Purpose Driven Pr. Rick Warren, may be Baptist in name but in spirit, he is absolutely Roman Catholic.
Here is what he said in a sermon...
You see it takes more than belief. It takes more than faith to really please God. He says it takes faith that results in loving others. Religion without love doesn't matter. It is not enough to say "I believe". What matters is how I love God and how I love other people, that is the Great Commandment.
Firstly, compare this with Heb 11
6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God(I) must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
What Rick says is denial of JBFA, this is saved by loving. This is going to damn us because we never love as we ought. There is only one who did that -- and you know his name. Though faith produces love, that love is not the basis of our justification. This is an old error - a guy by the name of Osiander believed like Warren and he was corrected by the Concordists.
We are not reckoned righteous by God based by what is inside us and not even on the basis that Jesus lives inside us. And above all, certainly not because we love (because we don't), we are reckoned righteous through faith on account of what Christ has done at Calvary.
So the RC Cardinal (see below) was correct in saying that Protestants should go back to Luther's faith. Why? because certainly Pr. Rick Warren is certainly miles away from that faith. He should not be identifying himself as a Protestant, because he is not.
Rev. McCain is running a story on a comment made by a German Roman Catholic Cardinal. See the post here.
The Cardinal is Walter Kasper.
Kasper said he hoped Catholics would "get to know Luther better and not just interpret him from his polemical writings, still less from a few sentences taken out of context". The cardinal said he also hoped Protestantism would return to the faith of Martin Luther, "who would have been deeply averse to all of today's liberal tendencies".
ME: You know I agree with anyone who says what is true. He is correct and he is right - Protestants need to return to the faith of Luther!
ME again: Not only should he wish this for Protestants, but in fact he should wish that Roman Catholics should hold also to the faith of Luther!
Eu-angelion. Eu = meaning "good", angelion= meaning "message" or "news". The Greek word where we got the word "Gospel.
Firstly, it can not be news if it is already common knowledge, no?
It is news because not everybody knows about it and it is not usual. It is unusual, it is different, that is what makes the news. It won't be news if it is common information.
It is news and it is good news. If it is "good", that means it is in contrast to "bad" news. For it to be good, that means there has been "bad" news.
This is the reason why the Gospel is not something people can cook up with. By nature we are Pelagians, we are by nature "works" oriented, we are not accustomed to what is "free", we know there is no such thing as free lunch. So we look for the catch. If there is no catch, we will surely invent one.
For this reason when someone believes the Gospel - it has to be a gift. Why? It is not easy to believe something which is common, natural or usual. The Gospel is counter-natural. It takes a miracle, an action of God to cause us to believe the Gospel. Hence, because it is news, it has to be announced to you or proclaimed, broadcasted to you...from the outside, outside of you. It is from outside you, being brought forth to you. It is mediated to you.
Consequently we have to be weary of what is going on inside us. It is not reliable. Anything inside us is shaky. As one pastor said ..."anything inside you, can not be the Gospel".
At first blush of reading Genesis 15, it would seem to indicate that God's promise to Abraham had nothing to do with the promised Messiah. I used to read it this way - Abraham was counted righteous for believing that he would have plenty of children, and that was it, without reference to Christ.
Reading now the same passage and being enlightened of what Jesus said about Abraham, I understand now that Abraham also trusted in the promised Messiah and was reckoned righteous.
This is what Jesus said in
John 8:56 (King James Version) 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
In other words Jesus was saying tha Abraham believed in Him too. Only by reading Scripture in the light of the Gospel does it become coherent.
I had an interesting discussion on the internet almost a year ago. I was having a small banter with a person on justification, and the person responding to me said, to this effect... "God was already treating Abraham righteous even before He came to Abraham", i.e. even before He pronounced the promise to Abraham.
Oneness, the belief that there is no distinction in the God head - meaning Jesus is not the Son but the Father and the Holy Spirit too just different modes of dealing with us mankind, can not be correct if one emphasizes the work of Christ at the Cross. In effect, when we ground ourselves in the Gospel, Oneness belief is wrong.
Although we can pray to Jesus, he taught the disciples the "Lord's Prayer - the Our Father", when asked to teach them how to pray. The prayer addresses God as Father and does not address him. I was thinking about this at church.
At first blush this sounds not glorifying to Jesus but actually it does glorify Christ. Because the place where the Lord is glorified is found in his mediation between God and Man. Addressing the Father to grant our petition for the sake of the work of his Son - Christ actually glorifies Christ - and so it is true - no one comes to the Father except by Christ.
Think of it this way, if Jesus is also the Father, then the situation is absurd. The mediation becomes play acting, a farce. It does not make sense that Jesus intervenes or intercedes for Man towards whom? But himself? That is bizarre and funny...
I think the Trinity is a theological corollary from the Axiom of the Cross (making a pun on the axiom of choice in maths - set theory so forgive me). The Gospel requires the truth of the Trinity asserted.
Oneness charismatic theology thinks it is glorifying Christ but in reality it is robbing Him of the truth about his mediatorial work on behalf of sinners. It in the end deflects you away from the Cross. In fact belief in his mediatorial work is what JBFA is all about.
As can be expected, people connected with PlanetShakers and ACC(AOG) , organizations which Pr. Mike Guglielmucci has been associated with for years are angry after he revealed he lied about his cancer story.
People are angry for being duped. I think they are embarrassed for being duped and embarrassment do make us angry. People are asking why, how could this happen? The leaders are claiming they have been victims too, they got duped as well. The excuse does not sit well with others, considering that they believe in Apostolic leadership and the Prophetic gifts, the situation is an embarrassment. Sure enough the discussion of whether or not he is even a Christian is being discussed in You Tube.
It seems the people who get it are those who are outside PlanetShakers and the AOG.
The story of Pr. Mike is not about his problems, rather it is about ideas. Ideas have consequences. Every church group has its own culture, no exemptions, that is how it works. Be it great or small, denomination or synod, each grouping emanates a group culture, and for church groups, that culture is the fruit of the group's theology. What theology they buy into brings about that culture. No, the pastor did not victimize, rather he was also the victim, he was a victim of false ideas which he got from his church culture.
If Christianity is not about Christ but about the Christian, if Christianity is about the glory of being victorious in the here and now rather than about hope later in the life after, then it is no surprise that people are angry at a person who had to resort to hoax making to deal with his perceived problems.
If the good news is about victory over sin and not about being forgiven in our sins, then it is even a wonder that some people in such a theological culture do not resort to suicide (but perhaps some have already). A theology that says that the Christian can not be saint and sinner at the same time will drive one to the mental hospital if not to the morgue. It is amazing that Pr. Mike was not suicidal and God be praised he did not resort to this.
I pray for the restoration of his mind and spirit but above all, I pray he be delivered from the culture that made him resort to hoax making. I pray he comes to a church that has the culture of applying the forgiveness Christ has won for him - delivered to him again and again in the ministry of confession and absolution.
The Gospel is for Christians too and I will say something which I hope you are not shocked...
The Gospel is for pastors too! They are no less of a sinner and saint than any of us.
I so thoroughly enjoyed church today. Pr. Brett's antiphonal singing in the worship service was so much of a blessing, I walked away content, as if I had a good steak. My missus did the scheduled readings and she impressed me in the way she gave life to the text.
Everything was perfect. And at communion : there is something at the Lutheran Lord's Supper that never ceases to touch me which I have never experienced anywhere else. It is there that Jesus seems to be physically real to me. I get this voice in my head, why is it here when I kneel at the rails and receive the bread and wine, Christ is present and real to me - something I can not describe by words. Then I get this voice also in my head, but why not here at this moment, would you prefer another time and another occassion? Why not here and now when the bread and wine are being given to you. Where do you seek to find his presence, do wish to find him somewhere else?
Then there was also the hymn. Pr. Brett chose for us to sing Samuel Rodigasts' Whatever God Ordains is Good following the arrangement of J. S. Bach's Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan.
J.K. if you are reading this, this is dedicated to what you are going through right now....I am singing it now as I type the words...
What God ordains is always good: his will is just and holy. As he directs my life for me I follow meek and lowly. My God indeed in every need knows well how he will shield me; to him, then, I will yield me.
What God ordains is always good he never will deceive me; he leads me in his own right way, and never will he leave me. I take content what he has sent; his hand that sends me sadness will turn my tears to gladness.
What God ordains is always good: his loving thought attends me; no oison can be in the cup that my physician sends me. My God is truel each morning new I trust his grace unending, my lufe to him commending.
What God ordains is always good: he is my friend and father; he will not let me come to harm though many storms may gather. Now I may know both joy and woe; some day I shall see clearly that he has loved me dearly.
What God ordains is always good: this truth remains unshaken. Though sorrow, need or death be mine I shall not be forsaken I fear no harm for with his arm he shall embrace and shield me; so to my God I yield me.
Isaiah 53:3
What does it mean that Jesus is acquainted with sorrow and grief? He understands, he is not making our experience as if they are nothing, he does not trivialize them, but enters our world and experiences it himself, so he is our rightful saviour. He is not distant but near.
Those who do not know me might think of me that way but in actuality if you ask the misus I am simply a - semi-autistic guy suffering from attention deficit high activity disorder. I never grew out of it.
There is so much talk about High Energy Physics this week. See here for an article of the largest particle accelerator ever built., well if you are reading this - dooms day did not happen. Correct?
You might not know this but I encountered particle physicists involve in this CERN project a few years ago. These dudes are smart. Thousands of collisions can happen in a minute- they call these "events" and tons of data emanate from that a single particle collision. The thing is that thousands of theories can also be formed to explain the particles, sub-particle etc resulting from that collision.
The thing too is that if thousands of theories can be formed then this has implications for explaining the Big Bang, so which theory accounts for the data?
Over here, chopsuey is equivalent to stir fried. The chopsuey I remember back home is so yummy, it has that greasy starchy saucy element in it you can eat it all day - with rice of course. What is up with chopsuey? Well you can throw in it all meats and vegies you like and it will still taste good.
So where is this conversation going? It goes into the reduction of Christianity.
Recenly I have been encountering RC folk who are just at home with mixing world views from Taoism or Budhism. They are not bothered at all and even quite at home in importing these ideas into their catholic spirituality.
There is one theme that runs in my observation - when you reduce Christianity as also a religion of works, then Christianity is just one of those religions that incite you to work for your own salvation. It is just one amongst the rest. So if Christianity is giving you a formula for work - what is so special about that compared to Taoism or Budhism? None.
So it is not nonsense when one mixes Christian ideas with these eastern ideas. It is simply the fruit of what happens when Christianity has been reduced, levelled to the ground like the rest.
But Christianity is not another method of working out your own salvation.
Ok so I am no longer on vacation, which means I am back on the job of solving the worlds problems. It is a hard job but someone has got to do it.
The other day I was reading the Scripture and I came to the word 'gift'. The word and concept is splattered in Scripture many many times. Take a look at
Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Believing or having faith in the Gospel surely has to be a gift. Its got to be. It must be a gift because the natural mind says that one has to work for one's standing with God. It is not natural for us to think of our relationship with God any other way and if there is any way we can get right with God we have to earn it. In fact this is where Biblical Christianity is unique because all other religions are already saying that, meaning - saying that if you want God to be kind to you, you do this and that...
So when a man/woman believes the Gospel it has to be a gift from God because all human senses say salvation or forgiveness of sins is by works. Every nerve of our being says -- there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Even Christians get Christianity wrong in portraying it as morality. Well, all other religions have that and that is not the core message of Christianity, it is not about morals though it is an aspect of it but it is not about it.
I notice people have some attitudes towards this Gift. Some think it is not a gift so they go to methods or measures - Charles Finney and his disciples are in to this. If faith in the Gospel is not a gift then one can be coerced (spiritually) to 'believe' or 'decide to believe'. This one leads to works.
Then there is another attitude, it is a gift alright some say and it comes out of the sky. It is immediate. It just happens. In other words the gift is not mediated.
I have counselled some young people struggling with this because they have the notion that a gift is not mediated, God just zaps people into believing. This one leads to dispair.
In fact both lead to uncertainty.
Here is where Concordians are different - sure faith in the Gospel is a gift but that gift is mediated - in other words, though Jesus is the author of faith, God creates faith in the Gospel via means - Word and Sacrament. The very promises of God is the very means God uses to create faith in the heart of the sinner. He does not decide, he does not get zapped out of the blue, but the promises is mediated - delivered and it is the very power to create or provide what God demands - faith. It is both demanded by God and at the same time created by God - through His Word.
So in this theology - there is no room for dispair or hopelessness, there is always a looking in one spot - in the Word - it is the same, yesterday and forever. Even this, even the fact that though faith is a gift, God nevertheless creates it using means -- this itself is -- good news. So God does not leave us alone to fend for ourselves.
If the number of young people attending a church is an indication of success then PlanetShakers City Church in Melbourne tops them all. Two my kids used to go to this church, until I gave them some subversive ideas.
This week has not been a good week for this Assemblies of God affiliated church. One of its former pastors, Pr. Mike Guglielmucci confessed that the cancer he claimed to have been suffering from was a fake, there was no terminal cancer after all, it has always been a hoax. The interesting thing is that this cancer story happens to be the inspiration for a hit Christian song entitled - The Healer. Moreover, the cancer story gave the church another story - the wonderful story of courage and victory in the midst of suffering. The story of battling on with life even when life dishes out pain and sorrow. We are hungry to see heroes because we want them for ourselves. We desire inspiration life sucks.
It would surely have been a marvelous story if it were true, but this week Pr. Mike came clean and confessed that he just made it up and play acted on that angle for the last couple of years. Indeed, he managed to fool his family and church.
Good on Pr. Mike for coming clean. We must rejoice when one who is wrong recognizes it and now wants to make it right. I hope those helping him still give him Jesus and not assume the Gospel.
Some of course are shocked and angry and I expect the anger to come from the members of his church. Some of course will use this as another bullet to fire at those loony Christians and even though I am not Pentecostal anymore, I am included still in that attack. Pagans don't discriminate between one Christian from another (in case you are naive to think they can distinguish, I recommend you get some counseling). Anger always comes to those who forget that Christians are sinners too. Pagans are quiet when they see Christians on top of the game but wait till these Christians fall, they become opportunistic and take the chance to insult Christ and his people.
What of course makes the case specially serious is because PlanetShakers present the Gospel as the answer to victorious living, it is the Christian life-style that is the good news rather than a once dead now living saviour who died and rose again for mere sinners to win the forgiveness of their sins. It preaches Christianity or the Christian, rather than the Christ, oh yes, just get Jesus and life will be rosy.
Christians are mere sinners. The sad thing is that in that movement the Christian is not simul iustus et pecator, simultaneously saint and sinner. So it is a shock to the system when the sinner aspect raises up its ugly head, and the brat does do that from time to time and sometimes it wins.
Proverbs 30 8Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is(A) needful for me, 9lest I be(B) full and(C) deny you and say,(D) "Who is the LORD?" or lest I be poor and steal (E) and profane the name of my God.
Thank you for your prayers, I arrived back safely at my home base.
As I moved in and out of Manila, I have noticed the increase of depressed areas in the midst of high rise apartment buildings, something I am not accustomed. You see when I left more than 20+ years ago you could stand in the middle of the street and look high and would see blue sky . Not anymore. You will either see the smog or a high rise will block your view.
Last time I was here was 1999, but something acute has changed. It used to be that Filipinos have what they called "bayanihan concept", meaning, they will gladly help you without expecting anything in return. It used to be that people would be insulted if you try to pay them for the service they are gladly giving to you. Hmm, not anymore, the reverse is happening, and in a more profound way. They still will help but they expect you to tip them.
I know poverty is the cause of the 'Filipino Diaspora'. This has reaped families apart, a husband or wife goes to the Middle East and leaves his/her partner behind to earn and send money back home, but this has also introduced complications, loneliness and countless sufferings.
Upto what extent does poverty make people do things they know they prefer not to do?
In many ways I can appreciate that people will do things to earn a living so as to survive, but I am also asking, to what extent is poverty used as an excuse to engage in risky, dangerous and even illegal activities?
The Lord does not remove the poor so he can give us a job to do - to care and help them.
Talking about “CC (Closed Communion)” I would single out the main controversial issue.
Separation of so-called conservative synods is usually based on doctrines lying outside BoC. E.g.: a) on the question of salvation by faith alone we all, Protestants, are united; b) on the essence of Eucharist there is a virtual agreement not only among Lutherans but also among them and many Orthodox Christians. Moreover (and it’s a principal point!), in order to be Lutheran someone has not to sign the complete BoC (including FoC). It is sufficient for him to share the Augsburg Confession (AC) only. The BoC is a historical document for German synod in XVI c. (and, of course, for LCMS and WELS as for traditional German descendants in the US:-)). Even for Scandinavian Lutherans in XVI c. and up-to-day the complete BoC wasn't a document of obligation. They were satisfied with AC and Luther's catechisms.
Probably I’d specify: I am for the "CC" but ... for all Lutherans. It might be "closed" for Christians of other denominations because we cannot be reasonably sure whether they confess salvation by faith alone (without any add conditions) and real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. But among believers of AC ("traditional" or "liberal" in their hearts) there should be no barriers in communion with Christ.
Well, whether views on the status of deuterocanonical Scriptures or a place of women in church public ministry are really determinative for a “communion gap”? These stuffs are not in BoC at all but they are present in “constitutions” and “confessional statements” of some synods. In this case is the Communion a tool of manipulation or a mean of grace?
I covet your prayers for a safe trip. My love to all of you. Peace be with youse alls.
I coined this word. I am still trying to define what I mean by that term. I have not found words to exactly describe it. As a starter, my idea is being Gospel centered in the sense of majoring on the major -- the Gospel, or Gospel natured-ness, or evangelical-ness. The concept is still being sorted out in my mind.
Here are the following quotes that might give a gist of what I am getting at . This is from Pr. Acroamaticus who is sadly hanging his blogging cloves
I believe that if we are still an Evangelical church (and I use that term in the same sense as Sasse did, to describe a church that draws its very life-breath from the Gospel of Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins, and seeks to proclaim only that Gospel to the world), then we will view WYD and the RC church with a deep ambivalence.
CC[closed communion] had become an invincible barrier even between so called conservative church bodies. It is not a secret that even the CELC and the ILC have not communion of altar. That's why primarily noble CC sometimes transfers into 'near sectarian' tool for emphasis of someone's identity. So I can't decide definitely if CC practice is undoubtedly evangelical.
---
BTW, my blogging will be less in the next couple of weeks when I hope to be in Manila. If you have an article you want me to consider posting, please email me.
From time to time I surf the blog world. My prof said - if you want to write, you need to read. So I read as I surf.
Then I go visit Dr. Ichabod, only to discover that what I tucked away in my mind, he has already spelled out and articulated, and articulated well. OK, I am coming out of the closet...I do read dangerous subversive material s(LOL).
Here are a few shared opinions he featured in his blog.
[click on the paragraphs to go to the linked articles]
Self-criticism is a virtue encouraged by Scripture - it tells us to examine ourselves. It should be specially applied even to the thoughts of the teachers we respect and esteem.
1 Timothy 4:16 (English Standard Version)
16(A) Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save(B) both yourself and(C) your hearers.
Well, that is my opinion anyway, so please try not to confuse me by giving me facts (LOL).
I have to feature an Aussie's reply to one of his commenters. This was from the Mild Colonial Boy, Esq.
To the question when is he returning to Rome, this was his reply...I highlight here the portion that made me laugh it made my tummy so gassy...
Sir, Going back to Rome? Has the Church of Rome stopped opposing the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone? Has it stopped issuing indulgences for works? Has it stopped forbidding priests to marry (the doctrine of demons)? Has it stopped the virtual goddess worship of idolatrous Mariolatry and putting other intermediaries, other than Jesus, between God and Man? Has the Pope stopped propping up these and other Anti-Christian positions?
The answer is no.
The signing of an ambiguously worded document by a group of unrepresenative LINOs (Lutherans In Name Only) has solved none of the issues raised in the Book of Concord.
There is no need for me to return as I am in a Church which teaches the Word of God purely and administers the sacraments correctly.
When is the Church of Rome genuinely going to reform its doctrines and practices?
I like the LINO bit. There is no where to return because the Colonial Boy has found his home.
No, dear friends, this is not a post about iPhones. It is a post about comparative religion that may lead one to a blended spirituality.
Comparing two religions is a subjective exercise. I am not convinced too that there is a cut and dry method of comparing faiths. You can almost see what you are looking for if you want to, like a brute force fitting a round peg onto a square hole. Let me give a couple of examples...
1.) When I was studying religious claims as a young man (that was ages ago) at uni, I read that Confusius says -"It is good to honor your parents". That sounds familiar doesn't it? Now, let us see, I am sure we have heard that before, no? Might that not be the 4th Commandment? Ex 20:12. Hmm so would you come up with the Biblical basis of Confucianism?
2. What about the Budhist teaching of Karma? Simply put, this means that your action leads back to you. If you do good, good karma will come back, if you do evil, you will get bad karma one day. Would that not be similar to "what you sow is what you reap" - Gal 6:7. More over it sounds like the Golden Rule too doesn't it?
More sayings that are similar to the Bible can be found else where, I found one in the Baghabad Gita a long time ago.
Even some words or sayings of Jesus had some precedent with the words found in Rabbinic writings like that of the Mishna, so what do you make of it?
Well you can say this makes the claims of Christianity not exceptional, there is nothing unique about this even worst, perhaps Christianity might have copied them and imported them since it is not as ancient as the other religions. So what is the difference?
Well when Confusius says "you have to honor your parents", I come back and ask, "so what if I am not"? Confusius says "but this is bad, you are not being a good gentleman". So I retort - "who cares if I am not a gentleman"? "But this is being horrible", he replies. So I counter "why should I accept what you say, who are you anyway"? End of story.
Ah, but it makes a difference when it is God, the Supreme Being - Creator of the Universe who says "honor your fathers and mothers, so that you may live long in the lang your God is giving to you". All my wise ass remarks won't work. He just says "because I am God and because I say so, end of conversation".
What about karma? Well for the time being assume that we do not have a Jesus who said about the Golden Rule, then all of the sayings of all religions on the Golden Rule are just nice opinions and at best good observations that happens in life, and this can be gathered by observation and experience. Besides, if I were a skeptic, I can only say - well the good/bad thing that happened to you had nothing to do with karma - it was simply fate, a struck of good or bad luck. See what I mean, they carry no weight.
But wait. Jesus said "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12.
What is the differenc? A lot. It is not what is being spoken, it is who that is speaking. If Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, the Messiah promised by God - you can dismiss him, but that is why what he says makes a difference, because it is the voice of God who is saying it. It is true not because we can observe it, it is true because it is God who commands and speaks it.
All the rest are puny sayings, they are dismissible, but not so with those that are spoken by God.
For this reason, Christianity's claims can never be considered one of those claims, because its claims purports to have the authority of the Creator God behind it. Thus, there is no room for syncretism in Christianity.
One thing too I have observed, all of these religions have some truth but based on Scripture - it is Christianity that has the whole truth, not just some of it but the whole truth.
Psalm 119:160The sum of your word is truth,and every one of your righteous rules endures forever
And oh, by the way, the central teaching of Christianity is not just about doing good to parents and reaping and sowing or such things - the central teaching of Christianity is the Gospel which is ---God sending his Son to die for our sins (yes we owe God a penalty for our sins) at the Cross and that Son was raised from the dead signifying the receipt of that payment. God accepted the payment of Christ on our behalf.
I found The NakedPastor from Steve M. I think he has some cartoonish things to say. Click on the picture to get to read his cartoons. What do you think of his equation?
. 
.
