Tuesday Special: In the house of Simon

Based on Luke 7:36-50

Simon the Pharisee invited Jesus and indirectly also invited the sinful woman (not Mary Magdalene-as according to traditional reading nor to Dan Brown) who wept, broke an alabaster jar full of perfume, wipe Jesus’ feet and kiss them.

Simon feared of contamination from a sinful woman-which in that time and place-will contaminate them with her adulterous ways. Adultery is a sin against their own body-with its bodily fluids and perspiration sticking on their bodily landscape. He thought that Jesus was not Divine and also because of this situation-was also not a prophet.

But Jesus knows him-so he told him a story about forgiveness. The gist of the story is that the one “who will love him more” is the one “who had bigger debt cancelled”. Simon did not understand that all men are sinners-and all of our sins are big in the face of God-they are all an assault to his majesty and Kingship. So we all need to be forgiven. BIG time! But we are not conscious of it since we thought are sins are just small-petty in fact.

If we knew this-we would have served the Lord as the woman did-“she stood behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. She wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed oil” and Jesus would have forgive us of our sins.

The woman cannot contaminate Jesus. Jesus can ‘contaminate’ the woman in reverse. His holiness-shown in forgiving her-will restore her back to clean slate-always -because she understood who Jesus is. The others cannot understand how Jesus can forgive-when in fact He is the Great God-Yahweh himself!

Movie Review: Body of Lies

Synopsis from IMDB> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758774/synopsis

Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a covert CIA operative working in Jordan searching for terrorists who have been bombing civilian targets. Ferris uncovers information on the Islamic mastermind Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). He devises a plan to infiltrate Al-Saleem’s terrorist network with the help of his boss back in Langley, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe). Ferris enlists the help of the Chief of Jordanian Intelligence, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong) on this operation, but he doesn’t know how far he can trust him without putting his life in danger. The uneasy alliance leads to a cultural and moral clash between the men.

My Take:

If not for the personal agendas and concerns of the main characters-this would only be another spy thriller. Leonardo diCarpio character would have been as ruthless as with the Jordanian spy chief or his American counterpart at Langley-if not for the fact that his local was killed by the  terrorists and that hsi love interest was kidnapped by the Jordanian secret police-which was made up to look like it was the Al-Qaeda who did it.

 

 

Because of the love-interest/ romantic angle of Leonardo with regards to his Iranian girlfriend-he was willing to be caught and tortured by his captors. It is also the personal knowledge of the Jordanian spy-chief that he was able to trick not only the Americans but also the Al-Qaeda-that he has a spy within their organization.

Sometimes-it is really our personal interest that either lifts us up or bring us down. It will be better really to seperate our professional life from our personal lives. But it is only through this that we become human again.

BTW-this is a “bloody hell” of a movie in terms of action. Its director really knows how to make a movie with such adrenalin rush.

To my Timothy’s

For all those I shared my bible knowledge, insights and theological directions like Gerwin, Teddy, Romy, Samuel, Rovic and others through the years-here are my suggestions -in order that you may still grow and mature in the faith and life:

1. Remain faithful to the Lord Jesus -not how your church tradition or peers conceive him to be-nor other scholars -especially the “historical Jesus” group nor the “high scholasticism Jesus” conceive him to be.

2. Be faithful to the Word of God-but learn first how to understand it-by reading it, understanding its language, historical and cultural milieu and knowing the broad sweep perspective of the whole bible.

3. Use your reason and insights in applying your bible knowledge. Do not forget your common sense -and do not be intimidated by others-in applying what is wrong or right-even if others are no longer living (the great authors of previous years).

4. Use tradition or the voice of the church fathers/reformers/confessions -as long as they retained their secondary status with respect to Scriptures. You must remember Scripture better than your confessionsional standards.

5. Ask advice from almost everybody-even your enemies-maybe they have the right perspective in understanding the truth-you just have to extract it from them. It is true that “whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. Everything belongs to you,23 and you belong to Christ”…

6. Always believe in defending freedom before any human authority. We only bow down before Divine authority-everything else is relative.

7. Always allow room for your own personal or others experience in your search for truth. It is not infallible butu it is also not dispensable. Use and learn how to use it

Impact 2 : The Vanderbilts at Tirona Street, BF Homes

I cannot really remember my first encounter with them. The church there is renting a house. It was a bookstore and lending library during the weekdays and also offers coffee and cookies.

There was only one service during the morning, where Mom Eloise always plays the organ. She is not as good as others now-but she is our musical muse. And Pastor Maas was always optimistic, fatherly and friendly. And he can really lead in singing. His messages are always firm, simple and very helpful.

Before meeting them –I spent my weekends at Sampaloc, Manila-at CCRL-Community Church of the Risen Lord. But since my affinity now is with the reformed branch of Christianity-I decided to attend church during Sundays at BF Homes Christian Fellowship.

 

John Stott

 And I enjoy it immensely. Mom Eloise always lent me books of CS Lewis-which I devour. I also remember reading books of John Stott and Schaeffer then. When Pastor went to Bacolod –he passed by the Reformed Bible Institute there and got some books for me to read. It was books of GC Berkouwer, Ronald Nash and Ethical Reflections of Henry Stob-which I enjoyed immensely.

 

Henry Stob

They treated me as their son since they only got only 1 son-but 5-6 daughters. Their youngest is Debbie-beautiful Debbie. I found out later than she was gay-though at a young age –she was grazing magazine covers. I got a crushed on her-but felt then that she was out of my league. I hope then that she will become my friend-but she only stayed for awhile here in the Philippines. I still pray for her once-in-awhile. I have no problem treating her as gay-we are all sinners-just some more obvious than others. But sinners still.

I remembered one time that I have some problem with my parents-so I stayed at the Vanderbilts and slept at their sofa for a night. And I felt secure with them. They also asked me to join them one summer at Pangasinan. Ps. Maas was baptizing and marrying a couple there. We also took the weekend at Hundred Islands Resort. We went snorkeling-though I have trouble swimming. At one of the island-Pastor Maas taught me about heaven –that there will be no sea or ocean there-since it was a symbol of God’s enemies. He also taught me about the joke regarding the amount of water needed for baptism-and it led to the doctrine of sprinkling.

It was a swell weekend-and I still remember waking up in the morning alone in the room and hearing the rustling of water below. Wow! God really knows how to send teachers in this world.

Impact 1 : “Today” and Pastor Dick Kwantes

My grandfather, Vicente Villena besides reading Daily Bread, also keeps Today devotional booklet-and he gives me one copy sometime in 1982.I was already convince 5-Pointer Calvinist and I might have chosen some Bible Baptist Calvinist as my church destination.

But due also to the influence of my first mentor-Ps Ric Pagarigan-with his books of Francis Schaeffer, Machen, Nash and those related to the defunct Faith Theological Seminary.-I am also weary of that association.

By the use of the Today’s address-I was able to contact the main headquarters of the Christian Reformed Church at Grand Rapids,Michigan. Then they wrote me a letter which for some time I kept together with a small booklet-which I gave to then Susanna Ponseca-Pura. And they also gave me the address of their missionary-Ps Dick Kwantes-a Canadian missionary, whose wife, Dr Anne Kwantes, is more known since she became a professor at the Asian theological

Anne Kwantes

Seminary, Quezon City and published a church history regarding the Protestant/Presbyterian missions in the Philippines-which was published by OMF.

In 1982 they were residing at Times St. near Cory Aquino’s house. I just rode a jeepney to that place and walked to their house from the corner.

They were so hospitable and friendly-they also lent me Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and the multivolume-SD Graff –Promise and Deliverance. And they also gave me the names of their missionary located at BF Homes, Paranaque. Their names were –Pastor Maas and Eloise Vanderbilts. They also gave me the name of the First CRC of Quezon City’s pastor-Rev Nomer Bernardino. I went there once-but Ps Nomer is not as enthusiastic to know that I came to know CRC because of the 5 points of Calvinism-or TULIP. He just emphasized then that there are many ministry opportunities there.

So off I go to BF Homes Christian Fellowship-located at Tirona St.

Outline on Studies Re: Believers’ Baptism

I. Three main reasons usually adduced by Baptist for Believer’s BAptism

1. Mode of Baptism is Immersion (But Greek Orthodox do tri-immersion of babies)

2. No Direct Command to baptize infants-but only believers (No abrogation of command to apply covenant sign to infants either)

3. No Direct Example of baptizing infants-only believers or adults (but there are household baptisms and children are considered holy in 1 Corinthians)

II. The Covenant of Abraham and the rite of Circumcion applied to his seed

III. The Exodus-Israel Covenant is similar and conjunct to the Abrahamic Covenant.

IV. The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31-  Election and Covenant

V. The Disturbing passages in New Testament better explained by Believer’s Baptism: John 1:12-13 and Galatians 3:6, 26-29

Justin Taylor’s Comment re:E. Ferguson’s book

This excerpt is from http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/04/ferguson-on-infant-baptism-and-mode-of.html   >

On infant baptism, he writes:

There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it does mean that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations. . . .

The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries. (pp. 856, 857)

On the mode of baptism, he writes:

The comprehensive survey of the evidence compiled in this study give a basis for a fresh look at this subject and seeks to give coherence to that evidence while addressing seeming anomalies. The Christian literary sources, backed by secular word usage and Jewish religous immersions, given an overwhelming support for full immersion as the normal action. Exceptions in cases of a lack of water and especially of sickbed baptism were made.

Submersion was undoubtedly the case for the fourth and fifth centuries in the Greek East and only slightly less certain for the Latin West. Was this a change from an earlier practice, a selection out of options previously available, or a continuation of the practice of the first three centuries? It is the contention of this study that the last interpretation best accords with the available facts. Unless one has preconceived ideas about how an immersion would be performed, the literary, art, and archaeological evidence supports this conclusion. (p. 857)

Also from http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315

By Puritan Covenanter “R. Martin” (Speedway, Indiana)

The authors come from a paedo baptist theological bent. I am not sure why they wrote the book because it doesn’t seem to support their view. They even use a lot of quotes from other Paedo-Baptists and show that they have misquoted or misunderstood the context of the Early Church Fathers. Maybe they are just illuminating the Early Church Father’s beliefs concerning baptism for conscience sake. From the outset the Early Church seemed to link water baptism very closely to the remission and cleansing of sin. If one wasn’t baptized by water they had no forgiveness of sin. This theological theme continued but grew in different directions concerning its efficacy and benefits during the next four centuries. According to the authors the connection between baptism and modern day covenant theology is proven to be almost non-existent in the writings of the Early Church. They link infant baptism’s induction into the church because of necessity. In other words the deathbed was the reason infant baptism was introduced into the church. The book was very illuminating and I agreed with part of its conclusion. “The symbol became the actual means. The rite of baptism itself, rather than Christ, became the guarantee of eternal salvation.”

CJ Mahaney interviewed Dr. Piper

Dr. John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church

This is an excerpt from http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/Meet-John-Piper.aspx >

What single piece of counsel (or constructive criticism) has most improved your preaching?

Don’t preach in a way that a Muslim would approve. Preach a divine crucified Christ.

What books on preaching, or examples of it, have you found most influential in your own preaching?

Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students; Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers; John Stott, Between Two Worlds; Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture.

What single bit of counsel has made the most significant difference in your effective use of time?

A great tree will fall with many small chops. Pray for daily grace to keep chopping.

What single bit of counsel has made the most significant difference in your leadership?

Lead by helping people see the same truth in the Bible you do so that commonly perceived truth is the fabric that binds together. When truth is not the bond, power moves are inevitable.

Family Problems-Relaxing our Standards

They said that we cannot base on who we will baptized (baptismal candidates) since we cannot know the elect in this life-and that credobaptist is wrong to based our doctrine on Jeremiah 31 since it enumerated the character of the elect there-and they also said that these qualities will be self-evident only on the Millenium or after His Second Coming.

I am also confused with this argument. What they are really saying is that baptism is not really about salvation. But read their cathechisms: 

Shorter Catechism Q#94
Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,1 doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Chist,2 and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace,3 and our engagement to be the Lord’s.4

Heidelberg Catechism Q#69-70 (Check Qs 69-74 for completeness)
Q. How does baptism
remind you and assure you
that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross
is for you personally?

A. In this way:
Christ instituted this outward washing^1
and with it gave the promise that,
as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body,
so certainly his blood and his Spirit
wash away my soul’s impurity,
in other words, all my sins.^2

Q. What does it mean
to be washed with Christ’s blood and Spirit?

A. To be washed with Christ’s blood means
that God, by grace, has forgiven my sins
because of Christ’s blood
poured out for me in his sacrifice on the cross.^1

To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means
that the Holy Spirit has renewed me
and set me apart to be a member of Christ
so that more and more I become dead to sin
and increasingly live a holy and blameless life.^2

And you might think they are credobaptist !
 
And they added in Q74 that children of believers are promised salvation
Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?

A. Yes.
Infants as well as adults
are in God’s covenant and are his people.^1
They, no less than adults, are promised
the forgiveness of sin through Christ’s blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.^2…

-its this conditional or absolute? If conditional-on what grounds -I have just one answer –Faith of our children-the same with unbelievers! The New Covenant levels the playing field- no more advantage due to bloodline or race.

Some like Kuyper -taught presumptive regeneration-which sounded like the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration-they are just not as bold as the Catholics.

I wonder if the Dutch Reformed and other Christians who are paedobaptist would have skirted the error of racism and apartheid-if they just accepted credobaptist and work for the evangelism of other races.-controversial? I do not mean that paedobaptist are racist-and that some Christian racism stems from paedobaptist views (there are a lot of other sources) -but this doctrine add more support to their natural and/or sinful tendencies.

When will this pernicious influence ends in Christian church. First bloody persecution of Anabaptists-then now the heresy of Federal Vision-and an assault on the doctrine of justification. Brothers-when will it end-when will you discard this Constantinian legacy equating Christians with “who were born…of blood …of the will of the flesh…of the will of man”.

They said trying to be discerning in accepting brothers based their lifestyle and testimony is a foolhardy task So we might as well skipped being discerning and apply baptism to anyone else? Even if they don’t exhibit any outward proof of their election-Many pastors are not doing their job here-and just want numbers/ statistics in their report.

I remember that Christians are exhorted to make their calling and election sure -and that ”But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.””

Clearly to paedobaptist -baptism is not about salvation-it is just being a member of a visible organization called church-a theological construct called Covenant Theology=thus the term covenant children.

Why all the fuss in the elders’ interviews? Why just lower it anyone who can say 5 or more words from the good book-then let us baptized it immediately.

You know-you are being dishonest because-Presbyterians- are as strict as Baptist when they baptized adult believers-but immediately lower it when it comes to their children.

This is similar to our family problems a lot of us are experiencing. We are strict when it comes to other people-but when it comes to our children-who are very cute and coddly when they 5 years old and below- we just relax our standards and let them roam and play havoc in our house. This regime of lowering our standards must end- friends and brothers.

An Answer to Infant Baptism Because of Falling Away in the Book of Hebrews

This is from the post at: http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/category/ot/file/99790.qna

Let me pose a question: Just because someone professes faith before getting baptized, does that guarantee that he’s really saved? No. We all know that adults make false professions of faith and get baptized anyway. Every Baptist preacher knows there are unbelievers sitting in his congregation. But since those people are in the church, they are considered covenant breakers in God’s eyes. We’re not talking about people losing their salvation; we’re talking about unregenerate people who are nonetheless considered to be in covenant. My point is that one cannot, on the basis of Jeremiah 31:31-34, argue that every baptized church member is in fact a believer. There’s simply no way to ensure that baptism is given only to believers, even in a Baptist church. Now, most Baptists believe that the intent should be to baptize only professing believers, but that’s different.

My take:

Baptist who are still of  Freedom of  Grace persuasion (not of Zane Hodges type-though I like with its affiliation with the Marrowmen of Scotland and their insistence regarding assurance of salvation-though I also shared Dr Gentry and Pastor Macarthur’s concern with the Lordship of Jesus.) believes that in the New Covenant-all members will

a) know the Lord- have personal relationship with the Lord-like David and others in the OT

b) taught by the Lord- not taught by Levitical priesthood

c)His Law written in his heart- have positional sanctification -and leads an observable seperated and holy life.

d) his sins are forgiven and no longer remembered- Justified and secured in his salvation.

And thus we baptized them for their observable regenerated testimony and lifestyle. Some called this credible profession of faith.

Thus  our point is not  “… on the basis of Jeremiah 31:31-34, argue that every baptized church member is in fact a believer.” But that we baptized believers based on the description of members that should be in the new covenant.  

Clearly infants do not qualify as such. And here paedobaptists goes beyond the words of the Scripture.

Again from www.thirdmill.org> 

This idea that the new covenant during the time of continuation, it seems to me, makes the most sense of passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29. Those are clear warnings against falling away, and they clearly use covenant language. For example, in Hebrews 10:29 we learn that God will severely punish those who treat as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them. If salvation cannot be lost, whom can this verse possibly describe? It must be someone who, though not a true saint, was yet considered in covenant with God, someone who was “sanctified” or “made holy” by “the blood of the covenant” – it must be an unbeliever in the visible church (regardless whether he was baptized as an infant or as an adult).

My take:

If only we read this contextually and not through primarily through the lens of whatever covenantal theology we are in- that we will find out that the primary audience of Hebrews are those professing Jewish Christians who are being tempted to go back to their former ways and forget the church. Yes they are believers-that is they made their initial profession of faith and possibly baptized based on their profession. But due to social pressure and persecution they want to revert back former religion which had a tolerated status in the Roman Empire. 

I am also confused with this argument. It is as if  what they are saying is that baptism is not really about salvation and knowing the elect in this life-even through their lifestyle and testimony-so we might as well skipped being discerning and apply it to anyone else-even if they don’t exhibit any outward proof of their election. I remember that Christians are exhorted to make their calling and election sure -and that “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”” Clearly to paedobaptist -baptism is not about salvation-it is just being a member of a visible organization called church. Why all the fuss in the elders’ interviews? Why just lower it anyone who can say 5 or more words from the good book-then let us baptized it immediately.

You know-you are being dishonest because-Presbyterians- are as strict as Baptist when they baptized adult believers-but immediately lower it when it comes to their children.

This is also a family problem I always experienced. We are strict when it comes to other people-but when it comes to our children-who are very cute and coddly when they 5 years old and below- we just relax our standards and let them roam and play havoc in our house. This regime of lowering our standards must end friends.

Can someone be lost? Yes -eternal security is for those who continue in faith-and yes as good Freedom of Grace advocates-this perseverance is for the elect only.  No one can be really lost in the New Covenant-but one can be lost in the visible church. Remember-not in the new covenant-for they are all elected. The visible church and its officers takes effort in insuring that those who are only believers are those baptized and that those baptized remains seperated(holy)  in their life through the preaching, teaching, counselling, discipling and discipline of the Word. You cannot fault us by putting the badge of disciples to those  we know cannot understand and make their voluntary decision to follow the Lord. Children can-but not babies or infants.

I have attached this two diagrams of mine for others to understand the difference between Old and New Covenant:

 

Elect=Remnant in the Old Covenant

Elect in the New Covenant-Co-terminus

In the old covenant -fathers are required to circumcised their sons -because they are the physical seed of Abraham.

In the new covanant, fathers/elders of the church are required to baptize believers because they are the spiritual seed of Abraham-they have faith in Jesus Christ.