Saturday, October 6, 2012

4PM Habit



Our national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal said " Ang mga kabataan ang pag asa ng bayan" (The youth is the hope of our nation). I am really blessed to shout with the youth. To fellowship with the youth. To minister to the youth.

My college days is still fresh in my memory. The days when me and my friends say, "Let's turn the world upside down for Christ". Those days are the most memorable days of my life. When I dream that the next generation will seek the face of God. Will shout His fame. Will rise and stand with faith. Will serve God and the poor.

Earlier this afternoon (I started to write this paper 11:00PM so it's considered Friday lol). Coach Rodel shared about being the model of the youth. He quoted 1 Timothy 4:12

"12 Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity."

Timothy was a young leader of the Church at Ephesus of that time. Church historians claimed that he was the head elder (or senior pastor) of the Ephesian Church. Some scholars said that there was too much issues regarding Timothy's leadership because of his age. There are some members of the church that who don't want to listen to him and come to the point to question his leadership. Paul admonished him to set an example. That despite of doubts and questions to his leadership Tim need to be strong about his calling.

That's happening right now. Some of the elders of our society are doubtful to our talents. To our integrity. They are doubtful on what we can do to change our society.. Our nation...

It is time to rise up young people. It's time to show them that we will bring hope. Not only on our nation, not only in our campus. But in every nation and every campus.

I remember the questions that I always ask to the youth in my former church.

"Are we proclaiming Jesus the Hope of the World?"
"Then why we are still silent and not changing the world for Christ?"
"Do we let the evil dictate the future of the nation?"
"Do we let everyday with dying and going to hell?"


Now is the time. Not tomorrow. Not next month. Not next year. Now is the time.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Everyday Christian Life As Worship


Worship, a very holy word but most debated and misunderstood on religious circles. Christians from different traditions and background debate on this issue for the past centuries on how we worship God in a biblical and reverential way. Most, if not all of us are being subjective in defining and judging the other camps. Terms used such as "silent night" (referring to Reformed-Liturgical-Hymal style of service) and "joy to the world (referring to the contemporary-radical-youthful Evangelical style of service) to describe the distinctions of the style of worship.


But Church and congregational worship is only a part of worship and service to God. In this short paper we will discuss that worship does not confine on the 4 corners of the Church building but beyond. Worship extends to our everyday lives in obedience with the Word.


I will primarily use Romans 12 as our base passage but we will quote some passages from the Scriptures as our discussion goes by.


Let's quote first Romans 12:1


Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.



Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy,

What is God's mercy ? Noticed Paul used the term "therefore". It means that Paul was discussing a topic before chapter 12. If we will look at chapter 11, Paul discussed here the salvation of Israel and how Israel has a big part of the God's plan of salvation. Paul advised the Gentiles not to think that they (Gentiles) are superior than the Jews (11:18). God is still giving and will give Israel chance to respond to the gospel. Since we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) no one is righteous to the eyes of God. But because of His grace He made a way to provide redemption (salvation) for both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:16). Now, based on that view that God is merciful. Paul urged the Christians in Rome to:


to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship

Now, this is the prescription written in the Scripture. Our true and proper worship to God is to offer our bodies as sacrifice, holy and pleasing. But hold your horses guys. Does this verse only referring to congregational or church worship only ? Does Paul have the church worship in mind when he is writing this passage ? Let's see on the next lines.



Do not conform to the pattern of this world,  but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. 

What are the things that the world is doing ? Are we doing that ? Are we following their habits and worldviews ? Or are we renewing and changing our way in looking at things ?

As Christians, Paul admonished us to renew our minds. To be holy and to be stained by the sins of this world. In Old testament, the animal sacrifice should be blameless in the sight of the Lord. If we want to worship God then we should have our lives blameless by renewing our mind and not conforming on the pattern of this world.


Conclusion.

Worship is not about just singing (or dancing). It's not just inside the four corner of the Church. Worship is a lifestyle. Making our steps that can bring honor to God. Changing our worldview according to what the bible says. If you want to do the correct worship, be holy since God is holy.







Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Sola Fide ba ang Batayan ng Kaligtasan?

Mali po ang kaisipang sa Sola Fide (o pagsampalataya lamang) naka-batay ang Kaligtasan. Hindi po ito ang katuruang itinataguyod ng mainstream evangelicalism. Sa katunayan, ang konseptong ito'y hindi ipinangaral ng sinuman sa mga prominenteng repormista ng panahon ng Repormasyon. Higit sa lahat, wala pong biblikal na pundasyon ang koseptong ito.

Maraming kritiko ng Sola Fide (mula noon hanggang ngayon) ang nagaakalang itinuturo ng mga ebangheliko na sa pagsampalataya lamang nakabatay ang Kaligtasan. Sa kasamaang palad, marami ring "ebangheliko" (mula noon hanggang ngayon) ang nagtataglay ng ganitong maling kaisipan.

Ano nga ba ang batayan sa pagtatamo ng Kaligtasan? Ang batayan sa pagtatamo ng Kaligtasan ay ang pagiging "matuwid" ng tao sa paningin ng Diyos. Sa Araw ng Paghuhukom ay masasaksihan ng lahat ang poot ng Diyos sa mga makasalanan, sa mga hindi matuwid, samakatuwid baga'y sa mga hindi nakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Diyos (Rom. 2:5-6, 8-9). Tanging ang mga mapapatunayang "matuwid" (o sakdal) lamang ayon sa pamantayan ng Kautusan ang siyang maliligtas sa nakakakilabot na kahatulan ng Panginoon (Rom. 2:7; cf. Mat. 25:46). Ayon nga kay Jesus, "Kayo nga'y mangagpakasakdal, na gaya ng inyong Ama sa kalangitan na sakdal" (Mat. 5:48). Iyan ang kaluwalhatiang kailangang abutin ng tao upang siya'y maging karapat-dapat magtamo ng buhay na walang hanggan.

Ngunit mayroon bang nakaabot sa kaluwalhatiang iyan? Wala, wala kahit isa, "Gaya ng nasusulat, Walang matuwid, wala, wala kahit isa" (Rom. 3:10). "Sapagka't ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nangakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios" (Rom. 3:23). Kung gayon, sino sa atin ang makakatayo sa kahatulan ng Diyos sa Araw ng Paghuhukom? Wala. Ayon nga sa aklat ng mga Awit: "Kung ikaw, Panginoon, [ay] magtatanda ng mga kasamaan, Oh Panginoon, sinong tatayo?" (Psa. 130:3); at minsan pa, "At huwag kang masok sa kahatulan na kasama ng iyong lingkod; sapagka't sa iyong paningin ay walang taong may buhay na aariing ganap" (Psa. 143.2). Sa madaling salita, lahat tayo ay karapat-dapat lamang ibulid sa impyerno dahil sa ating mga kasalanan. Tayo'y nangangailangan ng Tagapagligtas.

Kaya nga, gaya ng alam na natin, ipinadama ng Diyos ang kanyang pagibig, bagamat tayo'y di karapat-dapat, nang suguin niya ang kanyang bugtong na Anak upang ang sinumang manalig sa kanya ay hindi mapahamak kundi magkaroon ng buhay na walang hanggan sa piling ng Panginoon (Jn. 3:15-18; Rom. 5:8). Ang Kautusan na hindi natin kayang tupdin ay walang salang tinupad ni Cristo nang sa gayon ay "ibilang" o  "ituring" tayong matuwid sa paningin ng Diyos sa pamamagitan ng ating pananalig sa kanya (Rom. 3:24-25; cf. Mat. 5:17, Gal. 4:4-5). Ang katuwirang ito na iginagawad ng Diyos sa mga sumasampalataya ay hindi batay sa kanilang sariling mga gawa (o sa kanilang pagsampalataya), kundi batay lamang sa trabahong tinapos na ni Cristo sa pamamagitan ng kanyang kamatayan sa krus. Sabi nga ni San Pablo: "sa pamamagitan ng pagtalima ng isa ang marami ay magiging mga matuwid" (Rom. 5:19) at ang katuwirang ito'y natatamo sa pamamagitan ng pananalig kay Cristo (Rom. 10:3-4). Hindi nakabatay sa pagsampalataya ang Kaligtasan, bagkus ito'y tugon lamang sa pagliligtas na tinapos na ni Cristo (Rom. 10:9-11).

Ang kabuuan ng Kaligtasan ay nakabatay lamang sa gawain ng Diyos, at hindi sa anumang paraan nakasalalay sa mga gawa o desisyon ng tao. Maging ang pagsampalataya ay kaloob lamang ng Diyos sa sinumang nais niyang pagkalooban nito! (1 Cor. 4:7; cf. Jn. 6:65, Php. 1:29). Ang Diyos Ama ang siyang humirang (Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pe. 1:2), ang Diyos Anak ang siyang nagbata alang-alang sa Kaligtasan ng mga hinirang (Mat. 1:21; Jn. 10:11, 15), at ang Diyos Espiritu Santo naman ang nagkakaloob ng pananampalataya sa mga hinirang (1 Cor. 2:14; cf. Jn. 3:3). Yan ang dahilan kung bakit Soli Deo Gloria (Latin, "Sa Diyos lamang ang kaluwalhatian") ang paninindigan ng mga lolong repormista. Ito ay sapagkat ang kabuuan ng Kaligtasan, ayon sa Kasulatan, ay naguugat sa Biyaya, at nagtatapos din sa Biyaya.

-Jeph

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Love That Must Be Stopped (an exposition of 1 John 2:15-17)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. (1 John 2:15-17, NIV 2011 update)
There is this idea that love is a matter of the heart and not of the head. That it is an emotion beyond the power of the will. The cultural usage of the phrase "falling in love" suggests that it is uncontrolled and inevitable. In his book What Jesus Demands From the World, John Piper confirms that love is indeed an emotion, but he adds: "Jesus does command the feelings. He demands that our emotions be one way and not another".1

To support his assertion, Piper marshals these Bible proofs:
a.With regards to rejoicing, he demands that we rejoice in persecution (Matt.5:12) 
b. With regards to fear, he demands and that we fear not those who can harm only our bodies but fear him who could kill the body and send you to hell (Luke 12:5) 
c. He demands that we not feel shame over him (Luke 9:26) 
d. He demands that and that we forgive from the heart (Matt. 18:35)
In verse 15 of our text, God through his apostle John issues another command regarding our affections: "Do not love the world or anything in the world". Since this is a command, it demands our obedience. As followers of Christ we are told to not love the world, and if we feel we are having some sweet affair with the world, we have to stop2 it at all cost.

But first we have to clarify what this command does NOT mean. The command to not love the world and the things in the world does not mean that we are to hate the physical created universe. After all, it is God who created this universe and was delighted to see its beauty (Gen.1:31). It does not mean we cannot enjoy works of art like secular music and movies (there could be expressions of worldliness in them but not necessarily). It does not mean we have to distance ourselves from pop culture. This is not about hairstyles or fashion. It does not also mean we have that we hate the unbelieving world. After all, we were commanded to love our enemies even those who persecute us. We are mandated to reach the world with the gospel of grace.

What does it mean then? The word "world" in this context means:
"an organized earthly system controlled by the power of the evil one that has aligned itself against God and his Kingdom" (Daniel Akin)3

"This is not a reference to the physical, material world but the invisible system of evil dominated by Satan and all that it offers in opposition to God, his Word, and his people." (John Macarthur)4
Whenever you see the prevalence of anti-God ideas and anti-God agenda, that is a part of worldliness (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). Wanna feel the power and influence of this system? Go to U.S.A. and speak against the evils of the LGBT agenda. They will surely gang up on you.

Another verse to consider is Romans 12:2a "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." The Greek word translated as "world" here is different from the Greek word translated as "world" in 1 John 2:15. Some say that it should be translated as "age".Yet when correlating bible verses, you just don't match words; you also match concepts. The concept Paul is conveying here is the same or at least very close to the Johannine concept of worldliness:
"Better translated “age,” which refers to the system of beliefs, values—or the spirit of the age—at any time current in the world. This sum of contemporary thinking and values forms the moral atmosphere of our world and is always dominated by Satan"5
In his exposition of Romans 12:2, James M. Boice mentioned several -isms of worldliness. The -ism of course is a suffix added to a word conveying distinctive doctrines or ideas. Not all -isms are worldly like Calvinism or Dispensationalism, but many of them are. Below are some of the -isms in Boice's list6 :

humanism-- humanity is of prime importance, not divine or supernatural matters.
relativism-- no absolute truth; it may be true for you but not for me.
hedonism-- the pursuit of pleasure is the highest goal
materialism-- physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life
pluralism-- all belief systems are valid; Christianity is okay but it needs supplement from other systems

These are just examples of worldly expression of man's hostility to God and his revelation in Scripture. If you subscribe to any of these ideas, you love the world.

You Might be a World-lover if...

1. You want to fulfill your desires outside of God's revealed will ("the lust of the flesh"  verse 16)

The lust of the flesh is "any sinful desire, any sinful interest, that draws us away from God or at least makes continuing fellowship with him impossible"- Gary Burge7

There is nothing wrong with the desire to earn more, for the sake of your family and for the needs of others; but if you earn by dirty business deals or other corrupt means, then you might be a world-lover.

There is nothing wrong with the desire to have a partner but if you want to fulfill it by marrying a unbeliever, then the world could have had captivated your heart.

There is nothing wrong with watching movies, surfing the net or playing video games; but if these activities cause you to neglect prayer, personal bible study and other spiritual disciplines, you mght be in love with the world.

2. Visual delights arouse your desire for sinful acts ("the lust of the eyes" verse 16)

This point is closely connected to the previous one because the eyes are "often the means by which sinful desires are introduced into the mind of the individual." (Danny Akin)8 -- Sinful desires could be awakened by sound or smell and other senses but the most often means is the sense of sight.

~ Eve stared at the forbidden fruit and it was pleasing to the eye (Gen.3:6).
~ Achan stared at a luxury robe, silver and gold, and kept them against the Lord's instruction (Joshua 6-7)
~ David stared at bathing Bathsheba, and ends in adultery (2 Samuel 11)
~ The trick is so effective the devil even tried it on Jesus (Matt. 4:8)

Two Philosophers could be helpful here: Plato and Augustine9

For Plato: the good, the beautiful, the true, the real is essentially the same thing. That is if there is one beautiful, it must also be good, and true, and real. Using this criterion, the woman on the magazine cover may be visually pleasing but if her appearance is devoid of goodness and truth, then it is not beautiful.

Augustine added a Christian flavor to Plato's musings. For him, there is only one good; only one real; only one true; only one beautiful. In saying this, he was not denying that there are other things good, true, real and beautiful. They do exist but only as reflections of God's infinite perfections. Because of that:

a. God is the SOURCE of anything good, true, real and beautiful
b. God is the JUDGE of what is good, true, real and beautiful
c. God's glory is the CHIEF END of all things good, true, real and beautiful.

Thus, when you are captivated by what you see but fail to honor God, you are in love with the world.

“The problem is not that God created the material things in the world. The problem is that people have made these things into idols” (Daniel Akin)10

3. You measure the worth of yourself and the worth of others by possessions and accomplishments ("the pride of life" verse 16)

The pride of life is "an attitude of pretentious arrogance or subtle elitism that comes from one's view of wealth, rank, or stature in society. It is an overconfidnce that makes us lose any notion that we are dependent on God"-- Gary Burge11

I'm somebody because of my assets and income.
I'm somebody because of my degree and alma mater.
I'm somebody because of my position.
I'm somebody because of good looks.
I'm somebody because of my medals and trophies.

Some Biblical examples
~ Nebuchadnezzar's pride on his projects (Daniel 4:30)
~ Herod's pride on his oratorical skills (Acts 12:21-22)
~ Even religious people can be guilty of this like the Pharisees who were proud about their religious standing and looked down on others(Luke 18:9-12)

Reasons for Breaking this Kind of Love

1. Because if you love the world, you don't love God

I John 2:15b "If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them"

The text says that you either love God and hate his rival or love his rival and hate God. Take one of the world's ideas-- materialism for example, "the idea that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life"12. The Lord Jesus says,

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matt. 6:24)

James 4:4 says "... don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God"

If we are divided between loving God and loving the world, it will not end in a 50-50 division. Rather, it will end 0-100, that is zero for God and 100 percent for the world. And if you have two hearts, you will not give one heart for God and one heart for the world. Rather, you will give both hearts to the world.

The Psalmist seems to have understood this, so he prayed "... give me an undivided heart, that I may fear your name". (Psalm 86:11)

2. Because of this love's unhappy ending

Fairy tale endings are quite predictable. When the Prince finally marries her Princess, expect the last line to be "and they lived happily ever after". I guess it is a time-tested formula for fictional love stories. People like happy endings.

Soon, unbelieving people will realize that they pursued worthless things. Soon they will see that they have invested in the wrong place. The text says "the world and its desires pass away" (verse 17 a). It's like enjoying your stay at Sodom and hoarding possessions there, only to realize later that you will perish with them. For one of the reasons why God burned Sodom and Gomorrah is to make them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (2 Peter 2:6).

If you want a happy ending to your love story, love God. Scripture says, "but whoever does the will of God lives forever" (verse 17b). What he prepared for those who love him is not just a happy ending but an eternity of endless joy in his presence.
"May thy dear Son preserve me from this present evil world, so that its smiles never allure, nor its frowns terrify, nor its vices defile, nor its errors delude me."  (The Valley of Vision)13
-----------------------------------
NOTES
1. John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World
2.  In his online free bible commentary on the Johannine corpus, Bob Utley says that the grammatical construction conveys the meaning "to stop an act that is already in progress.
3. Daniel Akin, 1,2,3 John, New American Commentary
4. The Macarthur Study Bible
5. The Macarthur Study Bible
6. James M. Boice, Mind Renewal in a Mindless Age
7. Gary Burge, The Letters of John (NIV Application Commentary)
8. Daniel Akin, 1,2,3 John, NAC
9. See Albert Mohler's "A Christian Vision of Beauty, part 1"
10. Daniel Akin, 1,2,3 John, NAC
11. Gary Burge, The Letters of John (NIVAC)
12. American Heritage Talking Dictionary

13. The Valley of Vision's Facebook Page, March 5,2012 

Monday, June 11, 2012

The Faith of our Founding Fathers

If you're a Southern Baptist and you are interested to learn about the real traditional / historic Southern Baptist understanding of God's plan of Salvation, you might want to investigate through the writings of our founding fathers which are compiled on the link below:

http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html

Be informed. Be reformed. Be a Foundersist!

-Jeph

Saturday, June 9, 2012

The Public Square (Part 3)

III. Some tips for a friendly approach in apologetics.

I apologize if I failed to post the 3rd installment of the apologetics series. I was busy preparing for the dialogue with a Seventh Day Adventist youth minister (I will post an article once the video was uploaded).

Here I will share some friendly apologetics tips based on my experience in discussing in the forum page of Bereans Apologetics Reasearch Ministry (www.thebereans.net)

1. Think about the hearers (or the readers) and not just to win the discussion.

Because of our eagerness to defend and share the truth to others sometimes we forget our purpose. That is to share the word and the love of Christ. We are not called to win a debate or a discussion but to show to the people what really the Word of God is saying in the questions of life. One of my friend (which is a pastor) when I am asking for prayers and links that I can read about Seventh Day Adventism for the preparation for my dialogue. He told me to always look at the audience and not to my opponent. 

The audience (or readers) need to see a Christ like and humble men and women that will declare the truth. As Apostle Peter said 

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

We should give an answer, but make it gentle and with respect.

2. Keep in short and simple.

Some of us want to sound like a scholar with greek and hebrew words. I am not against in using the original languages of the Scriptures but if the hearers (or readers) were not Bible School or Seminary students I don't see that using jargons are relevant into the discussion. People don't need to hear those terms, THEY NEED THE TRUTH AND THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT.

In the context of internet forums there are readers that are having a hard time with lengthy posts. Some of those have only one point but the author seems want to play around with jargons and terms that are alien to modern minds.

3. Be in love.

Cheesy ? hahaha. What I mean is don't forget that our purpose is to share the love of Christ. In the words of Apostle Paul.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Knowledge is important but we need to communicate it with love.Truth is important but we need to communicate it with love.

Godspeed to all !!!!

-Danes

Friday, June 8, 2012

A Suggested Interpretation of the Traditionalist Statement

"No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him..."
 (John 10:26)
Before anything else, I want to extend my sincere apologies to those who were or might have been offended with my strongly sarcastic remarks against the Traditionalist statement during some of the discussions over at SBCvoices and SBCtoday. I'm deeply sorry for the way I behaved, and please know that it was never my intention to dishonor, disrespect, or degrade anybody. Mr. Miller was right, however erroneous the Traditionalist statement may be, throwing around the "h"-word will not bring any help in resolving the controversy at hand. From the bottom of my heart I sincerely admit my mistake.

However, I am still of the opinion that if taken at face-value, the Traditionalist statement on human sinfulness (article 2) and freewill (article 8) is nothing but outright semi-Pelagianism[1]. But since I don't want to believe that those who drafted and signed the document are all staunch heretics, I'll be giving them the benefit of the doubt that they never had any intention to make their position appear as it now appears to be, i.e. semi-Pelagianistic—it just so happen that the document was poorly worded. Hence, though the letter of the document seems to promote semi-Pelagianism, the spirit of the document is nonetheless orthodox. Particular statements within the document which seems to side with semi-Pelagianism, therefore, can be interpreted in such wise that it does not cross the line of orthodoxy. Of course this has already been the attempt of many who defend the statement from the charge of semi-Pelagianism, but I have yet to see any convincing explanation/argument that really vindicates the statement from such charge. The common strategy of most of them[2] looks like this:
  1. Number one, overlook the historical background of the semi-Pelagian controversy in the early Church, 
  2. Number two, ignore the most essential mark that makes up the semi-Pelagian position (i.e. affirmation of the fall + denial total depravity) and limit its definition to the logical implications attached to it by the early Church (i.e. that it promotes works salvation; that faith is a meritorious work; that salvation begins with man, etc.), 
  3. And lastly, proclaim to all the world: "See? We are not semi-Pelagians!"
This just doesn't work. It won't. The only solution I can suggest for the Traditionalists is to (1) embrace the historical orthodox position (held by both classical Arminians and Calvinists) that all men are totally depraved in Sin and are not able to have a positive saving response to the Gospel apart from a prevenient, internal, divine enablement; and (2) interpret the Traditionalist statement within its bounds. How? Here's my suggested interpretation (which in my opinion can save the document from its apparent semi-Pelagian tendency):
  • The statement "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will" in article 2 should not be taken to mean that fallen sinners aren't totally depraved in Sin, but merely that they always make voluntary/uncoerced choices. Man never lost  his capacity to choose between options (article 8), though by his Fall he lost all inclination of will towards all saving good, i.e. repentance and faith (cf. Gen. 6:5; Ec. 9:3; Rom. 3:9-12; 1 Cor. 2:14). In other words, it's not that sinners have no capacity to believe, but that they will never be inclined to exercise that capacity[3] apart from a prevenient, liberating work of grace in their hearts (Jn. 6:44, 65; Ac. 16:14; Php. 2:13).
  • What is this prevenient work of grace? Article 4 reads: "We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit..." This means that when the Gospel is preached to totally depraved sinners, the Holy Spirit automatically neutralizes the effects of Sin in their hearts, thereby giving them sufficient freedom to positively respond to the Gospel by faith and repentance. However, this work of the Spirit does not guarantee conversion; it just makes it possible. This idea is already presupposed in the last clause in the denial portion of article 2 which says "we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel."
  • The statement "We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel..." in article 8 should be understood in the same sense as explained in the first bullet. 
There you have it. An interpretation acceptable within the bounds of orthodoxy, yet very non-Calvinistic. It may certainly sound Arminian; but man, it's definitely way better than semi-Pelagianism! I'm not saying it is the correct view, but for sure it is a position that keeps its feet within the fence of orthodoxy however opposed it is to Calvinism. All Southern Baptists, whether Calvinist or not, should keep themselves within that fence, and the purpose of this suggestion is to help the Traditionalist do just that. Take it or leave it. If they shall refuse, fine; but they must face the fact that plain-reading of the Traditionalist statement is nothing but outright semi-Pelagianism in light of overwhelming historical evidences[4]. On the other hand, if the Traditionalists will accept this suggestion, they must prepare themselves to do a lot of explaining each and every time the same charge is thrown at them. Until they revise the statement and remove all its ambiguities, they are bound to do so. 

In the final analysis, all these clearly show how problematic and completely unhelpful the Traditionalist document is. Therefore, why support it at all?

-Jeph

-------------
[1] Semi-Pelagianism is a theological system which affirms the fall of mankind but denies total depravity.
[2] See some of their denials here, here, and here

[3] A good parallel illustration is this: "I have the capacity to massacre all my children, but I will never be inclined to do so."
[4] St. Augustine's letter 217 to Vitalis of Carthage; Council of Orange (529); Rev. Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, Ch. III, p. 328

Thursday, June 7, 2012

"Despise yourself when you are Praised"


When we are doing well in our pursuit of holiness or service to God and we hear people say, "Wow, this guy's really something!" How should we respond? Here's a nice answer from St. Augustine:
For, brethren, ye heard just now when the Gospel was read, at least if ye had for it the ear not only of the body but also of the heart. What said it? “Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them.” (Matthew 6:1) Did He mean to say this, that whatever good things we do, we should hide them from the eyes of men, and fear to be seen? If thou fearest spectators thou wilt not have imitators: thou oughtest therefore to be seen. But thou must not do it to the end thou mayest be seen. Not there should be the end of thy joy, not there the goal of thy rejoicing, that thou shouldest account thyself to have gotten the whole fruit of thy good work, when thou art seen and praised. This is nothing. Despise thyself when thou art praised, let Him be praised in thee who worketh by thee. Therefore do not for thine own praise work the good thou doest: but to the praise of Him from whom thou hast the power to do good. From thy self thou hast the ill doing, from God thou hast the well doing...

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

How to Deny the Obvious

"...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"
(Gen. 2:17)
You know when you keep on saying you are not something people say you are, and yet you yourself are providing clear evidences that prove you are actually what other people say about you? That's how you deny the obvious. Over on the SBCvoices, Rick Patrick has posted an article defending himself and the Traditionalist document[1] from the charge of promoting semi-Pelagianism. How did Rick try to pluck himself and his company out of the mess? Simple.
  1. Ignore the historical facts (i.e. the main issue that sparked the semi-Pelagian controversy)
  2. Create your own definition of terms (e.g. semi-Pelagianism)
  3. And say, "See? We're not what you guys think we are!"
In an attempt to prove they are not semi-Pelagians, Rick limited his definition of semi-Pelagianism within the box of its logical implications while completely ignoring the most essential ingredient that makes up the said system; namely, the tandem of affirming the fall and denial of total depravity. He defines semi-Pelagianism this way:
Semi-Pelagianism is a milder form of the heresy admitting that the sin of Adam passed on to his posterity resulting in our propensity to evil. However, it still maintains that (1) salvation begins with man, (2) this inclination on the part of man toward God is a meritorious work, and (3) this results in man cooperating with God in the salvation of his own soul.
Rick keeps on saying over and over that since they don't adhere to those three marks of a semi-Pelagian as mentioned in his definition, they should not be therefore reckoned as such. However, if one would go deep in history and examine the historical background of the dispute between St. Augustine and the SP folks, one would discover that Rick's description of semi-Pelagianism is not really what the ancient semi-Pelagians have explicitly taught! It was St. Augustine and his defenders who attached those logical implications to the SP position, but the semi-Pelagians never openly taught those ideas themselves.

For instance, Vitalis of Carthage—one of the earliest proponents, if not the originator, of semi-Pelagianism—agreed with St. Augustine's statement that a prevenient grace is necessary for man to be able to come to Christ (which means he denies that salvation ultimately begins in man), but he maintained that this "prevenient grace" refers only to the external preaching of the Gospel/law—not to any form of internal divine enablement. Vitalis argued that since fallen sinners still possess the natural capacity of will to believe in Christ (though they won't have the chance to exercise that capacity apart from hearing the Gospel[2]), no internal enablement of grace is necessary; an idea that is virtually the same with the Traditionalist position[3].

In response to Vitalis[4], St. Augustine contended that this idea is tantamount to saying that grace is given according to merits (or that salvation begins with man, in other words). Why? Because if faith is a product of human nature, and that the whole process of salvation hinges on this faith, then faith becomes the ultimate determining factor of worth in receiving salvation. The plan of redemption may have been initiated by God, but the actual internal reality of this redemption is initiated within man by his own unaided decision to believe the Gospel. This, according to St. Augustine (not Vitalis), is equal to saying that faith is a meritorious work.

My point here is that the Traditionalist's attempt to escape the obvious semi-Pelagian tendencies of the TraDoc by confining the definition of semi-Pelagianism within the box of how the early Church saw its logical implications is nothing but lame. The heart of semi-Pelagianism (and full Pelagianism) is the denial of man's inherent inability of will to perform any godly virtue (i.e. saving faith, repentance, good works, etc) as an effect of his Fall[5], and it is more than obvious that this is the same position promoted in the Traditionalist statement[3]. To make things worse, Rick further confirmed our suspicion when he wrote (emphasis mine):
Yes, in the view of Traditionalism, man is responsible–able to respond. Thus, unlike the Arminian, he needs no prevenient grace to respond to God because he is already able to do it, and unlike the Calvinist, he needs no unconditional election, since God’s election (or salvation) of his soul is conditioned upon his free and faithful acceptance of God’s grace. (source)
If this is not semi-Pelagianism, what is it?

-Jeph

----------
[1] To get some background on the debate, click here
[2] Rev. Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, Ch. III, p. 328
[3] Article 2 of the Traditionalist statement reads: "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel." 
[4] St. Augustine, Letter 217
[5] Council of Orange (529), canons 3-8

"Nasaan ang Paggalang na Nararapat Para sa Akin?"

Daloy ng buong aklat ng Malakias:
Nang pinayagan ng mga mananakop ang mga Judio na makabalik sa kanilang lupain at muling itayo ang templo, nagkaroon ng panibagong pag-asa; pag-asang tuloy-tuloy na ang pagpapala ng Panginoon sa kanyang bayan- Kasaganaan, Kapayapaan, Kaunlaran ng bayang Israel.

Subalit hindi pa man lumilipas ang sandaang taon, muling nakaramdam ng pagkabigo ang bayan. Hindi naganap ang kanilang inaasahan. Sa kabanata 3:14, ganito ang kanilang reklamo: “Walang kabuluhan/Walang Saysay ang maglingkod sa Diyos. Ano ang ating pakinabang/ano ang ating napala sa pagsunod sa kanyang mga utos? Ano ang ating napala sa ating pagluluksa sa ating mga kasalanan?”

Sa ganitong panahon isinugo ng Panginoon ang Propetang Malakias.

Ang unang tiniyak ng Panginoon ay ang kanyang Pag-ibig. Sa Kabanata 1:2, “Inibig ko kayo”, diin ng Panginoon at bilang patunay, inihambing Niya ang kalagayan ng Israel sa kalunos-lunos na kalagayan ng kapatid na bansang Edom. Pagkatapos, sa buong aklat ni Malakias ay inilahad ng Panginoon ang tunay na sanhi ng pagkaudlot ng mga pagpapala:

1. Paglapastangan ng Israel sa kanilang paghahandog
2. Pakikipaghiwalay sa kanilang asawa
3. Pag-aasawa ng mga sumasamba sa mga diyus-diyusan
4. Pananamantala sa mga nangangailangan
5. At pagnanakaw sa pamamagitan ng hindi pagbibigay ng nararapat na ikapu at mga kaloob.

Ang lahat ng mga nabanggit ay paglabag sa Kautusang ibinigay ng Diyos kay Moises. Ang pagkukulang sa hindi sa Diyos. Ang nararapat na pagbuntunan ng sisi ay ang Israel. Sa sandaling panahon matapos muling maitayo ang templo, ang bayan ay bumalik sa buhay na marumi- buhay na bulok- buhay na mabaho.

Basahin: Malakias 1:6-14

Ang unang hinarap ng Panginoon ay ang mga saserdote/pari. Sa kautusang ibinigay kay Moises, ang mga pari ang inatasang mangasiwa sa mga handog na ihahain sa altar. Hindi dapat tanggapin ang may sakit, ang bulag, may pilay, may bali, putol o durog ang ari, may pangangati, may galis; Ang mga baka, tupa o kambing na iaalay ay dapat walang kapansanan o anumang kapintasan.

Subalit ang mga utos na ito ay binale-wala ng Israel at ito’y kinunsinti ng mga pari/saserdote.

Hindi naman sa ang Diyos ay nangangailangan. Ang bawat malusog na baka, kambing at tupa, hindi lamang sa Israel kundi sa buong mundo ay pag-aari ni YHWH. Ang Panginoon ay hindi isang pulubi na namamalimos ng handog; sapagkat ang lahat ng yaman sa ibabaw at ilalim ng lupa, sa gubat, sa karagatan, sa himpapawid at maging sa langit at pag-aari ng Panginoon.

Hindi naman talaga handog ang hanap Niya, subalit ang mga inihahain nilang mga handog ay nagpapakita ng kalagayan ng kanilang mga puso. Kaya naman dito sa ika-6 na talata ay kanyang sinabi: “ O mga Pari na humahamak sa aking Pangalan”. Pangit ang kanilang mga handog sapagkat pangit rin ang kanilang puso- Mga pusong humahamak sa pangalan ng Diyos.

“Iginagalang ng anak ang kanyang ama”
“Iginagalang ng alipin ang kanyang amo”


Subalit nasaan ang paggalang na para sa Diyos. Ang kanilang mga handog ay hindi tanda ng pagsamba. Bagkus ito ay tanda ng pagyurak sa ngalan ng Diyos.

Ang kanilang mga pangit na handog ay ni hindi nga tatangapin ng gobernador. Ito ay insulto para sa gobernador. Ngunit sino ba ang gobernador kung ihahambing sa kaluwalhatian ng Diyos? Sino ba ang mga mortal na hari sa ibabaw ng lupa kung ihahambing sa kaluwalhatian ng walang hanggang Diyos na nakaluklok sa langit at ang lupa ay tuntungan lamang ng kanyang mga paa. Sa talata 14 ay kanyang inihayag: “Ako ay isang Dakilang Hari... Ang aking Pangalan ay kinatatakutan ng mga bansa."

Mga kapatid, nasa puso pa ba natin iyon, na ang ating Diyos ay isang Dakilang Hari, at nararapat lamang sa kanya ang ating pinakamainam na alay- at iyan ay ang ating buhay? Nawa’y ating sikapin na ang ating buhay ay maihain natin sa kanya nang walang bahid ng anumang kapintasan- isang haing buhay na katanggap-tanggap para sa isang Dakilang Hari..

Mga kapatid, ito ang dapat nating katakutan.
Sa ika-10 talata ay makikita natin na mas nanaisin pa ng Panginoon na makitang nakasara ang mga pintuan ng templo kaysa sa pagpapatuloy ng pag-aalay ng mga handog na hindi naman Niya ikinatutuwa. Kung hindi na natin kinikilala ang Kadakilaan ng ating Hari, kung wala na tayong paggalang sa kanya, mas nanaisin ng Panginoon na maisara ang mga pintuan ng gusaling ito. Kung wala na tayong takot sa Diyos, wala ng kabuluhan ang ating pag-awit, at mas gugustuhin ng Panginoon na manahimik ang ikatlong palapag ng Armar Building.
Ito po ating isa-isip, ngayon at sa susunod nating mga pagtitipon.

Eternal Security and Licentiousness


Paul told the believers in Rome that there's now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Aside from having been freely acquitted and counted righteous in God's sight through faith in His Son (Rom. 3:24-28, 4:4-6, 5:1), Paul wrote that they have also received the life-giving Spirit of Christ by whom "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5), leading them to walk in the newness of life God has prepared from them beforehand (Rom. 8:2-27; cf. Eph. 2:10). There's no way Sin can take hold of them once more because they're no longer under its power (Rom. 6:1-2). God, who is greater than all, makes everything to work together for the good of His children (Rom. 8:28), and this is in accordance to His good pleasure and eternal purpose in predestination (Rom. 8:29; cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Thus, all whom God has chosen for Himself in eternity past will be finally glorified (Rom. 8:30). Nothing can totally overcome them because their sovereign Father is in control (Rom. 8:31; cf. Jn. 10:27-39). Because God didn't spare His Son but gave Him up for their own sake, surely He will also grant them whatever grace they need unto the fullness of Salvation (Rom. 8:31-34).

Having said all the above, the conclusion is inevitable:
"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,  nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:37-39)
This conclusive declaration of Paul concerning the assurance of salvation for those whom God has called according to His purpose (i.e. the elect) echoes that of Christ in John 10:27-29 which says:
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (Jn. 10:27-29)
Baptists call this doctrine as Eternal Security[1] in Christ; a glorious display of the greatness of God's grace and sovereignty in the whole process of redemption, yet also one of the most controversial and often misunderstood. The main objection thrown at this biblical teaching is that it seems to entice the Christian to be slothful and licentious. Critics of eternal security argue that if one cannot lose his salvation, it follows that it won't matter if Christians would just sit around the corner and neglect all that God has commanded them to do. Never mind going to church (Heb. 10:25). Never mind going out for evangelism (Mat. 28:19-20). Never mind reading the Bible (Josh. 1:8) or making every effort to become more like Christ (2 Pe. 1:5-10). Why bother if in the first place being holy or not won't make any difference to one's eternal destiny? Seems legit.

On the contrary, however, the glorious truth of our salvation being not in any way dependent on human performance should serve as a motivation for true Christians to be all the more eager to glorify their Lord and Savior with their lives. This is clearly seen in Titus 3:5-8. After stressing the complete gratuitousness of our salvation in verses 5-7, the apostle Paul went on to say:
"The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people." (Tit. 3:8)
Paul advised Titus to insist on the glorious doctrine of our gratuitous salvation in order to compel "those who have believed in God" to be "careful to devote themselves to good works"! This worked for me personally. When I learned from my study of God's Word that my Lord and Savior remains faithful even when I'm not (2 Tim. 2:13); that He will carry into completion at the day of Jesus Christ the work of salvation that He has begun in me (Php. 1:6; cf. Rom. 8:30); and that no one can ever pluck my soul out of His sovereign hand (Jn. 10:27-29), great joy, peace, and deep gratitude filled my innermost soul. All worldly fear and insecurity that once troubled my heart vanished altogether (Rom. 8:15), and I was left energized and ablaze to do more for Christ. Definitely, the doctrine of eternal security didn't make me slothful and licentious. Quite the opposite; it made me a better person!

Now I don't deny the potential danger in over-emphasizing the statement: "we are still saved even if we sin." While it is true that God never ceases to be our Father despite our shortcomings (see Heb. 12:5-11), this is just a portion of the whole truth concerning our eternal security in Christ, and a portion of truth is no better than a lie if not united with the other portions of the whole truth. The whole truth—and this must always be stressed—is that since God mightily preserves and sanctifies His children by His grace, all true believers will surely persevere in faith and holiness[2] unto the end (1 Sam. 2:9). The apostle John wrote:
"We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them." (1 Jn. 5:18)
A child of God may sometimes fall into sin through neglect and temptation, but God would never permit him to totally return to his old sinful lifestyle or finally repudiate his saving relationship with Christ (1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pe. 1:5). Our Father, being infinitely wise and sovereign (Rom. 10:32-36), can use even our downfalls to benefit us at the end of the day (Rom. 8:28). Yet it should also be emphasized that all professing Christians have the responsibility to evince their salvation by their works (Php. 2:12; Jas. 2:14-24; 2 Pe. 1:5-7). Doing so doesn't make one eternally secure, but it further confirms the genuineness of one's profession of faith (Mat. 7:16; Jn. 8:31; 2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Pe. 1:10).

In the final analysis, Eternal security is not a teaching that promotes idleness and licentious living. Far from it. It is a biblical doctrine that brings glory to God's grace and mobilizes true Christians to unceasingly worship God by pursuing Christ-likness.
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 24-25)
Praise God for His unfailing grace!

-Jeph

----------
[1] Early Baptist documents with strong Calvinistic leaning such as the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) call this doctrine as Perseverance of the Saints, emphasizing the need for professing Christians to persevere in faith and holiness as an outward evidence of their being truly born-again. Some Baptists, however, didn't like the term Perseverance as it can give wrong impression that we maintain our salvation by our works, so they prefer to call it Preservation of the Saints—emphasizing God's active role in keeping his saints secure. Both are valid designations and refer to the same concept, but in this paper we will use Eternal Security for the sake of brevity. 
[2] This doesn't mean we can no longer sin. Christians do sin (1 Jn. 1:8), but they don't deliberately live in Sin (1 Jn. 5:18), nor can they return to their old sinful lifestyle (Rom. 6:1-2) because they are now a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Calvinism at work


The "Watchdog" Donnie Manuel, owner of one of my favorite blog-sites, is celebrating his 8th spiritual birthday today and recalls how "Calvinism" (not the concept itself, but the reality of the concept at work in the world) "drastically" changed his life since he got saved. Check out his latest post here and be blessed.

Praise God for His grace! Praise God for Calvinism!

-Jeph

Keep me burning, Lord!


Are you slowly loosing that burning desire to serve Jesus with your life that was once in your heart when you first encountered Him? You must be running out of oil. What oil? The joy of our Salvation; the filling of the Holy Spirit in our souls. 

"Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit." (Psa. 51:12)

Ask. Plead. Cry for His mercy, and you shall receive. 

Give me oil in my lamp
Keep me burning
Give me oil in my lamp
I pray, Hallelujah!
Give me oil in my lamp
Keep me burning
Keep me burning till the break of day.

Sing, Hosanna!, Sing, Hosanna!,
Sing, Hosanna! 
To the King of Kings.
Sing, Hosanna!, Sing, Hosanna!,
Sing, Hosanna! 
To the King!

Give me peace in my heart
Make me humble
Give me peace in my heart
I pray, Hallelujah!
Give me peace in my heart
Make me humble
Make me humble for another day.

-Jeph

Saturday, June 2, 2012

My Response to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

John Calvin and Jacobos Arminius
Much has been said about the controversial document that has been drafted recently and used by non-Calvinist Southern Baptists for their campaign against the rise of the "New Calvinism" within the SBC. The strategy is simple: Ignore the historical facts and condition the minds of the people by making Calvinism appear strange and alien to the SBC tradition. Of course this would mean painting caricatures (gross misrepresentations) about the reformed soteriology. For example, in the "denial" portion of the ninth article of the document, it states (emphasis mine):
We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.
Interesting. Now I want to know where on earth did these people get the idea that Calvinists teach that faith is not a human response but solely an act of God as if it is God who does the believing in our stead? I have yet to meet a Calvinist who believes so. What Calvinists believe, on the contrary, is that faith is both a human act and a divine gift. To borrow St. Augustine's words: "It is we that act when we act, but it is [God] who causes us to act." This is clearly taught in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." The coming is our own act, but it is God's drawing that causes sinners to come.

I can quote many other portions in the TSBUGP-document in which the Calvinist position is grossly misrepresented, but that's not my main intention here. Their rejection of Calvinism and their divisive campaigns against its rise in the SBC is not what really alarms me. What concerns me, however, is the document's apparent crossing over the bounds of doctrinal orthodoxy. Specifically speaking, I believe the document is heading towards a heresy known as semi-Pelagianism, and this is quite dangerous.

First I want to define what I mean by semi-Pelagianism. When I asserted elsewhere that those who signed the document are not Arminians but semi-Pelagians, a supporter of the document responded by insisting that they do not hold to works-salvation, and for this reason, should not be reckoned as semi-Pelagians. Certainly, this is not what I meant when I labeled their position as such. In the first place, explicit adherence to works-salvation is not what essentially makes up a semi-Pelagian. It is the denial of the absolute necessity of the internal, enabling work of God's grace for the execution any saving good (i.e. faith & repentance) which makes one either a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. Let me explain further.
Pelagianism maintains that Adam's sin did not affect his moral liberty in any way. The consequences and guilt of his sin is his alone. All men are born with the same nature as that of Adam when he was created, so there's no need for any internal working of God's grace for the execution of godly virtues (i.e. faith, repentance, good works, etc). The only "grace" necessary for us to fulfill our duty is the knowledge of the Gospel / law.  
Semi-Pelagianism, on the other hand, affirms that Adam's sin has brought corruption of nature to himself and his posterity, but it did not totally destroy his moral liberty. Man's fallen nature, although corruptly bias towards sin, still has the moral capacity to seek God on his own and make the first step of faith apart from the divine enablement. All humanity shares this condition.
These ideas were condemned by the early Church as heresy, aberrant, and beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Even classical (orthodox) Arminians would treat these doctrines as serious errors that should be guarded against by the faithful. However, the TSBUGP-document has apparently taken the road towards the second error; namely, that of heresy of semi-Pelagianism (if not pure Pelagianism). This is clearly seen in the second article of the document which reads:
Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man 
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. 
We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel. (emphasis added)
This denial of original sin and total depravity is tantamount to saying that conversion isn't a gift from God (Jn. 3:27, 6:65; Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:30, 4:7; Php. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25-26); an idea that is devilishly opposed to what the Bible says concerning the vast effects of the fall (Gen. 6:5; Jn. 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12, 5:12, 18, 6:20, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:4) and the necessity of a prevenient enabling work of God's grace for conversion (Jn. 6:44, 15:5). The document claims this is the "traditional" Southern Baptist position, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The real traditional Southern Baptist view of biblical anthropology is found in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858) which states:
VI. The Fall of Man. 
God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors. (emphasis added)
Notice it doesn't just say we have a corrupt nature, but that we have inherited a nature "corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law" and are "under condemnation." This is another way of saying that we are born condemned / under God's wrath (Psa. 51:5; Eph. 2:3) and dead in our trespasses and Sin (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1), that whatever good thing we have which pertains to our relationship with God does not have its origin from ourselves, but from God as a gift (1 Cor. 4:7; Jas. 1:17). In other words, Southern Baptists have always held that the divine enabling work of grace is absolutely necessary for the execution of all godly virtues (Deut. 30:6; Eze. 36:26-27; Php. 2:13). This is one article of our Christian faith—along with the doctrine of justification by grace, the holy Trinity, hypostatic union, the virgin birth, sinless perfection, death and ressurection of Christ, etc.—to which the Church stands or falls. It is plain heresy to say that Adam's fall did not result in the incapacitaton of his and his posterity's moral liberty (indicating that we can make the first step of faith towards Christ without being first moved or enabled by God from within).

Again, I wouldn't have any problem with any anti-Calvinistic campaigns within the SBC so long as there is no deliberate move to drive us out of the convention, and that no heretical teachings are advanced by those who oppose our soteriological convictions (and this must go both ways). Unfortunately, we've clearly seen how the divisive, recently-drafted document of the non-Calvinist Southern Baptists had crossed the line. Thus, I believe the campaign should be denied of any support by every discerning Southern Baptists, not simply because it is against Calvinism, but because it is outrightly heretical and certainly not Southern Baptist.

-Jeph

Monday, May 28, 2012

The Public Square (Part 2)

II. The advantages of engaging into dialogues or debates.

This is the part 2 of the paper that I presented before.  Before I cleared the misconceptions. Now we will be talking about the advantages of engaging into dialogues or debates (on the presumption that the basis is truth and not myth).   

Most of us are engaging into a debate everyday. In schools, at the office, into chit chat, etc. Not that formal though but most if not all is onto debating. 

I will summarize the advantages in engaging into a mature and based on truth debates. 

I will use 2D's:

Define
Decode

Define

I am currently reading this book now by Ron Martoia. His thesis is all about the languages that we are using that somehow misinterpret by the nonChristians. I may not agree to all of his positions but I agree that we have to define (or redefine) the terms that we are always using.

Sometimes, by just sharing our faith the non Christians misquote us and worse, reject the gospel. In a dialogue we will have a chance to define our faith on the level that our audience can understand. The one way communication can't relay properly the message but with dialogue or two way communication the non Christians may ask and require us to answer about our hope... Our faith.. Our God  (Please read 1 Peter 3:15). Since there is an interaction we can define what we mean by the terms that we are using. 

Let's have an experiment. What is the first picture that comes to your mind if I will say Church. Some may say a big building. Others may say a group of people. It is because we have different backgrounds, family traditions and upbringing. We are all different. Defining our terms into an interaction may open the gate for open discussion for the non Christians that continues to reject the gospel because of our mispresentation of it.

Decode

Remember this book ? This is the book of full of symbols that the characters of this novel need to decode for them to understand the whole message.

If other may not understand us, we too sometimes have misinterpretations and misquotations on the things that they believe. 

If we will understand what they think. If we will know how they play they game. On how they use the language. We may be able to understand their needs. 

If you can notice, Jesus and Paul have different teaching styles. Why? Because they have different audiences with different questions in life. If we know their questions we may know what they want to hear from us.


-Danes

Saturday, May 26, 2012

The Public Square (Part 1)


When I first encountered a group of apologist on the internet I was really amazed and confused. They called themselves as The Bereans Apologetics Reasearch Ministry. These people has a forum on their website, where registered members may discuss matters of faith. Members of the forum consists of Evangelicals, Roman Catholic, SDA's, INC's, ADD's etc. I got really confused since I believe that debating is wrong and very unChristian. I believe that our focus should only read and preach the scripture and prayer.

With that frame of preference I still try to register into their forum site. I have also read the verses of this ministry.

Acts 17:11
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
and

1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

After reading the verses I found myself discussing and sharing the good news to the unbelievers and critics of Christianity. In this paper I will discuss the following.

I. Misconceptions about apologetics, dialouges and debates.
II. The advantages of engaging into dialouges or debates.
III, Some tips for a friendly approach in apologetics.

I. Misconceptions about apologetics.

Like what I have said above, it was my belief that engaging into a religous dialogue is a BIG-NO-NO to serious Christians. We need only to pray and share the love of God to others (without arguing with them). Some, if not most of Christians, misused or misunderstood Paul's letter to Timothy and say that we are not allowed to debate since it will promote controversy or speculations instead of truth.

1 Timothy 1
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

But by looking at the passage Paul didn't prohibit Tim to engage to a dialouge but on the contrary he admonished Timothy to do so. The basis of their controversy is not truth, not the Bible but myths. Paul is not prohibiting discussion perse but discussion without the basis of truth.

If you will read the gospels, our Lord engaged into discussion into the religious genuises of His day. Disarming the lies with the truth. If you will read John3 you will read a good point from our Lord in His discussion with Nicodemus.

Apostle Paul as well engage into discussions into his missions. We can read at Acts 17 the following words:

As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.


-Danes