24 and argument for the Sabbath rest

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

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

The crucial verse for me is v.11.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Multimillionair, yours truly.

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

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

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

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

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

Faith as pressure.

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

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

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

Romans 1:17b

“The just shall live by faith.”

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

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

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

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

Dumbing down

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

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

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

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

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

24

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

Linquistically:

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

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

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

Philosophically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is risen!

For you..., for me.

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

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

The Church as ghetto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good on Holden

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

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

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

What gets you "in".

By "in" here, I mean "in the faith", "in Christ" and so forth.

When I was in Charismania,

my Arminian teachers warned:

- faith got you in, faith will keep you in.

then I swang to Calvinism and this got transformed to

- grace got you in, grace will keep you in.

None of these gave assurance. I did not find all the above adequate as the first points to me or my faith, while the second points to me again, I am sure that comes as a surprise, correct? The second also points to me because here is the question: did this grace "happen" to me? In effect, did this faith which is a gift of God happen to me? Both point to something in me. Both get me edgy.

My assesment, and I believe is consistent with the Scripture's teaching on the means of grace:
- The Gospel that got you in, is the same Gospel that keeps you in.

The Lutherans Confessions taught me the last one and it points me to the Promise, outside me.

Now, if I could get these Lutherans excited and believe their own doctrine and trust the means of grace...

The Church of Whatever

Preacher, of false doctrine?

The only thing I like Oprah for is that she recognizes Charice Pempenco.

Obfuscations II

So I was having conversation with a pastor friend from the old charismania days, and it occurred to me we have fundamental differences between his take on Scripture and that of mine.

For him, God speaks through Scripture and God speaks also outside of Scripture. This is obfuscating because it is so easy to mistake our own intuition for the voice of God. Not only is it allowed that God speaks outside Scripture, it may, without much thought, even contradict it in some places and situations.

Let me give an example of this principle. One can think of any sense of leading as a leading of God. Another friend of mine when he was flying over Nevada, felt God speaking to him to sell his house and become a missionary there. He did, with much consternation of his wife, moved out of Australia to go to USA. For some reason, this missionary activity fizzled off and he winded up going to some province in the Philippines claiming that God had instead directed him there to do the work of an "evangelist" there. I am heart broken to say that the marriage broke, alienating him from his wife and children. Today my friend from time to time would ask for support for his work, I get text messages to that effect. I confess I do not respond with an encouragement spiritually nor financially. My point is that I do not want to be a party in his reading that my support is an act in line with the desires of God, because honestly, I don't believe he has truly heard Him well.

Funny, but when I was in charismania, I did not detect the subjective and unreliable nature of these seeming voices from God. Today I look un-spiritual and not "spirit filled" to some of my friends, I have become "carnal".

The best I have seen on sola scriptura

This is from Past Elder's Reply here.


I don't think sola scriptura is so much a complex position as it is a phrase used to mean several positions, some of which Lutherans reject and never meant.

Sola scriptura does not mean "only Scripture". It is a type of construction in Latin called an ablative of means, a way to state the means by which an agent does an action. It is translated "by Scripture alone". It does not mean, if you have Scripture you don't need anything else.

It also does not mean. if it ain't in the Bible we ain't doing it. There are those later in the Reformation to whom it does mean that, and many in our time likewise, and we reject that. For example, liturgy. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus set up a liturgy or ask anyone else to do so. That does not mean then that having a liturgy is against the Bible. Liturgy is something the church has adopted and adapted from the synagogue because of its benefit to the good order of the church, and good order in the church is a good reason to do something.

So what we mean is, there are many good reasons for the church doing this and not doing that, and as to those which are not laid out specifically in the Bible, we accept them, we for example again accept liturgy, not rejecting it because it isn't in the Bible, but only that which has crept into it that contradicts the Bible.

You can say then our position is, if it contradicts the Bible we ain't doing it. Something being in the Bible is not the only good reason for doing it, it is rather the only good reason with a divine guarantee. And our other good reasons must not contradict those good reasons that have that divine guarantee of Scripture.

Similarly church. Sola scriptura does not reject church at all, or that church grows and develops. It rejects, rather, those things that have come along with the church's growth and development that contradict what's in the Bible. One such would be some of the Roman church's ideas as to the nature and extent of its authority. And, if these are indeed contrary to Scripture, one does not reject the church, but in fact upholds it, to deny them.

You can say then our position is, the church has said these are the books and no other on which you can rely and on whose truths the church is built, then it quit relying on them and its truths as the norm for all else, and we simply recall the church to fidelity to its own book that it declares faithful to God's truth.

Cultural or Confessional?

There is a difference when one is in a denomination because of birth and one is in a denomination because of a conviction.

It is quite pathetic to encounter cultural Lutherans who have no clue about the principles of the Reformation, the solas,  nor even aware of what the Book of Concord is all about. It is heart breaking to hear of a Lutheran in church leadership express doubts about Scripture or show no familiarity of its contents. It is quite sad, really. It makes you wanna go to another congregation with a different "culture" (pun intended).

It shows Luther to be correct again, he said catechizing is a lifelong activity of the church.

Crazy Love Sermons

Have you ever heard a sermon it was so funny, but instead of laughing, you felt like you should cry?

I have been listening to Pirate Christian Radio. Chris R. featured a sermon - Crazy Love. If there ever was a sermon that made me laugh at the triteness and shallowness of what passes up as a Christian sermon, this takes the bacon. I kept on cracking up, but I was laughing out of amazement of how far this sermon was from the message of Scripture, then I thought to myself; man, this ain't funny, this is the kind of junk food Christians are feeding on Sundays. I felt sorry for those who got taken in by this sermon.

Then I had a look at Google on 'crazy love sermons'. Did you know that there are quite a lot of churches having that as a sermon title? What does this imply? It shows how queer Evangelicalism has become.

So in line with my corniness, here is a song about Crazy Love. Mind you this has more substance than the Crazy Love sermons out there.

On its way down.

Evangelicalism, it is on its way down.

I read from Wittenberg Trail that Michael Spencer that he wrote an article for The Christian Science Monitor here. This is an article about the coming collapse of Evangelicalism. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I offer an observation. I think Evangelicalism is on its way down because it has tied itself with the cult of being relevant with culture, mainly pop-culture, which is exported from the U.S.A. Culture does not offer anything that truly injures, some of them are just older than us and we think they would stay for eternity. That is not true. Ask a Classicist.

This is very unfortunate, because when a Christian movement is riding on the shoulder of a country or civilization, it shares the fate of that civilization.

I was in Charismania for 25 years, last time I looked at statistics, outside U.S.A., my country of birth (Philippines - i.e. Filipinas) ranked 3rd in Evangelical saturation with Guatemala being 1st. That was many years ago.

Only in the last 5 years did I realize that the version of Protestantism I was taught was an American version, a version I am quite sure the Reformers would not recognize nor understand. Yet I have observed the instability as far back as 15 years ago. When I was in Charismania, there was always something new and spectacular happening every 2 years.

Ausgburgeans trying to bring Gospel revival to Latin Asian/American countries would need to contend not only with Roman concepts of theology but the Pentecostal concepts as well. Fortunately the two pan out to be the same, they just don't realize the correspondence of beliefs, but they are mappable from one to the other.

In Excelsis Deo- broccoli version

Dozo! Why not play a tune with your broccoli before you chuck it in the pan?

Obfuscations I

To say that Jesus died for you and at the same time give you the impression that you can do it, you can do good works that merit you righteousness is obfuscation.

When I was an RC kid, I certainly did here that Jesus died for me. Yet I also heard that what appeases God was my doing of penance for the sins I have committed. This became the center of approach. The matter is that I was not being given the impression that I was dead in trespasses and sins and that I could not ever free myself. Rather, I just have to try harder next time and don't be naughty again. Hope for the best, do some novenas, get on with the program.

So I talk to some RC friends who are faithful members of Mother Church and they tell me I was mis-catechized when I was a kid. I got it wrong? What changed, don't they still officially affirm Faith + Works = Justification? Strange, I thought my reading of the Baltimore Catechism (OK I am older than you) was at par, I got confirmed at St. Mary's College so should the nuns there take the blame?

All I could say is, what does a kid gotta do, but get obfuscated? Now it is all my fault.

I also feel amused when I speak to Lutherans about my experience when I was with Mother Church, how back home, you can see the teaching in action, at the ground level. They say "Oh the practice is of no concern, it is the teaching that counts". I get obfuscated by such an attitude. The practice is the teaching! Where else do they get what they practice; and and these practices mind you are quite public and are a part of tradition, see for example this one here.
----
Christine: You have always been an Augsburgean deep down, I am glad God showed you from Scripture the centrality of the Gospel. You are at home again, where you have always belonged. God keep us all in the most holy faith.

Why this blog won't be Issues Etc pick of the month

Because this blog does not have the Issues Etc.  widget displayed. Besides, it is doubtful if my posts cut the grade.

I respect and enjoy Issues Etc., very much. In fact they opened my eyes to Wittenberg. I am truly thankful for their ministry and witness. I was also a supporter until the show was closed early last year. This year, it seems, there is controversy surrounding the name. Apparently the LC-MS is not happy they took the name with them when they were sent away. I even signed the petition for the synod not to continue pursuing this "issue". I continue to listen today.

I have gained so many of you out there as friends and I would be happy to recommend your websites for viewing yet I have no links. Why?

Guilt by association. I might say something in the future that could be embarrassing I do not want that embarrassment to flow on to my friends. That is why I have a disclaimer in my profile:

The views found here are entirely my own and is not necessarily endorsed by my family, my friends nor my church group.

Your friendship is so precious I want to keep you innocent of anything I might say that is out of line with some views. 

In a mysterious round-about way, it is my way of showing love by protecting your reputation. Remember, this is the Internet. Who knows the many weird and wacky people out there that can use the information.

Besides, it would be nice to be picked for the merit of my post independent of my associations or endorsements, correct?

  

Remember when God forgives...

I have been listening to my old record of Amick Byram's Encounter. There are a good number of Christ centered songs here.

I was particularly touched again in listening to One Voice.

Taken from John 1:29

²⁹The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold,^A)">(A) the Lamb of God, who^B)">(B) takes away the sin^C)">(C) of the world!

Carries away the sin of the world... carries away the sin of the world... carries away the sin of the world.

This came to mind as I listened and enjoyed this song: that it is so important to remember that when God forgives it is not an empty forgiveness that he draws from himself, but that there was an actual concrete payment for the sins of which God is forgiving us; Christ bore those sins we are being forgiven for. We like to look away from this and detach it from the Atonement. Even if some one preaches forgiveness but neglects to make us to look at the Cross, that person is not preaching the Word. Other monotheistic religions have a notion of God being merciful too!

To separate the forgiveness of God from the Atonement leaves us with no assurance and leaves us with a God whom we know is a consuming fire. It leaves us a God whom we do not know, we will be left wondering if he may or may not forgive us. This is what happens with those who emphasize the conversion or "born again experience". I fell for this myself. It happens when the Christian is not made to look again and again to the Cross but is indirectly told by impression that they clinched it when they said the "sinner's prayer" and walked down the aisle. My friend, this is not liberation but enslavement again to the tyranny of religion.

But the Biblical story is not that way. It does not present God drawing forgiveness barely from his shear merciful character. His forgiveness is concrete because there was an actual payment made, by Christ, for our sins to God. There was an actual transaction that was made, not by you, but by the Son to the Father.

For God loved us this way -- by sending his Son to die for us, pay for our sins so that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.

Scientific bias

Laypeople should not think that scientists are unemotional unbiased people. They have biases and as bigoted as some of us. Scientists are into the politics of ideas. They are into band wagon and what is the "flavor of the month theories". They are swayed by popular ideas just like any of us. In fact most of them follow the crowd, or the mainstream, it is good for their career.

Some laypeople think that scientists are active passionate seekers of the TRUTH. You have to laugh because right now, some of them do not have a definition of TRUTH. Most do not even adopt such category in their mental machinery.

What do I mean by politics of ideas? I mean, scientists throw their weight on a particular theory not because they have investigated the merits of such a theory but because it is popular, i.e. since lots of people are into this stuff, so they reason, then it must be good and worth their time. This happens so much so that if you present an idea that is even vaguely challenging the popular view, they look at you as a moron, someone not to be taken seriously. They did this to Godel and Einstein.

I come from a traditional mathematical background, I was taught to look for elegance. Even in my programming practice I strive for it. What do we mean by elegance? We mean it is the simplest solution to a problem. However, most scientists are not convinced that the simplest solution is usually the answer to a complex problem. Simplicity is beauty.

Let us remember scientists have presuppositions and biases, they are human beings just like the rest of us; the smartest ones recognize their biases and have learned to be skeptical of themselves.