That Was Tough

The uncompromising message of Pastor John MacArthur against same-sex marriage

Image courtesy of Youtube.com

I have a disclaimer Before I begin: The image above maybe different from when he had said the message that I’d be referring to. So if you’re going to ask me for a specific Youtube link, you may excuse me for not having a single clip to give. Moreover, I do not own the image nor will use it for profit.

It’s been a month already when the news came out. A mainline pro (ugh!)-, a mainline pro (welp!), a mainline protestant denomination (notice how I intentionally refrained myself from adding “Christian” between “protestant” and “denomination”) approved of “Adam and Steve’s” union to further severe its ties with today’s Evangelicalism. While it’s devastating enough to know that they have totally departed from the historic and Biblical Christian view of marriage, it’s also another way of rejoicing over the fact that not everyone within the fellowship agrees with it.

We’re leaving. Bye.

Not everyone is Christian. It’s as true as saying that not everyone who profess with their tongue that He is Lord will enter the Kingdom of God. They have fallen away and we can only pray that the Lord is not done yet with the people there who are yet to be redeemed.

While the issue is starting to wane in social media (at least to where I’m currently at), there are still notions (out of ignorance probably) that this Presbyterian denomination had done it because they’re Calvinists. Ah! They’re Calvinists, you say? Just because they’re “Presbyterians”? Come on! I invite you to study and read more to avoid fallacy.

I have always loved good ecumenical relationships. When I say “good”, I mean to say real and Biblical, and when I say “ecumenical”, I mean to say that of a coalition without compromising key doctrines and not another. One of which, would be the setting aside of usual and never-ending debates on certain issues pertaining to this, this and this, and rather focusing on the things that tend to question our identity and distinction from other denominations.

“I have always loved good ecumenical relationships.”-Jerboy Magalang

Recently, I posted an article on Facebook about John MacArthur’s critical reaction to seminaries and denominations teaching a new perspective on marriage. Forget the debates on baptism, eschatology and many others as of the moment and just read the very words of his with regard to the issue:

“They have no allegiance to the Bible, … You go back to every one of those seminaries … for a century [they] have been deniers of biblical authority, they have no relationship to scripture, they are the apostate church, they are Satan’s church.” — Pastor John MacArthur

(Read the rest of the article by clicking here.)

Whew. That‘s just it! Pastor John MacArthur putting a nail in the coffin even before it’s finalized. Finally, this is what I believe every professing believer should say about the issue.

There’s but one.

(About Jerboy)

“Not everyone is Christian.”-Jerboy Magalang

This article originally appeared on @sentirem; Jerboy Magalang's blog. Republished with permission from the author and by the grace of co-authors.

“Daniel saw it… then Mark!” (On Jesus as The Son of Man)

Need more power!!!

Ever wonder where Jesus had said in the Bible that He’s God? Have you ever asked yourself if He was truly Divine? Maybe He’s just man. Maybe He’s more than just a man but no Divine. Maybe it would be easier to just open a jar than to think about this “mystery” as some would say. Maybe. Just maybe.

You may notice that while I am trying to begin an introductory to this article, I’m very much sure that He is Divine (Notice how I often capitalize “H” when I pertain to Him). Anyway, here are the two verses to show you one from Old and one from New proving that He is who He is:

In the Old Testament, we find the following verses in Daniel 7:13–14:

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

In the New Testament, we can see in Mark 14:61–62 that it was Jesus who claimed to be The Son of Man:

61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

Why was He called the Son of Man? In the Jewish context the title, Son of God was nothing but a mere human title. For them, to be called, Son of Man was something Divine. This was proven to have been the case when the high priest (who are very much the experts and/or “Ph.Ds” of the Old Testament Revelations) tore their clothes and exclaimed;

“Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” with “all condemning Him as worth of death.”

We can see how Jesus caused the high priests to tear their clothes and shout blasphemy after He had claimed to be The Son of Man. Surely, this was not the right thing to say at the time especially if He’s claiming that He’s but man. But He’s not. He is God.

“I thought you’re gonna fly, balloon?” Liar.

And in fact, to deny that Jesus is no God is blasphemous enough, making us liars as stated by the Apostle John in 1 John 2:22, saying:

“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist — denying the Father and the Son.”

If you’re planning to pick a fight on the matter, may I ask you to hold your horses as these two verses are not the only ones proving such to be true. In fact, there are lots of verses that I can refer to than what I can actually write about His Divinity.

Maybe I can just cherry-pick a verse that says it otherwise.

What’s your pick?

This article originally appeared on @sentirem; Jerboy Magalang's blog. Republished with permission from the author and by the grace of co-authors.

The Savior that Saves

Though all professing Christians—regardless of religious affiliation—would readily confess Jesus Christ as their Savior, what most of them really have in mind when they say that is that Christ has done certain things to open the gates of heaven for us sinners (like dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins) but the rest is still up to us. This idea is very prominent among the cults of Christianity; e.g. Roman Catholicism, Iglesia ni Cristo (1914), Ang Dating Daan, and many others, each of which has its own version of a redeemer that attempts to save sinners only half-way through the process (if not most of it) then it's all up to the individual sinner to complete his own salvation—either by joining a religious organization, or by dedicating one's full allegiance and loyalty to a self-proclaimed apostle or prophet, or by doing good works, or a combination of all such things and what not.

Sadly, the idea of a halfway accomplished redemption (a heresy, by the way, since it is a blatant denial of Solus Cristus) is rampant among so many evangelical churches, too. God respects our freedom because He is a gentleman and would never save us apart from our willing cooperation; so goes the argument. God is viewed as merely attempting to save sinners by eliciting their cooperation (their final 'Yes') but actually powerless to make their Salvation a reality since He is supposed to "respect" their so-called freewill. Here we have God making good plans for man but it is man's freewill that prevails. Quite the contrary is what we find in Proverbs 19:21 NIV which says:

"Many are the plans in a person’s heart,
but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails."

We possess no freedom of any sort to which the sovereign will of God is bound to concede. God rules over all things (Dan. 4:35). He is the Potter and we are the lump of dirty fallen clay at His disposal (Isa. 68:4; Rom. 9:18-23).  The course of our actions, therefore, does not determine the will of God, but it is the other way around. For "who," asks Paul, "has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:35-36 NASB). 

The truth is, God does not respect our moral freedom because we don't have such freedom in the first place! For "Very truly I tell you," Jesus told the unbelieving Jesus, "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn. 8:34 NIV; see also Rom. 6:20 & 2 Pe. 2:19). If we have any freedom of our own apart from the liberty that comes from Christ (Jn. 8:36), it is but a freedom only from righteousness (Rom. 6:20 KJV). We are void of all righteousness and our minds are hostile to God (Rom. 8:7-8).  Without the quickening power of the Spirit, we would never "accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to [us], and [we are] not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). We are all "dead in the trespasses and sins" and "by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:1-3). Salvation, therefore, cannot be up to us in any way. It's rather all up to Him who says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom. 9:15; cf. Exo. 33:19). 

A low view of Sin gives birth to low view of the gospel and of Christ's redemptive work. Many evangelicals have completely lost sight of how amazing God's grace is due to their shallow understanding of Sin and depravity. They have arrived to an erroneous view of our moral condition based on the presuppositions of various humanistic philosophies which aim to elevate the dignity of human beings beyond and contrary to what the Scripture actually describes us to be—that is, creatures that are fallen, totally depraved, and absolutely in need of a Savior that does not merely render salvation possible, but actually saves certain people to the uttermost by an atonement so powerful and sufficient that even the gift of conversion, together with all other graces necessary toward our final glorification, is guaranteed by it (Rom. 8:32-39, Eph. 1:3, 2:13; Heb. 7:25, 9:12, 12:2).

In this coming Holy Week, we will be commemorating the passion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And as we contemplate on the things that had transpired toward the climax of his redemptive mission here on earth 2000 years ago, always keep in mind that "it is finished" already (Jn. 19:30).  No merit of your own and no works done by your sinful hands would add up to what Christ has already accomplished for the Salvation of those who would put their trust in Him (Rom. 3:23-25).

- Jeph

Calvinism? Ano yun!?

Sa tuwing napaguusapan o nababanggit ang "Calvinism" sa facebook group na BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS, marami ang napapakamot ng ulo at napapatanong: Ano ba ang Calvinism? Sekta ba yan? Kulto ba yan? Ano ba ang tinuturo ng Calvinism na pinaniniwalaan ng mga Calvinists?

Kung isa ka sa mga nagnanais magkaroon ng kaalaman tungkol sa Calvinism, nasa tamang lugar ka ngayon sapagkat isang Calvinist ang nagsusulat nitong artikulong ito. Hayaan mong tulungan kitang naunawaan ang mga basic tenets (o payak na paniniwala) ng mga Calvinists na katulad ko, at kung ano-ano ang mga maling-akala na karaniwang ibinabato laban sa aming pinaniniwalaan.

Ang sekta ng Calvinism

Eeeengk! Mali. Hindi po sekta (o relihiyon) ang Calvinism. Ito ay isang "school of thought" lamang na naglalayong ipaliwanag ang kaugnayan sa pagitan ng pagiging soberenya (sovereignty) ng Diyos at ng ating kaligtasan. Bagamat may mga sekta na lubusang niyayakap ang mga prinsipyo ng Calvinism, may mga Calvinists na myembro rin sa ibat-ibang denominasyon. Sa madaling salita, hindi po sekta, denominasyon, relihiyon, o kulto ang Calvinism sapagkat hindi po ito naka-kahon sa iisang ispesipikong organisasyon o grupo. (Ikaw nga mismo eh, maaaring Calvinist ka; hindi mo lang alam!)

Sino ang may pakana?

Ang salitang "Calvinism" ay hango sa pangalan ng isang repormistang Pranses na si John Calvin noong ika-17 siglo. Gayunpaman, hindi po si John Calvin ang talagang may pakana ng mga doktrina ng Calvinism. Ipinangalan lamang ito kay Calvin sapagkat siya ang pinaka-prominenteng theologian na nagtanggol sa mga prinsipyo nito. Ang totoo nyan, bago pa naging tao si Calvin ay marami nang nauna sa kasaysayan ng Kristyanismo ang nanindigan para sa mga payak na prinsipyong nakapaloob sa Calvinism; gaya nina St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430), St. Prosper of Aquitaine (390 - 455), St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (462 - 527), St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 - 1153), Gottschalk of Orbais (808 - 867), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), John Wycliffe (1320 - 1384), at iba pa.

Pero teka lang! Bago mo isipin na hango lamang ang Calvinism sa pilosopiya ng mga taong nabanggit, alalahanin din natin na silang lahat ay nanindigan na ang kanilang mga aral ay batay mismo sa banal na Kasulatan (makikita natin yan sa ilang saglit lang). Samakatuwid, ang Calvinism ay hindi pakana ni John Calvin o pakana ng sinumang tao. Ito ay hango sa Salita ng Diyos.

Anong pinaglalaban ng Calvinism?

Simple lang naman ang pinaglalaban ng Calvinism. Ito ay ang katotohanan na ang kabuuan (100%) ng ating pagkaligtas---mula simula hanggang katapusan---ay nakasalalay lamang sa kapangyarihan at biyaya ng Diyos upang walang maipagmapuri ang sinuman. Ito ang pinaka-premis ng buong sistema ng Calvinism, at ibinuod pa ito ni San Pablo sa 1 Cor. 4:7,

"Sapagka't sino ang gumawa na ikaw ay matangi? at anong nasa iyo na hindi mo tinanggap? nguni't kung tinanggap mo, ay bakit mo ipinagmamapuri na tulad sa hindi mo tinanggap?" (TAB)

Ang pagmamapuri (o pagiging mayabang) ay nag-uugat sa maling akala na mayroon kang taglay na anumang mabuting bagay na hindi galing sa Diyos. Yan ang naging problema ng mga mananampalataya sa Corinto na sinulatan ng apostol. Nagkabaha-bahagi sila dahil inakala nilang utang na loob nila sa mga mangangaral (ng ebanghelyo) ang kanilang pananalig; ang iba ay nagtayo ng fans-club para kay Pablo, ang iba naman ay para kay Apollos, at ang iba ay kay Cefas, etc (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:4-5). Dahil dyan, ipinakita sa kanila ng apostol (mula kabanata 1 hanggang 3) na ang mismong pananalig nila ay kaloob (regalo) na galing sa Diyos at hindi galing sa ibang tao o sa mga sarili nila kaya dapat na nilang itigil ang pakikipag-pataasan ng ere (1 Cor. 1:30-31, 2:4-5, 12-14, 3:6-9).

Maraming Cristiano ngayon ang may parehong maling akala gaya ng sa mga taga-Corinto. Inaakala nilang inalok lamang sa kanila ng Diyos ang kaligtasan ngunit ang mismong pagtanggap nila ay nakasalalay na sa sarili nilang pasiya. Kung tama ang ideyang ito, lalabas na ang sarili nating merito (i.e. merito ng pagtanggap kay Cristo) ang siyang  nagtangi sa atin tungo sa kaligtasan, at kung gayon nga ay hindi na ito maaaring ituring na "ayon sa biyaya" (Rom. 11:6).

"Ngunit ngayon, Oh Panginoon, ikaw ay aming Ama; kami ang malagkit na putik, at ikaw ay magpapalyok namin; at kaming lahat ay gawa ng iyong mga kamay." (Isa. 64:8)

Totoong ang pananalig natin ang siyang naghihiwalay sa atin mula sa mga taong napapahamak, ngunit ang pananalig bang ito'y bunga lamang ng ating sariling desisyon? o ipinagkaloob lamang din sa atin ng Diyos? Kung ito'y galing lamang sa ating mga sarili, mayroon nga tayong maipagmamapuri - at mali ang Calvinism. Ngunit"sino," tanong ni San Pablo, "ang gumagawa na ikaw ay matangi?" Obyusli, ang sagot sa katanungang yan ay walang iba kundi ang Dios. Ayon nga kay Jesus: "Ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ibinigay sa akin ng aking Ama. Walang nakakakilala sa Anak kundi ang Ama; at walang nakakakilala sa Ama, kundi ang Anak, at sinumang piliin ng Anak na pagpahayagan niya. " (Mat. 11:27, MBB); at minsan pa, "walang taong makalalapit sa akin, maliban na ipagkaloob sa kaniya ng Ama" (Jn. 6:65, TAB). Sumatotal, tayo ay natangi dahil sa ating pananalig kay Cristo---hindi lamang dahil sa sarili nating pasya---kundi unang-una sa lahat ay dahil ipinagkaloob ito sa atin ng Diyos na siyang unang pumili sa atin (Ac. 13:48) at kumilos sa puso natin (Ac. 16:14). Kung gayon, wala talaga tayong dapat ipagmapuri at sa Diyos lamang nauukol ang lahat ng kapurihan! Sabi nga ni San Pablo, "at anong nasa iyo na hindi mo tinanggap? nguni't kung tinanggap mo, ay bakit mo ipinagmamapuri na tulad sa hindi mo tinanggap?" (1 Cor. 4:7b-c).

Marahil ay iniisip mo kung bakit kailangan pang ipagkaloob ng Diyos sa tao ang pagtalima kay Cristo. Hindi ba't binigyan tayo ng Panginoon ng "freewill"? Wala ba tayong sapat na kakayahang magpasya na lumapit at sumunod sa ebanghelyo?

Ang Alamat ng Freewill

Ang karaniwang depinisyon ng maraming tao sa salitang "freewill" ay ang pagkakaroon ng kakayahang pumili o magpasya, kung saan ang kalooban ng isang tao ay hindi nakakiling (o hindi "inclined" / "bias") sa anumang direksyon sa pagitan ng mabuti o masama. Ngunit may ganitong uri nga ba ng kalayaan ang tao bilang makasalanan? Ang sagot ng Calvinism ay wala.

Kaya nga tayo tinatawag na "makasalanan" eh. Hindi lamang tayo tinatawag na "nagkasala" na para bang aksidente lamang ang ating mga nagagawang kasalanan, bagkus tayo'y maka - salanan. Mayroon tayong inklinasyon o pagkiling tungo sa paggawa ng Kasalanan. At hindi lamang ito basta inklinasyon o pagkiling, kundi ito mismo ang katutubo (o likas) na disposisyon ng ating buong pagkatao.

Ayon kay apostol Pablo:

"Kayo noo'y mga patay sa inyong mga  pagsalangsang at mga kasalanan, na dati ninyong nilakaran, ayon sa lakad ng sanlibutang ito, ayon sa pinuno ng kapangyarihan ng himpapawid, ng espiritu na ngayon ay gumagawa sa mga anak ng pagsuway. Tayong lahat ay dating nabuhay sa gitna ng mga ito, sa mga pagnanasa ng laman, na ating ginagawa ang mga nais ng laman at ng pag-iisip, at tayo noo'y katutubong mga anak ng kapootan, gaya naman ng mga iba." (Eph. 2:1-3, ABAB)

"Sapagkat nang kayo ay mga alipin pa ng kasalanan,
kayo'y malalaya tungkol sa pagiging matuwid." (Rom. 6:20) 

Samakatuwid, maliwanag na hindi lamang tayo makasalanan sapagkat tayo'y nagkakasala, bagkus tayo'y nagkakasala sapagkat tayo'y likas na makasalanan (o alipin ng Kasalanan). Dahil sa Kasalanan ng unang tao (Rom. 5:12) tayong lahat ay naging patay sa ating mga espirituwal na kalagayan at napa-alipin sa kalooban ni Satanas (2 Tim. 2:26) at samakatuwid ay walang likas na kagustuhan o inklinasyon na tumalima sa Diyos malibang unang kumilos ang Diyos sa puso natin (tingnan ang mga sumusunod na talata: Eze. 36:26; Ac. 16:14, cf. Mat. 13:11-16, Jn. 6:44, 65, Rom. 3:9-12, 8:7-8, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4-5, Eph. 2:1-3, 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Dito natin makikita na sa magkaibang sentido, tayo'y malaya ngunit alipin. Malaya nating sinusunod ang anumang nais o hangarin ng ating mga puso. Gayunpaman, ang ating mga puso ay alipin ng anumang bagay na pinagkukunan nito ng kaligayahan: "Sapagkat kung nasaan ang iyong kayamanan, naroon din naman ang iyong puso" (Mat. 6:21, ABAB). Habang tayo'y bulag patungkol sa kagandahan at kaluwalhatian ni Cristo (na kung tutuusin ay siyang pinaka-mahalagang Kayamanan sa lahat), mas nanaisin pa ng ating mga puso na magpakalunod sa mga "kayamanan" na ipinapangako ng mga tukso. Kung gayon, ang tanging paraan para mabasag ang sumpang ito ay walang iba kundi ang pagkilos ng makapangyarihang Espiritu ng Diyos sa puso ng isang makasalanan nang sa gayon ay makita niya ang walang kapares na kagandahan ng ebanghelyo na magdudulot ng malayang pagtalima kay Cristo (Eze. 36:26-27).

Sa madaling salita, itinuturo ng Calvinism na kung mayroon mang tumatalima (at walang pagtatalo na tayo nga ay tumalima kay Cristo ayon sa sarili nating pasya - Mat. 11:28), ang kapurihan ay ukol lamang sa Diyos na siyang unang pumili sa atin upang tayo'y pagkalooban ng kalayaan, kakayahan, espirituwal na pangunawa, at positibong inklinasyon at pagnanasa na lumapit kay Cristo tungo sa lubos na kaligtasan (Psa. 65:4, Mat. 11:27, Eph. 1:3-5, 11). Sa bandang huli, ang Panginoon ang siyang tanging may-akda at siyang tagapagpaging-ganap ng ating pananalig (Heb. 12:2). Siya ang ating soberenyang Tagapagligtas na nagliligtas ng lubusan mula simula hanggang katapusan (Rom. 8:30) upang walang maipagmapuri ang sinuman. Yan ang puso ng Calvinism.

Baka Calvinist ka rin!

Oo, maaaring Calvinist ka rin pero di mo lang pala alam. Paano mo malalaman? Simple lang. Tanungin mo ang iyong sarili:

1. Naniniwala ka bang wala kang magagawang anumang mabuti na kalugod-lugod sa Diyos malibang unang kumilos ang Diyos sa puso mo? (Jn. 15:5; Rom. 8:7-8)
2. Nananalangin ka ba para sa kaligtasan ng iyong mga mahal sa buhay? (cf. Rom. 10:1)
3. Ipinapanalangin mo ba na nawa'y kumilos ang Diyos sa puso nila upang kanilang tanggapin si Cristo? (cf. Eze. 36:26, Ac. 16:14)
4. Ipinagpapasalamat mo ba sa Diyos ang sarili mong pagkakaligtas at ang pagkakilala mo sa kaniya? (cf. Mat. 11:27, 13:11, Jn. 6:44, 65; Php. 1:29)
5. Nagtitiwala ka ba na tiyak na tatapusin ng Diyos ang pagliligtas na sinimulan niya sayo, at iingatan ka niya sa pananalig hanggang wakas? (cf. Jn. 10:27-29, Rom. 8:29-39, Php. 1:6)
6. Naniniwala ka bang ang lahat ng biyayang tinatamasa mo ngayon (na may kinalaman sa iyong kaligtasan), maging ang iyong pananalig, ay pawang kaloob na galing sa Diyos na binili ni Cristo ng kanyang dugo? (cf. Rom. 8:32, Eph. 2:13)

Kung Oo ang sagot mo sa mga katanungang ito, malamang ay isa ka ring Calvinista.

-Jeph

I'd Say Both

Let’s get straight to the point: Jesus is fully God and fully Man. I cannot see any reason for me to say that I am a Christian without affirming both nor replacing it with this, this, this, this and/or this.

But what’s the fuss all about? Well, a question that was raised a few days ago (and early this week. Let me remind that it’s a closed group!) in one of the groups I’m in nearly had me commented on what I believe about it but because of some errands and unfinished business at work, I could not. I’ll make it simple so you won’t have to join the group if in case you’re just a random reader like I am.

Is there a problem here?

The Question

The question is, “Could Jesus have sinned?” — My answer is both yes and no. Let me share with you why.

Most Christians, if not for the sake of a greater cause, tend to shelf this question for safekeeping unless it’s intentionally asked for the purpose of knowing if he/she affirms a sound Biblical doctrine and/or is not a heretic. But would it really be a heresy for a Christian to say yes to that question given a certain condition? Would affirming to it be considered a departure from what’s written if you are to say that “yes, He could’ve possibly sinned”?

Heh! Can’t beat me!

 If you are to view a list of the outstanding heresies that we have today, you would not find any that makes you one by saying yes to the question above.

So let me explain further why I’m standing in the middle:

Why answer “no”?

To answer “no” is to say that because He is completely Divine, He will never commit an unlawful act whether it be in His mind and/or actions. Being fully Divine, the Father’s divinity is at risk if we should say “yes” that Jesus could’ve sinned despite Him being in a glorified body after resurrection. Paul Himself went on further to justify this by saying, that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9)

Therefore, my answer to the question above should be “no”.

Why answer “yes”?

To answer yes is to affirm that He is a complete Man, making Him the second Adam. The same perfection that was given unto the first Adam was embraced by the Messiah. That we can never doubt. As sinless as the first, He is the Son of Man who came and died for the atonment of our sins. Therefore (and only given such considerations that we’re talking about the fully Man in Him being present in the first Adam who caused us to die,) my answer to the question above will also be “yes”. May I remind you of the federalism?

Yes. Wait just simply say no. I don’t get it why I 
have to say yes. Oh I get it. It can be both!

Here’s my created analogy to settle this myself:

Premise 1: Christ is fully divine and fully Man
Premise 2: God divine cannot sin while Man can
Therefore Christ as fully divine cannot sin but as fully Man can

pew. pew.

 Doesn’t it bother you that eight-out-of-ten of God’s Ten Commandments requires you tonot? (← I’ll stop right there.) With Jesus being fully human born under the law, He has to certainly fulfill everything that’s written in the Scripture and I can rejoice in knowing that He did so in full obedience to the will of the Father.

I believe that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity is the God-Man in the God-Head and being so, He is both divine and alive in flesh and blood. Thus, His sharing of the divine attributes that the Father has will and/or can never commit sin. This same divinity that Jesus has is shared also with the same perfection of Man that Adam had prior to the fall. Adam was just a man. He wasn’t divine. Jesus is God (and is one with the Father and the Spirit) who was also just-as-perfect-as-the-pre-fall Adam. Believing that the Fully- Man-Christ Himself could never sin is to question Adam’s fall. Why did Adam sin?

A Solemn Appeal

You don’t really have to punch me for real — and with gloves!

There’s one thing that you can do if you have differing views as to whether He could’ve or could’ve not; Accept the fact that there are genuine Christians who believes that He could’ve sinned but did not without condemning the thought of it as blasphemous. It’s not like the issue is whether to accept semi-pelagianism as a possible Biblical response to salvation or not, is it?

Wrapping It Up

So, the next time you’ll ask me the question: could Jesus have sinned?, feel free to check back here to find out if I have made any changes. But until then, my answer would be both yes and no.

I’m a baptist, You’re Presbyterian. Now what? Maybe I’m a Charismatic!

Accept the fact that there are genuine Christians who believes that He could’ve sinned but did not without condemning the thought of it as blasphemous. It’s not like the issue is whether to accept semi-pelagianism as a possible Biblical response to salvation or not, is it? - Jerboy Magalang

This article originally appeared on @sentirem; Jerboy Magalang's blog. Republished with permission from the author and by the grace of co-authors.

Parang di natuto

Konting reality check lang para sa mga kabataan na noo'y aktibo sa Sunday School ngunit gumradweyt na't nagtatrabaho na sa kasalukuyan. Isang tanong:

...Natuto nga ba tayo?
(Oo, tayo. Meaning, kasama ako dun).

Ang dami, dami, dami, dami nating napag-aralan tungkol sa Biblia, sa mga doktrina, sa Diyos, etc. Di na mabilang ang mga memory verses na alam natin. Pero anyare? Nang magkatrabaho na tayo, bakit nangongompromiso tayo? Nasan na yung mga tinuro sa atin at natutunan natin sa simbahan?

Nakakahiya (at nakakainis) mang isipin, pero ganyan tayo. Nagkakaroon tayo ng selective amnesia kapag pasok natin sa office. Lahat ng mga tinuro ni Sunday School teacher, lahat ng mga preaching ni pastor, at lahat ng pangaral ng mga elders ng simbahan... *puff!* - instantly deleted na sa mga alaala natin.

Yung totoo? Natuto nga ba?

Please lang, wag naman natin sayangin yung effort ng mga guro natin sa simbahan, at huwag natin silang ipahiya. Higit pa riyan, wag nating ipahiya si Cristo!

Sa mga kabataang "Kristiano" naman na magtatrabaho pa lang, please lang ano; wag niyo na lang ipagsabi sa mga katrabaho niyo na Kristyano kayo kung di niyo rin naman paninindigan. Dahil sa bandang huli, kapag nahulog na kayo sa pangongompromiso (i.e. nakisama na sa mga makamundong gawain ng mga katrabaho niyo) ay pagsisisihan nyo yung oras na sinabi niyo pa yun.

Ngayon, gusto mo bang bumait pero di mo magawa? Click mo to.