Now let me be clear: I have great respects for Pastor John F. Macarthur, Jr. In fact, a long-term agnostic like me was called back to the faith by the Lord thru the radio ministry of Grace To You. God used that radio ministry to call me from my disillusionment while I was a student in UP. Last 2000, I had the opportunity to go to California and one of the first things that I prioritized was visiting Grace Community Church.  I shook John’s hand personally and thanked him because his program was used by God to convert me to Christ.

I told him about this and it was my impression he held a sob in his throat as I was relating my story. Maybe I was in a emotional fit too. I was perhaps overreading but nonetheless, I was incredibly blessed to have met such a humble man.

And then because of the path that John Macarthur has helped carve in my life, I was led to Calvinistic doctrines (which I didn’t know are Calvinistic because John does not really cite Calvin that frequently as I remember).  And when you’re a Calvinist, one of the addictions you develop is the love for theology books.

I guess I could say I have read some. Not that many, I must admit. But let me say that I have gathered a library with at least 5,000 titles of Calvinistic books and commentaries. There are too many books and too little time. Most of the time, I just skim thru them, so please don’t quiz me. I’m just an armchair Calvinist.

But I guess that too has led me to part ways with Pastor Perry. I didn’t part with him. He parted from me. When a John Macarthurite (his term, not mine) like him meets someone who reads the Westminster Confession of Faith, somewhere there would be an explosion of sorts. And I could say, he was not just contented to forget about our friendship. He even resorted to tell others of my warts and all (idiomatically speaking). For example, he was even angry with me for believing that a divorce is at times necessary and biblical as the WCF says. In Section 24 of the WCF, it states:

Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. (Matt. 1:18–20) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce. (Matt. 5:31–32) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (Matt. 19:9, Rom. 7:2–3)^⁠1

He did not agree with this. According to him and (of course, originally I suppose) according to the speakers of the sessions of the Shepherds’ Conference (which Pastor Perry supplied me before the age of gty.org downloads), there would be no divorce if there is forgiveness from the offended party.  “The book of Malachi says, God hates divorce, so it’s not allowable.” At one time, he added, “Only the hard-hearted do divorce! That’s according to Matthew.”

Of course he did not listen when I told him that in the case of adultery, the guilty party is the only one hard-hearted and not the innocent one. He counters, “When the innocent party decides to divorce, he/she in turn becomes hard-hearted, that’s why he/she seeks divorce.”

If there is genuine forgiveness, there would be no divorce. Tough.

Very Roman Catholic. To my opinion, very much unlike the Lord Jesus Christ’s exception on adultery as an OPTIONAL (but not necessarily an automatic) grounds of divorce. For Christians to forgive their spouses is expected. But just like the WCF says, I believe that the act of adultery gives the option to the innocent party to seek divorce. We must forgive because we have been forgiven. But forgiveness is not sine qua non to keeping the marriage.

I think what really angered Pastor Perry was when I cited R.C. Sproul’s line: “God hates divorce, sure! But God hates adultery all the more, that’s why He allowed divorce.” In biblical times, if you committed adultery, you would be stoned to death, which frankly is worse than being divorced. On answering a query about the forgiveness issue, RC even has a better example: “If you are a Church Treasurer and you stole the Church money, I will forgive you but please don’t expect me if I would not help you be Church Treasurer again.” I agree. Adultery is a breach of trust more sacred than a Church fund.

After a number of disagreements, Pastor Perry chose to part ways with me. That was almost five years ago. I didn’t want to but I guess for him, there is too much at stake when you are friends with someone who does not really agree with all the interpretations he makes on Macarthur’s teachings. I say his interpretations because I am not even entirely sure Macarthur is as angry as he is about this issue of divorce that he would leave his friendships with his fellow pastors like RC Sproul if they disagreed with him.

I think we call this ugly thing, fanaticism.  Some can go to that extent and it’s sad. I pray for Pastor Perry. I love him and sometimes I must admit, I miss him. But, he would not just forgive me for disagreeing with John Macarthur (IF John Macarthur’s stand is really that there should absolutely be no divorce, which I don’t think is, to be honest about it). Divorce is an absolute no. Pastor Perry believes that. And for him, that is also the never-changing infallible teaching of God: NO DIVORCE, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Now, please don’t make the mistake that I’m espousing divorce, period. I believe that there are exceptions though that makes divorce valid. (And besides, I’m happily married.) I’m sad for Pastor Perry though. I think he has gone to the extent where it is unhealthy spiritually speaking. I don’t think he even gets Macarthur on this issue. Nonetheless, he would die on every hill, especially if he believes that hill was stepped on by John Macarthur.

Now, what reminded me of him recently was because of a discussion I had in a group. I’m a member of a Reformed Forum in which one thread of discussion went like this: John Macarthur belongs to a false church because his church does not satisfy the ‘marks of the true Church’ in the Belgic Confession. According to some in this forum, one of the marks that makes John Macarthur’s church false is that it does not practice infant baptism. The Belgic Confession in Article 29 states:

The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.^⁠2

Now, I can accept that John Macarthur’s church is not a true Reformed church given the leanings of the Reformed confessions. But to say that John Mac’s church is a false church all in one-go, is too much. Even for the sake of discussion, if hypothetically I agree that infants should be baptized, I could not say to a Credobaptist that he belongs to a false church just because he does not baptize infants. And in fairness, the Belgic Confession does not say, “If a church does not practice infant baptism, it is a false church.” Granted, that the Belgic Confession says that the true church, “maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ” as opposed to the false church, the Credobaptist can just as much the same say, “It is the Paedobaptists that do not maintain the sacraments as instituted by Christ.” This has been the debate for centuries.  And mind you, the debate has not been resolved by having the Reformed people calling the Credobaptists, belonging to the ‘false church’ because they do not baptize infants.

Instead, I am elated when parties on the opposite sides of the fence, agree to celebrate what the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is, in spite of their differences. (Please tune the www.whitehorseinn.org, where they do not forget what their confessions say but they do exchange their differences winsomely without cruel talk, without calling themselves belonging to the true and the false. One is a Lutheran, one is a Baptist, and two are Reformed Professors.) It’s one of the rare places on earth where the great King is the Lord Jesus Christ in spite of their confessional differences. They do disagree, and I believe they must, but they don’t call each other belonging to the ‘false church’ because they differ.

Should we also say, "If it's not Belgic, it ain't Church?"

It’s one thing to use and even believe that the King James Version is the only Bible translation inspired by the Almighty Lord God, but it’s another thing to denigrate and call all others as ‘false translations’ publicly and openly just because they don’t fit your learned criteria.

In the same note, I believe that to be generalizing and to be jingoistic of those who do not share John Macarthur’s teachings is wrong. Pastor Perry does no ‘fellowship’ with the Reformed folks. I think if we reach the point where Pastor Perry has went, that’s already fanaticism. But I think I could say that too for some in the Reformed Confessions. To be jingoistic and generalizing about those who do not share the Reformed teachings to the extent that you say John Macarthur’s church is a false church is wrong too.  It’s very much like Pastor’s Perry’s fanaticism. It’s ugly. It’s sad but true: there are Pastor Perrys on every side of the fench. Yes, even on the side that calls itself Reformed.

¹ The Westminster confession of faith. 1996 (Chapter XXIV, 5). Oak Harbor, WA:

² Historic Creeds and Confessions. 1997  (Article 12). Oak Harbor:

AP File Photo

Steve Jobs just resigned hours ago. My computer is presently a Macbook Pro and honestly, I’ve been so happy with this piece of Steve Jobs. I admire what Steve Jobs has done with Apple. Somehow, the world over, Apple has transformed computing.

I’m still a PC user but I am now a Mac Convert since around two years ago. I don’t think the Apple hierarchy welcomed Jobs’ resignation.  However, Steve has to resign because of his battle with pancreatic cancer.

I wouldn’t want Steve to resign. I have no stakes in Apple, mind you. But the things that happened during his tenure were remarkable. If that is my feeling, I know much more so Steve Jobs, not to mention the Apple geeks. (Except perhaps the beneficiaries of Jobs’ resignation).

What has become apparent in all of these is that what we want is not really what happens most of the time. We can plan, we can act, we can dream, we can work our souls out, but in the end, it’s all in God’s hands. God can thwart all our grand plans and topple them, YES, even if you worked all your means to make sure it goes well.

If you don’t believe that, then let me remind you: Did you ever have a diarrhea during an important event in your life? Diarrhea can maim even an athlete so ready for his competition.

And that’s just diarrhea. I’ve even not started on pancreatic cancer yet.

Here is the August 24 Reading excerpt from the book 365 Days with Calvin: A Unique Collection of 365 Readings from the Writings of John Calvin (356 Days with)

———————————

It may seem from this text that Paul has not prayed in faith, for we read everywhere in Scripture that we shall obtain whatever we ask in faith. Paul prays, and does not obtain what he asks for.

I address this problem by saying that as there are different ways of asking, so there are different ways of obtaining. We ask in simple terms for those things for which we have an express promise. For example, we ask for the perfecting of God’s kingdom, the hallowing of his name (Matt. 6:9), the remission of our sins, and everything that is advantageous to us. But when we think that the kingdom of God can, indeed, must be advanced in this particular manner or in that, and what is necessary for the hallowing of his name, we are often mistaken in our opinion.

In like manner, we often commit a serious mistake about asking for what tends to promote our own welfare. We ask for things confidently and without reservation, while we do not have the right to prescribe the means for receiving them. If, however, we specify the means, we always have an implied condition, even though we don’t express it.

Paul was not ignorant about this. Hence, as to the object of his prayer, there can be no doubt that he was heard, though he met with a refusal as to the express form of that answer. By this we are admonished not to give way to despondency in thinking our prayers are lost labor when God does not gratify or comply with our wishes. Rather, we must be satisfied with his grace in not forsaking us. For the reason why God sometimes mercifully refuses to give his own people what in his wrath he grants to the wicked is that he better foresees what is expedient for us than our understanding is able to apprehend.

for meditation: Even with the knowledge that God knows best, it is difficult to submit to his will when our prayers seem to go unanswered. We must pray for the grace to will what God wills and to leave it to his wisdom how he brings his will about. Are you trusting him with all your current concerns?

We start with Charles Spurgeon:

Her deliverance seemed to her to be a type and symbol of the way in which God delivers all his people, so she rejoiced in that great salvation which he works out for his people as a whole.

Charles H. Spurgeon, vol. 57, Spurgeon’s Sermons: Volume 57, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Spurgeon’s Sermons (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998).

The theme of reversal is also emphasized in Hannah’s prayer.

The birth stories of John and Jesus belong to the long tradition of birth stories in the OT and in Jewish literature… Prominent among these stories is the motif of barrenness. This appears in the stories of Sarah (Gen. 18), Rebekah (Gen. 25), Rachel (Gen. 30), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1–2). Not only are these stories concerned with the reversal of the fortune of the individual barren women, but also the births of the heroes are linked with the fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises to Israel. The presence of God for his people is therefore the underlying theme behind these narratives.

I remember a marketing guru, who asked, “Do you want to sell a product? Then, be ready to create demand.” It’s not necessary if the demand is real. At least it must be perceived. Whether true or not is secondary. “And then what really would sell it is the feeling of exclusivity, of the superiority of owning it….THAT would sell the product.”

This may be an effect of entertainment. Yesterday, I saw a program in TV detailing the life of a matinee idol who was riding a Jaguar attending to his restaurant businesses. He came from a poor family. It’s a blessing to see a rags-to-riches story. But I wonder how many rags can accomplish a story like his? And then when you think deeper, his business success was fueled by his role as an actor. Entertainment! The money maker of today. What buys a Jaguar? Businesses that pay commercial spots on soap operas, sports, films, and TV programs that stimulate our feelings.

I remember reading a book by Neil Postman long time ago titled, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

It might have been decades since I read that, but I remember him saying in effect: TV has made an entire world dumber.

Which is very sobering because, we all know it: when we are dumb, our refuge are our feelings.

And as if that is not enough, now there is Facebook. It makes us dumb and dumber as a lot of articles say.

We have become narcissists; loving all that is inside of us. Feelings, thoughts, image. Mostly, feelings. That is why Facebook is successful. That is why I have my facebook page.  I too, am in love with myself. In all my years of reading, I have come to the conclusion that the enemy of man is himself. That deep within us is a drive to destroy ourselves. To kick the goads. Never mind if it wounds me, as long as it feels good. In the medical circles, we call that masochism. Everybody does it. Sometimes though, the good news is, some people wake up from it. But as far as me observing the world, all of us are in a stupor. We revert into it most often. We are, most of the time professional sleepwalkers.

Sometimes even, I’ve been asked to speak about Christ and Christianity, there is still residual rebellion to the idea that my life is not really mine. I mean, just from stating the idea alone: My life is not mine, is like an oxymoron. But you know, when you believe there is a God, you have to accept that He created you and being a created being, the Creator must have a purpose. And this hurts: Sometimes His purpose is not what you really want.

Most of our society’s impulse is to believe we are made to enjoy the world. That is in a way true. The first article in the Westminster Confession ask: What is the chief end of man? And it answers: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. One way to enjoy God is to enjoy His creation – enjoy nature, enjoy the company of creation, enjoy the taste of food and enjoy the opposite sex as a partner. And then with a thankfulness, we eventually love the Lord all the more. What happened is that we stopped at the point of enjoying creation and its produce. God is left in a cathedral waiting for us every Sunday. We even have corrupted our enjoyments. We have become excessive. And as if that is not enough, we have come to the point of perverting even how nature should be appreciated by us. (It has come to the point even that saying two males should never cross their swords in bed is considered politically incorrect.)

And this is all because we don’t want to have our enjoyments meddled by a God with whom we should be accountable. We just want the ride, man. Forget about buying the ticket. We don’t want a God who wants to be King. We don’t want a God who will say, What I want should happen, not yours turkey. We want a God who respects us. Who gives us want we want. We don’t exactly want a Santa Claus, we want a Butler Santa Claus. One who would make us feel good, not do good. To do His bidding, and not the other way around.

And all of us would prefer dozing off. Entertainment pumps our adrenalin but it soporifizes (to put to sleep, ooohh I love highlighting my first use of it) thinking.

Oh, I better stop. This doesn’t feel good at all.

“No! Don’t say that, mom. I’m not a sinner!”

“No, Sophie. We all are. We are all sinners,” her mom said.

“Noooo. Hindi ako sinner.”

My wife and I both laughed. My wife told me, “I would remember this day.”

I laughed because immediately I was reminded of a Roger Nicole quote: “We are all born Pelagians.”

The Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion: 300 Terms & Thinkers Clearly & Concisely Defined has this entry:

Pelagianism. The view that the human will has not been totally ruined by original sin and that it is therefore possible for humans to achieve moral sanctity by human effort. This view is sometimes associated with the view that original sin is transmitted through environmental or cultural means and therefore can be lessened through social improvements. Pelagian views of sin are attributed to Pelagius (c. 345-c. 425), a British monk who was strongly opposed by Augustine.

Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion: 300 Terms & Thinkers Clearly & Concisely Defined(page 90). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

1 Samuel 2:1 And Hannah prayed and said, “My heart exults in the LORD; my strength is exalted in the LORD. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in your salvation.
2 “There is none holy like the LORD; there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God.
3 Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
4 The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble bind on strength.
5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn.
6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.
7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts.
8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.
9 “He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness, for not by might shall a man prevail.
10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the power of his anointed.”

(1Sa 2:1-10 ESV)

Reflect, my friend. More on this tomorrow.

The flap of the book says this:

“If you don’t have the time to read, you don’t have the time or the tools to write.”
 
In 1999, Stephen King began to write about his craft–and his life. By midyear, a widely reported accident jeopardized the survival of both. And in his months of recovery, the link between writing and living became more crucial than ever.

Rarely has a book on writing been so clear, so useful, and so revealing. On Writing begins with a mesmerizing account of King’s childhood and his uncannily early focus on writing to tell a story. A series of vivid memories from adolescence, college, and the struggling years that led up to his first novel,Carrie, will afford readers a fresh and often very funny perspective on the formation of a writer. King next turns to the basic tools of his trade–how to sharpen and multiply them through use, and how the writer must always have them close at hand. He takes the reader through crucial aspects of the writer’s art and life, offering practical and inspiring advice on everything from plot and character development to work habits and rejection.

Serialized in the New Yorker to vivid acclaim, On Writing culminates with a profoundly moving account of how King’s overwhelming need to write spurred him toward recovery, and brought him back to his life.

Brilliantly structured, friendly and inspiring, On Writing will empower–and entertain–everyone who reads it.

I decided to read it. Fiction can sometimes be salvation. In a recent blog by Russell Moore, he says:

I think fiction is good, necessary, and God-glorifying. I teach my theology students to read good fiction for the sake of their preaching, if for no other reason. Those without the imagination to read fiction usually lack the imagination to hear the rhythm and contours of Scripture, much less to peer into the mysteries of the human heart.

I heartfully agree. There is something in fiction that is liberating. Also, as an ever-failing aspiring writer that I am, creative writing is closest to creation. Sort of being a god of sorts. The only problem when you write is that, you later realize that you are as ruined as the characters you set.

And so goes the little theology to it.

Here is the August 12 Reading excerpt from the book, 365 Days with C H Spurgeon, Volume 1: A Unique Collection of 365 Daily Readings from Sermons Preached by Charles Haddon Spurgeon from His New Park Street Pulpit

———————————

God’s People in the Furnace

“I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.”

Isaiah 48:10

suggested further reading: Isaiah 43:1–7

Beloved, the first thing I will give you is the comfort of the text itself—election. Comfort yourself with this thought: God says, “I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.” “The fire is hot, but he has chosen me; the furnace burns, but he has chosen me; these coals are hot, I do not love the place, but he has chosen me.” Ah! It comes like a soft gale assuaging the fury of the flame. It is like some gentle wind fanning the cheeks; yes, this one thought arrays us in fireproof armour, against which the heat has no power. “Let affliction come—God has chosen me. Poverty, you may come in at the door—God is in the house already, and he has chosen me. Sickness, you may come, but I will have this by my side for a balsam—God has chosen me. Whatever it is, I know that he has chosen me.” The next comfort is that you have the Son of man with you in the furnace. In that silent bedchamber of yours, there sits by your side one whom you have not seen, but whom you love; and often when you know it not, he makes your bed in your affliction, and smooths your pillow for you. You are in poverty; but in that lonely house of yours that has nothing to cover its bare walls, where you sleep on a miserable straw mattress, you know that the Lord of life and glory is a frequent visitor; he often treads those bare floors, and putting his hands upon those walls he consecrates them! If you were in a palace he might not come there. He loves to come into these desolate places that he may visit you. The Son of man is with you, Christian.

Perhaps we can accept a gross depiction of a big wound near the lower ribs but can we accept a Jesus naked? If not it is probably because we have been used to pictures of Jesus Christ on a cross with some underclothes.

But historical sources would even indicate to us that the Roman crucifixion was done to publicly humiliate the one crucified, thus there are sources that depict the actual historical Christ exposed. Michaelangelo for one, made a sculpture of such a naked crucified man he depicted as Jesus.

Crucifix, sculpture by Michelangelo, Santo Spirito Church, Florence, Italy (ca. 1494), a depiction of naked crucifixion with the genitals of the condemned exposed

Michaelangelo is truly an artist par excellence. In fact many of his sculptures and images are naked. Nakedness as he might believe, is a sign of innocence.  And truly understandably, that is why his sculpture of David is also naked.

Why then is there such a fuss when an artist puts forth installation arts on CCP?  It has torn the whole Philippine nation in a debating mode once again. The Catholic Church has spoken, then the Senate, then the President of the Phlippines.

So, am I endorsing Mideo Cruz? Make no mistake, I do not condone any such depictions. I would even consider the art of Cruz as rubbish and cowardly. Rubbish because art should highlight beauty and truth. I sound like Imelda Marcos but in the rare times, I think she is correct with this one.

But you counter, there is such a thing as ‘ugly truth.’ Yes I agree. But you don’t publicly exhibit those most of the time. If Mideo Cruz publicly exposes his sex organ on the street, you would not call that ‘art.’ You call that indecency. Artists can call that freedom of expression but my golly, if your freedoms offend me as well as tens and thousands of people, that’s not art, that’s perversion.

I also think it’s cowardly. Why? Because Mideo Cruz only insulted the Catholic side of the equation. I haven’t heard of his installation containing the Muslim Allah or Quran, or any other faith. His was just an expression of polytheism using Catholic images and sacred pieces. If this is really ‘polytheism’ why did he not include images of other faiths? I tell you what, it’s because people like Mideo Cruz are afraid of offending the Muslims. His neck would surely be on the line if he does. There is a line as far as his artistic expression is concerned. It’s what you call the fear of death. Isn’t this true, Mideo Cruz?

But for Catholics, he will have his heyday. He knows those who make vigils to the Black Nazarene are supposed to be kind. If you slap them on the left cheek, they would give their right. So never mind if you put an image of a penis on a venerated picture of what some believe as a picture of Jesus Christ. They would be kind, they might become angry, but injure the artist? “No!” Artists like Mideo Cruz would probably answer. Christians are Mickey Mouse kind.

And so here is my two-cents as far as those images are concerned: I think this is not art. It’s what you call the act of insult. Insult is not art, though I have to admit, some people can do it artistically. But outright insult is not art. It’s offensive. Insult can be done artistically but not this way. At least not in Mideo Cruz’s way.

But you know after the fire has died down, perhaps there is some good on all this indecency. It can make us think and ponder things beside the pictures.

What if it’s true that God went to such indecency to accomplish a purpose? What if He did that for you. I don’t mean him, or her. I mean you. You who are reading this. 

looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame….

(Hebrews 12:2 ESV)

But you’d probably would not believe that. That is something art cannot really portray. Only truth can, and only if you are made to believe it.

Suddenly, I am reminded of the commandment in Exodus 20. What if, even the best of our sculptures are an abomination to the Lord? As far as the Bible is concerned, every picture venerated has an X-rated thing to it. Yes, including the ones you put in those altars.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God…

(Exodus 20:4-5 ESV)

If the above is true, every venerated image is obscene, no different from Mideo Cruz’s art. Maybe Mideo Cruz’s art is Mickey Mouse if that is true.

If the Bible is true, here’s what its New Testament part says.

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed…”

(Acts 17:29-31 ESV)

And that Man, by implication, is an enemy of idols.