the bill board? When speaking about human beings, the Christians were identified by their confession, hence, the Creed, or what they truly believe in. Back home there is a home grown religious group, and the group's name when translated in English is "The Church of Christ". In their apologetics, they would often ask hearers (and to reinforce the faith of their members) - "who is the real church of Christ? Well, no other than us, can you not see that that is our name, we are called by that name and because we are called by that name, we are what we are called?"

Begs the question, doesn't it? Actually there is a false premise, "we are called by that name" is not true, for in actuality it is "we call ourselves by that name".

You can apply this same type of analysis to the most obvious case in Christendom.

St. Clement & JBFA

In the First Letter of St. Clement to The Corinthians we have these words on Chapter 32

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him.129 For from him130 have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.131 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven."132 All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

As can be seen from this quote St. Clement believed and taught JBFA as well. Clearly he says we are not justified by ourselves, this completely negates anything in us - our good works or following or "doing" any commandments, even works brought about by the "purity" of heart.

Now some will jump and probably point out to me - hey look at Chapters 33-35 where he talks about works, as if St. Clement just contradicted himself! Yes he does talk about works, but Chapter 32 as preamble eliminates any works as source of justification instead it speaks of faith through which God has justified all men and I quote but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Chapters 33-35 should be read in context - and what surrounds the discussion. Proof of this is in looking at Chapter 36 where all gifts are given by God to us for the sake Christ.

St. Clement in my thinking was following the Apostle Paul in his exposition like that in Romans. After discussing the free grace of God in justifying us in Christ in Romans 3,4,5, St. Paul talks about holiness , and good works in Romans 6. To me this is one example of a convincing evidence that what the Reformers taught was not new, but was believed by the early Christians before.

I noticed that St. Clement quotes a lot from the writings of OT and NT, and this was writen in Koine Greek, I hope to read it in that language for practice one day.

Looking Eastward the revival of EO?

They say that Club L has a lot more in common with Constantinople than with Rome, for that reason, those who leave Wittenberg move to there rather than Rome.

Here is an article that asks if this might be just the century of Orthodoxy.

Over at Pr. Weedon's blog, one will see an entry on the subject of looking or moving eastward from Dr. Heinhere.


First of all, I often wondered what gives when one leaves Club L, and Dr. Hein's comments strengthened my suspicion, what goes is "sola fide", or justification by faith alone (JBFA) in favour of ancient practice or dogma.

So over in that article I read the commented posts and I was surprized that some EOs do believe that their tradition have always believed in "sola fide".

Here is what one lady said, Anastasia said

We Orthodox also believe that justification is by nothing but Grace, through nothing other than faith.

Here is another one from a gentleman named Chris

It was in the Orthodox Church, not in the Lutheran Church, that I learned what "by grace alone, through faith alone" means, and I could not have joined an LCMS congregation if I did not believe that the same Gospel was being proclaimed there that I had received in Orthodoxy.

BTW, for my RC friends, I also recommend the article of Pr. Weedon on Patristic Choosing and Picking Over there he quotes from Augustine on how Augustine set aside the dogmas of Cyprian - it is a bit funny how Augustine said it. You just got to read it.

Death does not trump life

You know I started to ride a motorcycle to work and being a rider, I get to worry about my vulnerability and my finitude. I think you will know what I mean by those words.

I was listening to Pr. Todd on the Invocation of the Saints here. Towards the bottom of that interview, he said something profound, profound to me anyway that it held me stunned for a few minutes. He said this...

The life of the saint begins where your life ends and Christ's life picks us. The life of the saint begins in Holy Baptism, when God gives faith in Christ alone, and that life does not end; that life can not be touched by death.

Death is not a transition, there is no doubt about it, death is an END. It is an end to one thing but it is not a beginning. It is an end to this life of sin in the flesh, a life that was really over and done with when Christ put it to death in His body at the Cross.

While I listened I knew the truth of what he said was Biblical, that principle may be found in Col 2: 11-14. But there was so much Good News, I could hardly contain it, I felt like like worshiping God at that moment. Praise the Lord.

Pachelbel - A Contribution

I often joke around and sinfully brag to my kids that Club L has at least two famous contributions to the world. What would they be you might ask? Bach and Pachelbel!

Over at Aardvark Alley I heard about his being down on Canon in D where he feature this Korean boy's version of it. Listen to it and tell me if Pachelbel was not a genius. Of course I also hope you see the genius of Jeong-Hyun Lim.

Enjoy

Alleged Anglican - Roman Catholic Union.

I am historically still active in a Calvinistic list dispite my being the black sheep - the token member of Club "L". One gentleman posted the news of the possible swing of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic communion apparently because of the issue of ordination of women. I know this is a controversial issue and some who thought that the LCA would be ordaining women, did indeed leave it and became RCs. Fortunately for the LCA, the issue did not pass, at least for now, until it re-surfaces again.

The news of the Anglican-Roman Catholic merging as reported by the Times news is found here

One respondent on the list, from the USA with candor, said this...

After 2,000 years of church history some folks still think they can get spiritual unity from organizational structures under one head. That is folly and contrary to everything we know.

I can understand that college kids would fall into that kind of sophomorish idealism but when leaders of organizations with a billion members starts to live in that fantasy we are seeing mass hysteria at work. Next I expect to see the Bishops and Cardinals all engaged in Saint Vidas Dances.

Having many different denominations, movements and groups of Christians is one of the reasons the USA has such a rich and dynamic Christian life. We need more denominations/ groupings not less. We need more splits and splinters house churches and beach churches and tall steeple churches.

I can understand his point on hysteria - a band wagon effect can come in for as I read the Times article, it gave a sense that Anglican resistance is futile , a kinda "you shall be assimilated" message was ringing in my head. There are only 78 milliion Anglicans compared to the Roman Catholic Churches' 1 billion, really the Anglicans are just a drop in the bucket but influential in the Protestant world. Shortly after that, we hear the news that the reported demise of the Anglican Church is quite pre-mature. The news dispelling such hysteria is found here

It is interesting what the Anglican Bishop of N.Sydney Dr. Glenn Davies said in that article

We believe Jesus Christ is the true leader of the church. If a Pope gives a directive, every parish priest follows it. If the Archbishop of Canterbury offers a directive, most ministers of a parish would think that a nice piece of advice. The very thought we would hand over our authority would be a romantic notion at the least

Scripture Alone, in what way?

Since I got no takers on my Desanctis series specially from my RC friends I will digress a bit and mention another misunderstood sola.

Sola Scriptura is another one of those things misunderstood by modern evangelicals the same way that Sola Fide is misunderstood to mean - no sacramental usage of Baptism and Lord's Supper. For some Sola Scriptura means the Bible read with nothing, no aids, read without history and without creed. This is so misunderstood that my RC friends are rightly buffled by some Protestants. That is why when they say "hey but you guys though you say Sola Scriptura use Tradition", and I warmly admit right away - "yes" and do not deny it. The question is how is Tradition used?

Here is an article by Rev. Fouts on Scripture and Tradition. I think this article spells out where Reformation Christians are different from today's modern evangelical.

Desanctis III On his "conversion"

I hope my Lutheran readers do not check out simply because I am discussing a non-Lutheran Protestant's work. I am not here to glorify any ism, but I am sure they would agree, we are here to glorify Christ and his Gospel - his Crucifixion, his work of forgiveness for sinners.

Here is now a no nonsense approach of Desanctis regarding his conversion... but as you read, do note that he held the position Emeritus Censor, and was professor of theology at the Theological Academy in Rome.
Perhaps it will be asked on what account I have left a position so good, a career which could open up the way for me to the first ecclesiastical dignities, in orer to throw my self to the arms of a troublesome and uncertain future. I have never been pleased with stories which have been written about conversions, because they are mainly a panegyric which the converted one writes of himself; and strong on this opinion I shall not write the story of my conversion, only I shall say to him who will believe it, that the motives that have moved me to abandon Rome, and take refuge in a strange land [he ran to Malta] under the care of Providence, spring from preferring the Glory that comes from God to that which come from men; heavnly benefits to earthly blessings; true peace of conscience , which is only found in Christ, to the false peace the world gives

This is the secret of my conversion, and as for those who will not believe it, I await them before the tribunal of Christ, when all the secrets of hearts shall be manifested, and there they will see if I have lied. .

I offer this observation unlike those in EWTN who seem to come out saying "Eureka - I am so happy I found and now I belong to the TRUE Church", this fellow points to the peace found in Christ. The conversion testimony does not glorify any church body, though it would be obvious that Desanctis aligned with the Waldensians of Italy, I guess my point is that he got converted to Christ who alone gave him peace of conscience. This was somewhat similar to Luther's conversion to the Gospel as well as that of Calvin.