10 Ways to Ruin your church “Easter” Pageant

Posted on by
Reply
10 ways to ruin your church. Easter pageant: by Milton Almeida – this is not funny.1 -The guys portraying Jesus and the disciples are blond and blue-eyed whereas Judas is black and his t-shirt with the words “Obama/Biden 2012″ is visible through his robes.
2 – In the last communion table there is a bottle of Welch’s grape juice and the label is turned to the audience.
3 -On the way to the cross, …the actor portraying Jesus staggers as he drags his heavy cross through the church aisles, which leaves a trail of Styrofoam balls; the janitorial staff is seen by reading their lips, cussing the whole thing with some colorful words.
4 -When the Roman soldier is ready to drive nails through the wrists of the actor portraying Jesus, he removes his Rolex first
5 -In the scene of the crucifixion there is an actual earthquake… Perhaps the wrath of God
6 -When the “angels” are opening the tomb in the resurrection scene, the actor portraying Jesus inside the tomb isn’t quite ready yet and the removal of the stone exposes a naked man trying to fit in his resurrection robes
7 -When the disciples enter the tomb and find Jesus’ clothes folded in a corner, it is obvious to the audience that it is the same suit Santa used during the Christmas pageant last year…
8 -During the ascension scene, the smoke machine operator fumbles and there is more smoke than needed… The actor portraying Jesus chokes and instead of going up, he runs coughing his heart out; in fact everyone is coughing their heart out… congregation and all.
9 -When the smoke settles, a group of adults dressed as gigantic Easter bunnies, “lay” chocolate eggs in different places while a narrator describes the rewards for those who “believe”.
10 -In the end, the Minister takes over and thanks the producers and actors for maintaining biblical accuracy.

Thou doth protesteth too much!

Posted on by
Reply

ARREST AND “A REST”, NOT ONLY PROTEST:

PROTESTANT = pro (before) testari = Witness or proclaim… that’s how I feel the Reformers understood that word (correction welcome if any) and not as people consider “protest” today… We’re not called MERELY to PROTEST as Christians see it today! We’re called to ARREST (2 Cor 10:5 “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”) and to A REST (Hebrews 4)
Someone ought to preach this sometime… I did!

A Current Word to Ministers of the Gospel

Posted on by
Reply

Ministers’ Dereliction of Duty

In my ministerial training, I learned that ministers need to side with the truth. It baffles me, then, when my minister friends on any side of the political issue promote and defend lies promulgated by the group that they support!
Also, in the same level of training, I learned that ministers should refrain from slandering a group or some people simply because they do not agree with them. If their issue is evil, it should be exposed, but other than that, to attack a group or a person’s moral character because of politics.
If a minister practices promotion of lies because of his political stance, and support politicians who promote lies; and, if a minister slanders a group of people because of his political views, both these factors are justifiable grounds for the people under the spiritual leadership of this minister to leave his leadership and find another, because such a person has no MORAL fortitude or grounds to minister God’s Word. These ministers are derelict from their ministerial duties!

Examples of lies and slander defended by ministers often are:

  • The publication of graphics about an issue that are obviously “rigged” to a certain side but are not a representation of the truth. There are a lot of gun control graphics out there that say more for what they hide than for that which they claim to represent… And also about everything else the political community defends. Hiding the true is a form of lie, thus a lie!
  • The simple promotion of politicians who lie about important facts in the country, such as the issue in Benghazi; the Fast and Furious, abortion, poverty, government control, etc.
  • The slandering of successful people, whereas taking advantage of the benefits they offer, such as jobs, for example. Politicians who use words like “evil rich, big oil, and evil racist” and related epithets when referring to commonly good people and businesses are promoting an atmosphere of division, using slander seeking to divide an already divided society.

So, whether it be me, or anyone else, if you are under any minister who promotes, directly or indirectly both things mentioned above, and not mentioned, but obviously contrary to Christian spirit, such as the demonization of gay persons (rather than dealing with the issue), demonization of gun owners (rather than dealing with criminals), demonization of heterosexuals (rather than understanding that they are just part of hundred years of human history), and other types of demonization so common today in the political speech, my advice to you is leave that church! Abandon that pastor!

It is the role of the minister to minister! Ministers should point to error not condone it and repeat its arguments or support its “disseminators”; Ministers should deal with sin and leave the sinner for God to deal, and not demonize people; Ministers should help people with problems of poverty, hunger, shelter and acceptance and not vilify those who, the majority of times, sacrificed many years of their lives while suffering the same ordeals,  so they would not perpetuate these problems, depending solely upon God to bless the labor of their hands.

My call to my dear friends who are pastors: I know that a few of you do not believe Paul wrote the Epistle to Timothy, but, there is an advice there that perhaps you may consider to be wise: Before describing many issues of the current time and future, Paul says to Timothy, “…but you preach the word… endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof or your ministry..” 2 Tim 4:1-5. When the time comes when people will not to endure sound doctrine, instead of condoning and often preaching the doctrine of secularists, pagans, worldly philosophies and opinions of men, follow the wise words, which I do believe, were written by Paul; you cannot go wrong practicing them!

 

Let’s stop all killings!

Posted on by
Reply

It is NOT a culture of guns; it is a “culture of killing”, including “moral killing”.

It is not a religious issue; it is not a political issue; But if you whiners on the left think that your support of abortion on demand has no widespread consequences on the minds of some nut jobs, you are reaping what you sowed! If you ever voted for any politician who support abortion just for no reason, you don’t have the moral fortitude or right to tell me about gun control! Control your KILLINGS first and I’ll be glad to control that of others! The Christian thing to do now is everybody back off and take a breather and look upon themselves as a part of society and make a deep and sincere assessment if they are not, at least indirectly and minimally, condoning the culture of KILLINGS of all types, to the unborn and the born children of all ages, including character killing as in “evil rich” and related or worse words. To Jesus physical murder and character murder is MORALLY equivalent and punishable by a Higher Law (Mat. 5:22). I am! Then perhaps gun control won’t even be necessary! Stop your killing first! You have no moral ground to lecture ANYONE!

Safe Shooting & Voting

Posted on by
Reply

The pen IS mightier than the sword!

This is an age old truth, especially in the voting booth! For full disclosure I was born and raised in a country where voting is a DUTY, an obligation of every citizen and not a “right”. The citizen has the right to vote “blank” (meaning he does not mark any candidate), or to annul his vote by writing things in the ballot that are unrelated to the election. But that doesn’t mean that after living in America for so many years and at least 4 presidential elections, I don’t know about the election system in America. Yes I do and am a voting citizen myself.
Let me demonstrate to you how safe shooting and safe voting are closely analogous, especially if one accepts the old adage that “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Safe shooting

When I take my high-power assault rifle and go to a range to shoot Fanta bottles (only because I like the yellow splash rippling in the air), instead of human silhouettes, just so I don’t lose the conditioning that humans are not to be shot, before I point the rifle and pull the trigger I follow a very laborious and detail procedure of using information about what I am about to do and the instrument I am using to doing it. First I know my weapon; I know it that if any jam or malfunction happens, I can disassemble it to the smallest part and fix it, then reassemble it again. I know what ammunition I should use and its characteristics and power; I verify and certify above and beyond shadow of doubt that no one is down range or there is nothing that can happen that will cause harm on my fellow citizens; I ensure myself that my finger is not on the trigger, or even touches the trigger until I am certain that nothing wrong can happen to me or to other people. So, I am a safe shooter; I shoot in a informed and safe way knowing that I am causing no one harm, except the Fanta one liter bottle!

Voting

Some people enter the voting booth as if what they perform with that which is far more powerful than my high-power rifle (adapting the old saying to our days), is inconsequential and absolutely do nothing to inform themselves of the gravity of that which they are about to do with such a mighty weapon! They simply check their stomach or their wallet, and whatever these require, that is enough for them. As long as their own necessities are met then they will not hesitate in pulling the trigger of their proverbial gun, the pen, and will just do things as carelessly as one who fires a machine gun in a crowded theater! They don’t take time to inform themselves, to find everything about the candidate they to whom they are voting, information to them is often a “bother” and “far too complicated” for them so they follow the advice, the whim of whomever told them that the person they are giving their vote is one who will satisfy “their personal needs”. Apart from saying that this is as selfish and egotistical as any other type of “thinking only on oneself’s needs”, this is a very dangerous exercise in civility or lack thereof. I understand that no one has to be an expert in a particular issue, or an expert in the contraptions of politics; but one should and must be an expert on the person receiving their votes because that person may not satisfy their needs and worse yet, harm everybody else who knows and are capable of satisfying their own needs and the needs of many other people, by giving them jobs, contracts and things that benefit others with what everyone ultimately wants: INCOME.

As per the above, I will say without shame or fear that some of my friends will frown upon me for saying this: I am far less dangerous with my high-power assault rifle in a shooting range, shooting using all the information I have about the weapon, the act of shooting, and my surroundings, then someone in a voting booth, with a pen, that is mightier than my weapon, voting without any solid, consistent and truthful information as to whom they are voting for; my activity is likely to hurt no one EVER! Whoever votes in an uninformed, whimsical and negligent way will hurt many people badly, for at least four years! A uninformed voter is as dangerous to me that those kooks who fire weapons at random in public places; as dangerous as fully armed and trained terrorists and these uninformed voters cause as much long lasting harm as both these groups!

 

Luther and the Canon

Posted on by
Reply

Many people want to know what I mean when I say: “I am a 102% Reformed: 100% Calvinist and 2%  Lutheran.”
I believe this article explains.

 

1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible

An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”[9]
…

B. Luther’s Christocentric Hermeneutic

The prefaces contained Luther’s opinion on the canon. Luther scholar Paul Althaus explains, “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”[15] It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”[16] was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated. Althaus explains,

“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principle of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is “that which is apostolic.” Luther’s concept of apostolicity is based not only on a historical factor, that is, that Christ himself called and sent out a group of witnesses. Rather, it is determined by the content of a book. An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior. “Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the suffering, resurrection, and office of Christ.” This shows that an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”[17]

Now, I ask this question: What did Jesus say about “Christocentricity?”

Jesus, in Luke 24:17-44 tells us what Scriptures speak of Him. To be able  to identify what is Christocentric in Scriptures should not be difficult because Jesus gave us the directive. It is the duty of any teacher of the Word, in any level,  to be able to identify Jesus Christ in the Holy Writ without resorting to sheer mysticism. Sermons are often preached where people ascribe to verses and passages in the Bible a Christocentricity that is simply not there. Furthermore, it is also not a sacrilege to compare writings of the Apostles who conveyed the Gospel clearly and succinctly “Christ’s Gospel of free Grace and Justification by faith alone” from books that do not at least at first glance, display these qualities. To  say that the writings of Paul, that convey Christ Gospel of free Grace and  Justification by faith alone, are the standard by which the “Apostolicity” of a book is evaluated, is also not wrong! Some preachers for example, preach Christ out of Songs of Solomon. I often wonder how they reconcile Christ being the bridegroom, or the male protagonist of Songs of Solomon, having a steamy sex relationship with his bride in an unbridled pleasure, with the figure of Christ as the head of the Church, who, through suffering and death,conquers and relates to the Church as His bride.
This kind of interpretative gymnastics  has brought so much confusion and error to the congregations  around the world hat it behooves us to follow Luther’s example and seek where is the pristine Gospel really enunciated in the Holy Scripture and, better yet, it within our best interest to seek Jesus Christ in the books where He, by his own personal testimony stated that He is mentioned.
There you have it; the 2% Lutheran portion of my Reformed convictions!

Disclaimer: The mentioning of some authors in this article does not mean endorsement of the entire work of the author or every single word he wrote on the issue. The value of the quotes and citation here is restricted to the purpose of this article. 

 

 

We can learn a lot about a staff that can be turned into a snake!

Posted on by
Reply

To be DISMISSIVE can lead to IGNORANCE, or show the “extant” ignorance!
Recently I mentioned the Jesus Wife Fragments to some “preachers” and all they did is to tell me that the Spirit tells them not to pay attention to it, that they don’t have to worry about these things, that theologians are bad, etc. That is to be DISMISSIVE…

Imagine if Moses had been that dismissive in Pharaoh’s court!

Moses enters Pharaoh’s court with a staff, a stick basically! To prove that he was speaking on God’s authority, he casts his staff on the ground and it turns into a snake. Pharaoh then calls his magicians and tell them to mimic Moses’ trick. The do and their staff also turns into a snake.

Moses could just have stopped and said… “Well, I don’t believe that, I know that God spoke to me and told me to order you to let His people go… But since you are so “liberal” in your assessment of what powers God has delegated to me I will leave you to your own devices and tricks and will go away and allow God to deal with you someday; you are an unbeliever anyway.” If that would have been the outcome of the Biblical passage, had Moses acted in obedience to God’s command? Had he been the servant God wanted him to be?
No! Thank God Moses’ wasn’t dismissive neither was he afraid of Pharaoh’s magicians snake. Because of that, God honored His Name by honoring His servant and Moses’ snakes ate the ones produced by Pharaoh’s magician.

We can’t be dismissive when a piece of document challenges our faith! Research, look at it, be not afraid! The servants of Pharaoh just cast their stick and it appears that they have a snake in front of you in the form of a fragment that is, to say the least, unprovenanced! Why are you so dismissive?

This document is not an attack on celibacy as many theologians may justifiably think it is. It goes farther, much farther! It is an attack on Jesus’ Divinity. They don’t want to prove that Jesus married, therefore priests should marry! Through this document they want to prove that Jesus was just a man after all! You should be prepared, beyond prepared perhaps, to face and combat any attack on the divinity of Christ without “dismissiveness”, but with courage to face what the “enemy” is laying before you and be capable to consume whatever the enemy produces with your own truths!

Do you think that this attack is, or will be any different than any other attack on the divinity of Christ? Do you think that this is all that those who want to destroy over 2000 years of the authenticated revelation of Christianity, got? It may, in fact it will, become worse! Do you have answers? Are you capable of giving an answer to every man who asks the reason for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15). Well, think about it! If you’re not prepared and you are in the ministry, sorry, but what a tragedy! Are you ignorant of the very things that are the foundation for the things you claim to believe? God forbid!

A bit of Calvin’s teaching on prayer

Posted on by
Reply

For whose sake we pray? Should we pray for things God already promised to bestow? Should we persist in the “same” prayer? Calvin responds these and more:

“But some one will say, Does he not know without a monitor both what our difficulties are, and what is meet for our interest, so that it seems in some measure superfluous to solicit him by our prayers, as if he were winking, or even sleeping, until aroused by the sound of our voice?

Those who argue thus attend not to the end for which the Lord taught us to pray. It was not so much for his sake as for ours. He wills indeed, as is just, that due honour be paid him by acknowledging that all which men desire or feel to be useful, and pray to obtain, is derived from him. But even the benefit of the homage which we thus pay him redounds to ourselves. Hence the holy patriarchs, the more confidently they proclaimed the mercies of God to themselves and others felt the stronger incitement to prayer. It will be sufficient to refer to the example of Elijah, who being assured of the purpose of God had good ground for the promise of rain which he gives to Ahab, and yet prays anxiously upon his knees, and sends his servant seven times to inquire (1 Kings 18:42); not that he discredits the oracle, but because he knows it to be his duty to lay his desires before God, lest his faith should become drowsy or torpid.

…the Lord taught us to pray. It was not so much for his sake as for ours.”

Wherefore, although it is true that while we are listless or insensible to our wretchedness, he wakes and watches for use and sometimes even assists us unasked; it is very much for our interest to be constantly supplicating him; first, that our heart may always be inflamed with a serious and ardent desire of seeking, loving and serving him, while we accustom ourselves to have recourse to him as a sacred anchor in every necessity; secondly, that no desires, no longing whatever, of which we are ashamed to make him the witness, may enter our minds, while we learn to place all our wishes in his sight, and thus pour out our heart before him; and, lastly, that we may be prepared to receive all his benefits with true gratitude and thanksgiving, while our prayers remind us that they proceed from his hand. Moreover, having obtained what we asked, being persuaded that he has answered our prayers, we are led to long more earnestly for his favour, and at the same time have greater pleasure in welcoming the blessings which we perceive to have been obtained by our prayers. Lastly, use and experience confirm the thought of his providence in our minds in a manner adapted to our weakness, when we understand that he not only promises that he will never fail us, and spontaneously gives us access to approach him in every time of need, but has his hand always stretched out to assist his people, not amusing them with words, but proving himself to be a present aid. For these reasons, though our most merciful Father never slumbers nor sleeps, he very often seems to do so, that thus he may exercise us, when we might otherwise be listless and slothful, in asking, entreating, and earnestly beseeching him to our great good. It is very absurd, therefore, to dissuade men from prayer, by pretending that Divine Providence, which is always watching over the government of the universes is in vain importuned by our supplications, when, on the contrary, the Lord himself declares, that he is “nigh unto all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth (Ps. 145:18). No better is the frivolous allegation of others, that it is superfluous to pray for things which the Lord is ready of his own accord to bestow; since it is his pleasure that those very things which flow from his spontaneous liberality should be acknowledged as conceded to our prayers. This is testified by that memorable sentence in the psalms to which many others corresponds: “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry” (Ps. 34:15). This passage, while extolling the care which Divine Providence spontaneously exercises over the safety of believers, omits not the exercise of faith by which the mind is aroused from sloth. The eyes of God are awake to assist the blind in their necessity, but he is likewise pleased to listen to our groans, that he may give us the better proof of his love. And thus both things are true, “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4); and yet whenever he sees us dumb and torpid, he withdraws as if he had forgotten us.”

Calvin, John (2011-09-30). Of Prayer: A Perpetual Exercise of Faith and the Daily Benefits Derived from It [Illustrated] (Kindle Locations 136-141). . Kindle Edition.

Imperious Presbyterianism

Posted on by
Reply

I may have had “inferiority” complex tendencies in the recent past because I did not belong to the “elite” denomination of the “Reformed”. I was denied membership in a very popular Presbyterian forum and was labeled “not reformed” by a bunch of religious geeks because, (their words) “I do not belong to a larger denomination”. I refuse to dignify these guys by publishing their email to me in here, but take my word for it. When I read this book I was “cured” of such feelings. I highly recommend non-Presbyterians, or Presbyterians who left their organization after they received all the new theological fads of the day who feel that they are forlorn and are, suddenly, separated from the Kingdom.
By the way, do not tell those guys in that Forum that a certain John Calvin, when he was only Jean Cauvin, did not belong to a “larger denomination” either, so he would probably be rejected among this forum crowd.

Get it here

Wisdom from someone who loved the Holy Scriptures

Posted on by
Reply

According to Luther, we need more demons and tyrants to drive us to the Holy Scriptures!

I, said Luther, did not learn my divinity at one only time, but I was constrained to search deeper and deeper, to which my temptations brought me; for no man, without trials and temptations, can attain to the true understanding of the Holy Scriptures.  St. Paul had a devil that beat him with fists, and with temptations drove him diligently to study the Holy Scripture.  I, said Luther, had cleaving and hanging on my neck the Pope, the Universities, all the deep-learned, and with them the devil himself; these hunted me into the Bible, where I diligently read, and thereby, God be praised, at length I attained to the true understanding of the same.  Without such a devil, we are but only speculators of divinity, and according to our vain reasoning we dream that so-and-so it must be, as the Monks and Friars in monasteries do.  The Holy Scripture of itself is certain and true enough; but God grant me the grace that I may catch hold on the right use thereof; for when Satan disputeth with me in this sort, namely, whether God be gracious unto me or no? then I must not meet him with this text: “Whoso loveth God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his strength, the same shall inherit the kingdom of God;” for then the devil presently objecteth, and hitteth me in the teeth, and saith, “Thou hast not loved God with all thy heart,” etc., which, indeed, is true, and my own conscience therein witnesseth against me; but at such a time I must arm myself and encounter him with this text, namely: “That Jesus Christ died for me, and through him I have a gracious God and Father; Christ hath made an atonement for me,” as St. Paul saith, “He is of God given unto us for wisdom, for righteousness, for holiness, and for redemption.” Tyrants, sectaries, seducers, and heretics do nothing else but drive us into the Bible, to make us read more diligently therein, and with more fervency to sharpen our prayers.

Luther, Martin (2006-02-01). Selections from the Table Talk of Martin Luther (p. 28). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

I would say: next time you feel the religious imperial oppression, the heavy weight of tyranny from those who claim to have exclusivity to terms such as Reformed, Christian, the True Church, especially from Churchianity, Christendumb or Evanjellyfish, or any of the remaining devil minions here on the earth follow Luther’s lead and immerse yourself into the Word of God!