As my Reformation treat - I'll do Bach

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

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

Calvin and the art of obfuscating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outward sign of inward reality - jive

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

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

I go back to Acts 2:38

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeling forsaken

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

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

Psalm 27:9c

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

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

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

A shout for Arnel and Journey

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

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

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

Anyway.

Thanks Journey, for believing in Arnel.

Baptistic missing the point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one is the Lord's

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

That is God's guarantee that goes beyond here.

Here is his post.

Pause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your prayers.

LPC

Target Market

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

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

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

I love it when I am being facetious.

Pre-occupation with Youth - Desperate Church Life

What is up with this pre-occupation and paranoia about youth?

I am sure me asking this sounds dumb, the answer should be obvious. I just have to look and I should see that the youth is absent in the churches. This came up in my mind when I attended the our community interchurch council meeting. The subject of the annual fund raising dinner came up and one the ministers from a non-denominational non-confessional background brought the subject if young people ever come to the fund raising dinner. Not really, they don't turn up.

So first, he suggested the idea of volunteering his church's band. Good, give them one of those monotonous, "me, me, I love you Jesus, I burn for you" music. That should attract them. Then one of the Baptist pastors said he has a missionary from Uganda and he could do the talk. Then the non-denom pastor added, is there someone who could also stand up comedy, do them jokes stuff? That should really get the young people interested in coming to the dinner no?

Finally, in my usual stupid way - I said, well why you are it, may be you might as well get a magician, no? He said his wife can do that, she is able to make his money disappear, I said - we should get her.

Oh yes, the youth in some big churches are coming, but in the end, where are they going?

I mean are churches going down to the gutter on this, are they that desperate that by hook or by crook we should give whatever it takes to get the young people in? Really now, if what they need is a circus, should we be willing to give that to them, so long as they can get in to church?

Sure enough, non-denom folks are notorious for not trusting the means of grace, I guess they are like that because though they do believe in some means, they do not believe in the ones where God has promised to work.

Stuhlmacher on Rom 4:25

Romans 4:25

²⁵ who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification

Faith in this God is true faith. It genuinely leads to justification. [25] Verse 25 declares why this is so by a formula of confession which was already structured before Paul's call into two clauses that are arranged in Semitic parallelism and oriented on the Hebrew text of Is 53:11f. As it is indicated in Isaiah 53, God delivered Jesus over to his opponents and thus to death on the cross "because of our transgressions (cf. Mk 9;31, 10:33f. par.; 1 Cor 11:23; Rom. 8:32)., and he raised him in recognition of his act of sacrifice "because of our justification". Christ's act of sacrifice on the cross, ordained by God and endorsed as valid by the resurrection, is and remains the legal ground for the justification of all those who, as the "ungodly", believe in the God who revealed himself in Christ. God's salvific righteousness comes to pass in the resurrected Christ from "now' (3:21) until the final judgement. [emphasis mine]

Hard not to associate A with B

Let's face it, when the news breaks out on terrorists being captured or people being charged of terrorist activities, we do not normally link their religious background to being Catholic or Protestant.

I mean, it will be hard to imagine a Baptist trying to blow up a saloon or a bar. Or a Pentecostal setting on fire a movie house then blowing himself up so he can take down as much people with him.

This post by Andrew Bold here speaks for itself.

In Christ, no parsing needed

Eph 1 (NASB)

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ⁸which He lavished on us.

Col 1 (NASB)

¹³For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, ¹⁴in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

I used to try to penetrate deeply in to what those "IN CHRIST" passages mean. In fact it was brought up in one of the discussions here.

Now I do not do that anymore because I believe it has to be understood in its plain sense, it needs no parsing.

Forgiveness is not found anywhere floating in the air but it is found specifically in one location - in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ - who has become our righteousness, sanctification and redemption - 1 Cor 1:30. He is God's gift to us - for us. He brings us to Christ so that we may benefit in his work of paying for our sins. Jesus is The Righteous One.

So when we are bothered that we are thoroughly not righteous, we point to Christ in the face of the Law and even in the face of the accuser of the brethren.

These IN CHRIST passages I observe has a way of pushing you to believe - and to believe what? - Precisely the same thing - that IN CHRIST I have righteousness, sanctification and redemption. To confess this is to believe also what the Scripture says - that indeed IN CHRIST we have the forgiveness of our sins who gave himself as ransom for us all.

The other question, is this - am I IN CHRIST? This is one of the reasons why these IN CHRIST passages had a way of mystifying me.

I was told I am in Christ if I believed. This is true but what happens when I doubt if I even believe?

According to Philip Cary in his paper - "Why Luther is not quite Protestant", Luther looked at his baptism when faced with such doubts.

We need to rely on another Scripture that in our Baptism according to God's word - Rom 1:1-6, God has placed us IN CHRIST. That is what happened. God applied Jesus death to us forgiving us of our sins, in that means of grace. The effect of baptism then if God's Word is to be believed, is not confined only at that point when we were baptized but its effect is for the rest of our lives. The forgiveness is all of our sins not just some.

May our hearts always confess, "yes Lord God, IN CHRIST I have your forgiveness of sin, Jesus has already paid it on my behalf". Amen.

Mean meanies of Grace

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Calvinists will shout Sovereign Grace, Sovereign Grace! Lutherans will shout Means of Grace, Means of Grace!

When I was a Pentecostal (and was a credo-baptist), I was often asked by converted folk, "Look if I am saved by faith, why do I get baptized, why is this needed? What is this for"? Good question, no?

Guess what my answer was? I answered - well Jesus said you should be baptized so you should be, besides, baptism is showing your commitment to follow Christ. It is a reflection of what has happened in you as a witness to the outside world. Then we would both walk away, but in my head - a niggling thought would still linger - "yeah, so what if I do not get baptized, since it does not do anything and I am saved by faith, that is it, so what is the baptism for"? Really, the reason I gave those folks were so flimsy justification for baptism.

What non-Lutheran Prots think regarding the Lutheran idea of baptism is that a.) it contradicts sola fide, JBFA. ( so they think), b.) how could God be tied to something, some kind of work (so they think)? They observe baptism and even observe the life of the baptized and it seems nothing happened when that baby was being baptized and furthermore, that adult now lives such a sinner, it is hard to believe something happened back there.

Non-Lutheran Prots who believe in the doctrine of sola fide do not really understand the Lutheran concept of sola fide. Yet, they will understand it, if they take the time to put down their preconceived ideas, brazenly look at the Scripture's text and the Lutheran explanation. I was a non-Lutheran Prot too, so it can be done.

I need to quote Larry again here, his experience is worth studying...

If I might put it in a nutshell the best trick the devil has done is to take the means of grace and gloss them over with a coat of ‘white wash works righteousness’, so that grace now looks like, to many, works righteousness. E.g. Infant baptism is the ultimate view of the distribution of real and true grace to someone who can do nothing but RECEIVE it. The devil being a sly general sees, “Oh they only want grace eh.” So he camouflages infant baptism with the errors of Rome so that it looks like works righteousness and tada the Baptist heresy is born. So that now no one in that theology, baptistic, may take advantage of their baptism as a true means of grace. It’s as if they are poor and starving with no money and all they think they have is this heavy white garden block that is just short of junk that can be thrown out (the works righteousness white wash over infant Baptism). The do not realize that what they have under that false doctrine white wash is the golden treasure from heaven. So that when they suffer from hungering and thirsting for a righteousness that is not their own (am I really saved, reborn, elect), they never go to that ‘white washed heavy block’ to realize God has given them the righteousness. If they could but or if others like Lutherans could be scrap a little of the devil’s white wash off of that heavy block and say, “SEE look GOLD not concrete – you have the wealth of heaven on you in your baptism!”

The same thing applies to the real presence issue regarding the Lord’s Supper. The devil’s white wash under the Mass has caused many, including the brilliance of Zwingli and Calvin and their successive followers to no longer see the true gold from heaven that is the very and true body and blood of Christ.

Having now diverted many Christians from the true means of grace by a ‘white wash’ of works righteousness, he now diverts them to false “means of grace” which are not any such things but truly works righteousness and false hopes. The examples vary from denomination to denomination and from church to church but range from alter calls, rededications, praying the prayer of salvation again and again, rebaptism, not the true body and blood of Christ rituals, and general empty “free style” liturgies. These works righteousnesses are glossed over by the devil with a paint of grace.

So that the real means of grace, the Pure Gospel and the Sacraments according to Christ’s institution are white washed with works righteousness white wash; and false means of grace which are really works righteousness are glossed over with ‘grace colored paint’. So that men avoid true grace and go to false grace which is works righteousness!

The devil ALWAYS inverts the Word of God, nothing new under the sun.

Blessings,

Larry

A brief commercial break

We interrupt our regular programming.

I was about to post again one of Larry's comments but I thought we should interrupt our "celebration" (nope!) of Calvin with a brief ad.

I am the proud Dad of the last girl shown on this Qantas ad. Of course it has been 10 years since, and she has grown mature but I have not stopped being proud of her.

The Mess - is the pot calling the kettle...?

I believe the comment of Larry (who probably one day will blog himself) on the discussion below needs to be displayed here because he gives a challenging critique of the fruits of Calvin's ideas.

Please note that I have Calvinistic friends whom I regard and give brotherly affection. I am featuring Larry's critique here not because I want to be quarrelsome, but because Larry was a former Calvinist himself, I think that counts for something. Then secondly, I am featuring this in the spirit of honest, respectful conversation or dialogue.

Here is what Larry said...

The interesting thing about Calvinism and America and the complaint regarding today’s evangelical church is that many Reformed complain about it, yet don’t really see that Calvinism is it’s root and this, even Pentecostalism is the logical extension of Calvin.

America is practically solely influenced by English Calvinism and all its derivatives, even the Baptist church can trace itself back to Calvin, even Wesley and Arminianism. All those came out of Calvin. The Puritans, staunch Calvinist, if you read them much over time, having thoroughly followed Calvin in disconnecting the Sacraments (look up their “half-way” covenant stuff) over time looked more and more inward and for the “process of conversion”, the ordo salutus. If you read even the highest end Puritans like Jonathan Edwards they spend much paper and ink ferreting out what is real conversion and what is not, I mean nearly everything they wrote…it was obsessive. Children were panicked about “am I elect” and such. A true story of a woman throwing her baby down a well killing it and saying, “Now I know I’m not elect, surely I will go to hell”. What is frightening about that is that she found comfort in knowing she was hell bound over NOT knowing IF she was elect. You see how true hell works, and this kind of terror among many in Calvinism, though not that drastic in doing what she did, is not too few at all. These kind of terrors over election are pretty part and parcel with Calvinist. Hell I nearly on numerous occasions wanted to commit suicide over it, and that is WELL outside of my normal personality – yet the terror is so great and the sacraments according to the Calvinist doctrine (Baptist OR Reformed) allows for no help whatsoever it drives men and women to utter despair. It is EXACTLY as Luther once said that the devil leads men to these great heights to break their necks and fall like he did.

Larry continues...

So since the sacraments are unhinged and only signs and seals of a grace elsewhere given in the ordos salutus[sic] one MUST find where? After all what God fearer is going to sleep at night without knowing, “am I saved, elect, reborn”? What else in the entire universe is worth having if you don’t have that! And there, the inward journey begins, back INTO the heart and soul of the sinner to find “the spirit’s” work that “grace elsewhere given” but not in the sacraments. So it is no surprise that men like Wesley and Finney and others arose. It’s the logical progression of Calvin’s sacramental-less theology. And from Finney it is no small leap whatsoever to rank Pentecostalism, health and wealth theology, all sorts of theologies of glory. It starts with Calvin’s ever so seemingly slight error on the sacraments, just a half a degree off back in his time, but then 500 years later we have Finney, Wesley, Benny Hinn, etc… That’s what inward turning produces at length. When the “sacraments” only signify the grace ELSEWHERE given, that elsewhere becomes the search, “where is it”, that’s what the end product becomes. Hiding the Word of God, actual grace given in the water, bread and wine so that one’s theology in essences says, “Nope, God’s not here for you, elsewhere”, falsely send you on this hide and seek searching, “Then where is God’s salvation for me”, and so presto ‘theologies of glory’ of ALL sorts. Calvinist rail against Arminians, but the truth be known Arminians are their creation, their doctrinal children. If faith doesn’t come as a gift in the sacraments, and grace is conferred elsewhere, then these “ex-calvinist” become Arminian are simply try to put back into concrete something they can hold on to. So they move faith to “man’s decision”, it’s seemingly more concrete than Calvin’s vague ordos salutus.

Final point to where this all leads concerning American religion and its father Calvin. American’s Christian spectrum, in the widest sense is in a deplorable state. From liberalism to conservativism[sic] from Methodist, Baptist, Presby., Reformed, you name it – all the grandchildren of Calvin. America’s religion is now like and worse than Medieval Rome ever was. And we all consider the Papacy as thoroughly antichristic, but America is in a sense worse. It took the errors via Rome nearly 1500 years to produce a situation so bad that it took an evangelist like Luther to be used reform. Yet it has taken Calvin’s errors 500 year to manifest nearly the same level if not worse antichristic characters.

Dawn K, carries the thoughts of our conversation further in her musings.

Just to let you know that my blog programming will be sparse in the days to come, I will be busy writing on my research etc. etc., blah blah blah. Or to quote Todd Bentley, the fake healer - bam, bam, bam.

BTW, there are lots of guests coming from twitter. Nice for you guys to visit but how did you hear about this post? Leave a comment and let us know.

Calvin's 500th

This Friday is Calvin's 500th birthday.

Let us face it. In the world of Protestantdom, we are surrounded and circled around by Calvinists and those he influenced. In my country of birth, Lutherans are not even a blip in the radar. You won't find us much in the city. You will find us in the mountains and remote rural places but not in the urban areas. Luther is only known to handful of Protestant pastors there. If an Evangelical pastor there knows Luther, you can bet he is pretty educated.

There are quite a few wise words that Calvin said that I like. I stress the few (LOL).

Have you read his prayers? I certainly come out impressed by his spirituality whenever I read them.

I was reminded of him when I visited Ichabod who featured a couple of things he said regarding the sacraments in connection to Enthusiasm.

Here is an example from Calvin's Institutes:

We must not suppose that there is some latent virtue inherent in the sacraments by which they, in themselves, confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk out of a cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no farther than accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and make us capable of receiving this testimony, in which various distinguished graces are clearly manifested…They [the sacraments] do not of themselves bestow any grace, but they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges, give a ratification of the gifts which the divine liberality has bestowed upon us.

What did Calvin do in the above quote? He weakened the connection of the Sacraments with the HS. In short, for Calvin, the Sacraments may or may not be accompanied by the HS. For him, there is no guarantee that the HS will accompany the Sacraments for sure, the HS is detached from the Sacraments. I have several theories as to what might be going on in his psyche that led him to say this stuff but that is for another post.

What then is the effect of this detachment or lack of guarantee that the HS is with the Sacraments? You cannot look to it. Calvin's ambeguity has a negative effect on the believer in that he becomes at a loss as to where God's promises are located. He no longer has a guarantee that when he goes there, God will meet him there. Hence, the believer may have to look for a zap from above, and they often do, ergo, Enthusiasm.

At least with Zwingli, it was much better, at least with him, you knew he said the Sacraments were mere symbols. You knew where he stood, and he was wrong. Calvin's vague position I believe has led to the chaos we see in Evangelicalism. This uncertainty as to where the HS works and what He uses to supply what God demands (faith) is like being in a ship that has lost its rudder.

Contrast the above with what the BoC on FC, SD XI says about the matter:

Furthermore, the declaration in John 6:44 is right and true, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."However, the Father will not do this without means, but hasordained His Word and Sacraments for this purpose as ordinarymeans and instruments. It is not the will of the Father or ofthe Son that a person should not hear or should despise thepreaching of His Word and wait for the drawing of the Fatherwithout the Word and Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Spirit. However, He works according to His usual way. He works by the hearing of His holy, divine Word. Every poor sinner should therefore attend to the Word, hear it attentively, and not doubt the Father's drawing. For the HolySpirit will be with His Word in His power, and will work by it.That is the Father's drawing. (paragraphs 75-77)

Notice how the BoC leaves nothing uncertain, notice how boldly it asserts the HS is with the Word and the Sacraments. What is the effect of this to the struggling Christian who is in doubt if he has faith? He is assured that he can go to the Word and Sacraments where his faith may be strengthened, increased - he has a guarantee that the HS will meet him there. When he goes to the Word, he is certain, it is God speaking to him. When he goes to the Supper, he is certain, Jesus is pronouncing and giving evidence that his sins have been paid for. Assurance.

Same same but different

My youngest daughter one time went for a holiday in Thailand. When you see her, she is what we call in our language morena, she is a bit tanned and brown. The Thais discovering that she was a foreigner would ask about her nationality and she would reply - Filipina. She said they often responded by saying "same same, but different no"? Meaning, "we are similar racially but different in small respects".

This reminded me of what Steve M of The Old Adam Lives posted on how outsiders view Lutherites.

Evangelicals indeed will find Lutherdudes a "bit religious" for their taste. Considering those rituals, liturgy and stuff, they might even conclude in their ignorance that the Lutherdudes are RCs.

No, not so. So if any non-Lutheran is reading this and having that impression, let me explain by quoting here my comments to Steve M's post.

The problem with people observing Lutherans is that they hear the same words we speak and think we mean the same things as the RCs.

No.

We sound and look the same as the RC but we do not mean the same things when we use the same words. We just look the same, but we are not the same.

We are not the same because we do not mean the same things when we use the words found in our liturgy. The words strike the Lutheran differently when they hit the Lutheran’s ears.

The difference is that those words in the liturgy are wrapped up or are interpreted by the central tenet of Biblical Christianity: justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Our liturgy uses the same words but the words mean different things, so" same same but different".

Look ma, no hands - Filipina pilot

You may not realize this but there are Filipinos that are ashamed to admit they are Filipinos.

Jessica is not one of them and she even wears the Filipina national dress - the Maria Clara when she does her motivational speaking.

I am putting this up here because Jessica, in one interview, attributed her abilities to do these sort of difficult things (let's face it, living life with out arms is a bit difficult and challenging, no?) because of the nature of being a Filipino. In a way I kinda believe that because every Filipino that is born has a twin, called sacrifice/suffering, poverty.

Filipinos are known for being friendly, yet they know that the world and life are not as friendly towards them.

I used to work for Unisys. One time they sent me to Pasadena, California (USA) to work with the engineers there. The engineering manager was so thrilled to meet me and excitedly said - oh we have a Filipina engineer, I want you to meet her. So I did, I went to where her office was and greeted her with some Tagalog words. She spoke back in Spanish saying she did not know any Tagalog. What a load of b.s. Her skin was so brown, her nose was so flat and she wasn't that tall either. Even her name was a dead give away, like Ramos, Garcia or Reyes, one of the famous ones. Her attitude of shame epitomizes the result of colonization. The colonizers taught us we were no good, we were good only to be slaves, for labor. The colonizers have left - or have they really? Yet one thing for sure remains, their cultural imperialism still trickles down to many generations.

So pardon me for giving a shout for Jessica.

We have a saying "Filipino ka, sabihin mo", "you are Filipino, say so".

I am saying so.