SAINTS AND SERPENTS

People can be mean sometimes. You will be judged for who they perceive you to be just to satisfy their egotistical and racial prejudices. They will mock you, disdain you, and portray you as a senseless human being who is willing to sell your soul to the devil just to get to the top.

I just wonder why serpents exist. I cannot understand what sane person will plot destruction against another. In the game of survival of the fittest, they are the devourers who selflessly betray others to champion their evil causes. Their schemes are not new. Their ways are out in the open. They are dressed in angelic clothings yet their eyes are full of hatred and bitterness. Their lives are epic failures.

But let the saints go marching in. Let the happy people be envied. Let their way of life shine for the serpents to see that they are protected in the heavenlies. Let their lives echo the message of faith, hope and love. And let God vindicate them here and in eternity.

BLOG NEWS FLASH: MAGNITUDE 7.2 EARTHQUAKE STRIKES TURKEY

Just a couple of minutes ago, Eastern Turkey was striken by a powerful earthquake. The earthquake registered at 7.2 magnitude according to the US Geological Survey. Please click the link to find out more about this news:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/23/world/europe/turkey-earthquake/?hpt=wo_c2; and http://abcnews.go.com/International/73-earthquake-hits-eastern-turkey-iranian-border/story?id=14796065

*Photo courtesy of abcnews.com

LIBYA: THE DAWN OF A NEW DEMOCRACY

THE TYRANNY IN LIBYA IS (HOPEFULLY ) OVER!!!

Muammar Al-Gaddafi finally exchanged his final gun shots, Thursday, near a drainage pipe in the city of Sirte. Gaddafi, who became the longest running dictator of Libya, lived a ruthless life unmoved by the cries of his people. The mad man seeking for the control of power did not wave the white flag in all of his fights. However, he did pay his dues by dying a cruel death.

Libya, as it begins a new leadership, sees hope in the dawn of a new democracy- something which is foreign in the land controlled by a dictator for 42 years. The rebels are now free to change the system. Yet, here's hoping that the the the succeeding government will make sure that they hear the voice and champion the cause of the common people.

The international community is praying for Libya.
Hopefully, your dog days will be over.

And as the story goes, in the end...

 THE GOOD WILL ALWAYS TRIUMPH OVER EVIL!

TEN BEST UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD AND IN ASIA, 2011 RANKING

Here's the newest ranking (2011) of the 10 best universities in the World and Asia as compiled by us.news.com. (For the complete list and more, please click here =>http://www. usnews.com/ education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world.)



World's Top Ten:

1. University of Cambridge (UK)- 100%*
2. Harvard University (USA)- 100%
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA)- 100%
4. Yale University (USA)- 100%
5. University of Oxford (UK)- 100%
6. Imperial College of London (UK)- 100%
7. University College London (UK)- 82%
8. University of Chicago (USA)- 90%
9. University of Pennsylvania (USA)- 90%
10. Columbia University (USA)- 100%

(*Employer Reputation Score)


Asia's Top Ten:

1. Hongkong University of Science and Technology (Hongkong)
2. University of Hongkong (Hongkong)
3. National University of Singapore (Singapore)
4. The University of Tokyo (Japan)
5. Chinese University of Hongkong (Hongkong)
7. Seoul National University (South Korea)
8. Kyoto University (Japan)
9. Osaka University (Japan)
10. Tohoku University (Japan)

Only two universities in the Philippines were ranked in the list of 400 best universities in the world:

1. University of the Philippines- ranked 332/400 in the world and no. 62 in Asia

2. Ateneo de Manila University- ranked 360/400 in the world and no. 65 in Asia

What do you think???

WHAT DOES THE KOREAN FLAG MEAN?

The national flag of Korea is called "taegeukgi" (te-guk-gi), which signifies the people's quest for creativity and prosperity. The red and and black taeguk in the center is surrounded by four sets of black trigrams on a white background representing purity and love for peace. The taeguk diagram symbolizes harmony between "yin" (blue) and "yang" (red), which is the belief that everything in the universe were created as a result of interaction between opposites. The four trigrams stand for the changes and development of yin and yang through various combinations: (from top left) the sky, water, earth and fire.

Disclaimer: This article was copied from the English Chosun Online. You can click the link and learn more here => http://english.chosun.com/info/taegeukgi.html

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR SIGN, IT'S ALL ABOUT YOUR BLOOD TYPE

One of my classmates today said that knowing one's blood type is popular in Korea. I was surprised to find out that I asked if they consider one's blood type in looking for their partner in life. I searched through the net and found this blood type personalities for your enlightenment. (To know more about this, please click the link here: =>http://www. 8asians. com/2011/06/03/do-blood-types-dictate-personality-traits/)

Although science dismisses this as unwarranted, still, this is quite popular in Korea and has become a business even in Korean dramas.  There's even a Korean movie which has an english translation, "My Boyfriend is Blood Type B." It's interesting alright. My friend said that here, people will not ask you about your sign, they will ask you about your blood type. So, what's your blood type personality? 

FOUR EXPRESSIONS MY MOTHER TOLD ME NEVER TO FORGET TO SAY

My mother has always taught her children the values we need to instill in our hearts and minds. These include words which she said should come out naturally for us as breathing. The following are the four expressions my mother always reminds me and my sibs never to forget to say...

1. "THANK YOU" (In Filipino, we say, "Salamat po.")

To say "thank you" is to express gratitude. We should always express our gratitude to the people around us- to our family, friends, and everyone who has made even the simplest thing to help us. Who wants to be called ungrateful anyway???

2. "EXCUSE ME" (In Filipino, we say, "Pasintabi po.")

We say "excuse me" to people when we burp (or in my case "belch") or when we pass gas (f*rt). It is a polite way of asking people to move when we need to pass on their way.

3. "PLEASE" (In Filipino, we say, "Pakiusap po.")

We say please when we want to ask for a favor from someone whether it be big or small. But never abuse it though. So how many times did you say "please" today?

4. "I'M SORRY" (In Filipino, we say, "Paumanhin po.")

I actually find it difficult to understand why a lot of people cannot even say "sorry" when they blow it. This expression can bring a big difference in our lives. So start practicing. Maybe somebody's just waitin' for you to say it.

I just love my mom for teaching me these words. Wherever I go, I always treasure the values that she passed on to us, her children. How the world will be a better place to live in if all of us will learn to articulate these powerful expressions.

BOOK REVIEW: GOD AGAINST RELIGION

God Against Religion: Rethinking Christian Theology Through Worship
by Matthew Myer Boulton, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. 

Boulton specifically described his book as an effort to show that religion is a portrait and critique of worship. From the teachings of Karl Barth, John Calvin and Martin Luther, the author asserts that in the Reformed tradition, in all its liturgical practices, God is against religion, and that he is against the ways in which man has approached him in worship. His apathy towards man’s worship is then manifest by him entering, transforming and ending it (p. xviii). Boulton addresses the problem of worship in today’s churches as a product of not being able to see Christian Theology through the lens of biblical worship. This book is concerned in the critical approach to Christian worship and religion and tying up both as necessary in the reformulation of present worship observance of the church. It also pinpoints the mistake of the Western Christian thought making worship as an appendix to theology, making it as sort of an afterthought, and a sideshow of theology. This, still being a norm in the Christendom, the author makes worship in his book as the heart of the Christian theology.

Boulton takes Jesus to the center stage of the discussion, saying that the incarnation of Christ is the ultimate way of God to end the heartless and pagan-like worship practices of the teachers of the Law. However, throughout the history of the church, worship practices have caused divisions and factions among those who were touted as the greats of the evangelical faith. The ceremonialism in the church both then and now, Boulton points out can only be solved if it is taken at the core of the whole issue. He then proposes that the kind of worship we give to God at present will cease to exist and it is God who will put an end to it one day. The Sovereign God is discontent and against man’s view of worship, and in this, he will end the liturgy of it all in the end of time.

This book is a good reading for those who are confused with the real meaning and purpose of worship. It gives a fresh insight as to how God views worship, as explained throughout its practice in the Scriptures. It is helpful in making the believers rethink of the ways that the church has taught them to worship, and to reevaluate how we perceive worship to be. Boulton’s desire to promote worship as foremost in the Christian faith is necessary in understanding how we should think and do theology.

It promotes a healthy view on worship, not as an addendum to Christian theology but as central to our understanding of it. The book was successful in bringing the readers back to the missteps of the great theologians throughout history who disregarded worship in its pure essence, teaching the saints of today to unlearn the mistakes and move toward an understanding of worship as the center in our understanding of theology.

The book is a courageous call for the present theologians to reconsider that in their writings, in their appreciation and discussion of theology, it all should be done in the lens and in the attitude of worship. It promotes a healthy rethinking of theology in contrast to the present argumentative and showing off of one’s seemingly great understanding of the Christian dogmas and tradition.

Boulton’s chapter on Barth’s critique of “worship as fall” is critical to understand the perception of millions of skeptics and unbelievers about religion and theology. The author points back that the reformers’ attempt at reforming religion led to the grave skepticism of many to believe in what is supposed to be absolutes of the Christian theology. The dismay of the unbelievers in not being able to significantly find the core of Christian practice, that is worship, in the church itself has brought shame to the name of God whom the saints worship. When worship should have been the uniting factor of the saints, it became the divisive cause for it which troubled not just Barth but millions of people who tend to look and think highly of Christianity.

For Boulton, this will lead in the destruction of liturgy in the end and God will bring his people into the truth of how he would want his people to view him in worship. God will make his people understand what and how it is to worship him in spirit and in truth. Yet, this did not stop Boulton from reforming worship practices in his book. Yet, his main contention is not in really reformulating the ways of worship, as it is practiced denominationally. Here, he points out that this is manifested in the change of perspective on how Christians ought to view worship itself and its vitality in comprehending and appreciating Christian theology and practice.

God Against Religion is a must read for every Christian theologian and those who are budding to be one. It encourages them to refocus on the reality of worship as they decipher the truths of God in words and in practice. It is a worthy reading for theologians and pastors alike that would help them to behold God in their preaching and teaching ministry. 

Boulton asserts the fact that worship can only be ideal when we are already being perfected in the presence of the Lord. This will take place in Christ’s parousia and when the saints will be ushered into the perfect as they worship God in his perfection. This idea is fundamental so as not to be legalistic in our approach to God and in understanding that worship can be expressed in communal and contextual ways, as long as the heart and the knowledge of truth are right.

The role of redemption in its finality is crucial in our perfect understanding of what real worship is. It is a given fact that we could not perfectly worship God in this world, yet, we strive to worship him in our minimal perception of worship, hoping that somehow, in our reverential attitude and practice of it, we give God the glory and worship he deserves. This we do, as we wait for him to usher us into realizing what it means to worship in spirit and in truth.

THE CASE OF GIVEN GRACE

I was in shock of the very sad story of a UPLB (University of the Philippines in Los Baños) student who was raped and killed and whose body was found dumped close to the university. Given Grace, her name, who is a Pastor's Kid (PK), is a 19 year-old,  3rd year, computer science major in UP, was about to return to her dormitory when the horrible incident happened.

I read of a story @ inquirer.net about this and it broke my heart to realize how schools back home are not as safe as they were before. (link here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/76385/suspects-in-uplb-rape-slay-case-to-be-charged-friday)

What struck me even more were the comments of anger and of fear among their readers:

Kevin said: "The final conclusion is this,you are not safe wherever you are in the Philippiness...."

dosndonts70 said: "The richs has the luxury of armed escorts but the average and the poor can only rely on justice. The act of savage brutality cold blooded murders are defintely on the rise of late. What make the streets in Sinapore and Malaysia safe is,they imposed punishment of death penalty to such cold blooded murder offenders. It is time to reinstate back death penalty and if not, many more innocent lives will be lost.Justice of the highest form penalty must be served in return , and none other than death penalty."

Ted Peñaflor expressed: "With the kinds of guards we have today no wonder our citizens, especially the women, are no longer 'secured'. One of the suspects even boasted that the poor, defenseless girl was the 'seventh of his murdered victims.' My family and I feel the anguish that the victim's family is going through. Crimes, especially against hapless women, rise because our people do not feel violated anymore until some kind of tragedy fell upon one of their own. Sadly, we don't have the Death Penalty to seek comfort to, though the crimes committed by these rogues deserve death no less. If our law-abiding citizens feel helpless, why not apply an 'eye for an eye' brand of justice, after all these criminals already forfeited their right to live by the crimes they committed. How I wish Vice-Mayor Rodrigo Duterte is around to help our citizens put 'closure' to this gruesome incident."

I do feel for the victim and the family. I pray that God will grant them the strength to face this moment in their lives. I pray that the government will act in response to security issues in schools and universities back home. I hope that justice be served, and mercy and grace overflow.

WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE?

Do you like receiving invitations from friends and loved ones, asking for your special presence in the important events of their lives? Doesn't it feel good that someone actually remembers?

How would you feel if you receive an invitation card which says, "Dear Mr./Ms. so and so, you are cordially invited to a banquet of a lifetime!"

Luke 14:15-24 tells us the parable of the great banquet. Jesus narrated this parable after one of those at the table with him said, "Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God." The story moves from the real feast where Jesus was to this great parable about yielding to the the Lord's offer of feast to those who were invited.

The story starts with a man preparing a great banquet. However, as the celebration was about to begin, those who were invited made their excuses. One of them excused himself for he had to visit the land he just bought (v.18). Another turned down the invitation at the last minute because he needed to try his newly bought five yoke and oxen (v.19). Finally, a man who "just got married" said his ultimate excuse (v.20).

However, those excuses were an insult to the host of the banquet. Their justifications and alibis made the banquet's host angry. Yet, their absence did not stop him from inviting the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame and all others. He was insulted, still and all, he made sure that his feast will commence regardless of their responses.

What this parable teaches us is that we should never make excuses before the Lord. We should yield to his invitation WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME. We need to realize that our excuses won't lead us to experience the great banquet that Christ has prepared for us. Our excuses won't keep him from inviting others, those who feel the need and who are more than willing to feast with him.

Remember that our excuses won't keep Christ from commencing his banquet becaue he will not wait until we are ready. He won't wait till we are done with our chores in the midst of the busyness of our lives. Excuses all boil down to our P-R-I-O-R--I-T-Y. Let us then stop making excuses before the Lord and let us yield to the invitation of God while there is still time. Salvation is here, salvation is now! The Apostle Paul in In 2 Corinthians 6:2 said...

SO NOW, WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE???

THE "GOD" PUZZLE

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO BRIAN DAVIES' "THE CONCEPT OF GOD" CHAPTER IN HIS BOOK, INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

The idea of God and the truth of his existence have puzzled man throughout time. Philosophers then and now have tried to comprehend who (if there is) is this God who has caused man to search and understand his reality and wonder at his existence. They attempted to know and somehow define God and the concept at which he exists.

In this chapter, we saw two approaches in understanding the concept of God: the view of Classical Theism which could very well be summarized in the statement that God is not a person. On the other hand, the idea of the second approach called Theistic Personalism discounts that thought and firmly believes that God is a person.

Classical Theism insists that all of creation is dependent upon God who is not just its Creator but its Sustainer as well. The point of God being the Creator of everything is only right to be followed by the premise, that as the Creator, he ought to be its Sustainer and no one else. A Creator God cannot create and somehow leave his creation for that would lead to the idea of deism. God’s involvement in the creative process is as real as that in sustaining it. However, the big contrast of this to Theistic Personalism is the idea that God is not a person. The latter requires God to be a person though incorporeal at that.

These two approaches somehow can make us ponder at the characteristic of God. If God is not a person, as what Classical Theism insists, then, he cannot be a personal God; if he is not a personal God, then it would lead us to conclude that God cares less of his creation now than when he created everything, and; that he couldn’t be a ‘he’ but an ‘it’. This line of thought is absurd as I see it. I concur to the notion presented by Theistic Personalism on this part. God can be a person even without a body. He, being an incorporeal person is what makes him ‘distinct’ from his creation. Truly, he has some characteristics just like as but he can never be like us. Anthropomorphism, as what we call the ideas of God having those human-like characteristics (i.e. he loves, cares, sees), makes us in one way or another understand God but not fully. In fact, it is somehow difficult to fully cling to this concept since it makes man to think that God is ‘just a person’ like us. We then have to be very careful at explaining the idea of anthropomorphism for even though it gives us an idea to somehow understand God, the language of man still falls short at describing the actions of the divine toward his entire creation.

Davies’ definition of God also categorically denies the basic truths of biblical Christianity as to who the Creator God is and somehow of Judaism and Islam. The ‘God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity’ as a basic definition of God is somehow vague and cannot therefore be acceptable for Christianity. If we are going to make Jesus Christ as the historical point of reference in order to understand the concept of God[1], the definition given by Davies will somehow be chaotic because Christianity, Judaism and Islam differently see who Jesus is. Though they believe in his historicity, they have their own differing views about who the historical Christ is, and this would really be muddled if we are to force this idea of the author.

The Muslim God as I see can never very well fit into the context of the Christian God, not because they somehow call ‘God’ as Allah, but because Jesus (as the historical point of reference to our understanding of who God is) is rejected as ‘God’ in the Muslim world. In this line of thought, I could not be in agreement with the author. On the other hand, Judaism downplays the Messianic work of Christ which Christianity firmly believes. Considering all these concepts of these three religions, it is somehow difficult to agree on the definition of God given here by Davies.

The concept of God will always make man wonder. However, what matters most is that somehow, God has allowed us to see a glimpse of who he is by the revelation of Jesus and from the Scriptures. We may use everything in our power and describe him for all that we can know about him but it would still fail to comprehend who God is and what he is like. Believing that there is a Creator God, One who is living, and supreme over all, is indeed enough as I see to describe the God whom we believe. However, defining God would be impossible for if man is able to define him, then he ceases to be God.

As a theist myself, I have conceded to the notion that it is indeed impossible to define or even understand God. However, not having a clear grasp of who and what he is will neither make me a skeptic nor a pessimist at the thought of his existence. Being unable to define or give a clear cut description of what God is, is to humbly admit that we as creation of the Creator are finite to the Infinite. So then, we could only be settled to the revelation of himself to us and be content in the truth that he exists. 

THE PROBLEMATIC IDEA OF EXPERIENCING GOD

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO BRIAN DAVIES' "EXPERIENCE AND GOD" CHAPTER IN HIS BOOK, INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

             At the outset, let me concede to the idea that indeed, the concept of ‘God experience’ vis-à-vis ‘God’s existence’ is problematic. Yet, problematic as it may be, the argument for experience as a valid notion for the existence of God still stands. Let me unravel this truth in the following arguments.

             Skeptics deny the existence of God based on experience for which they claim that it is in itself ‘frequently deceptive’. However, saying that experience is frequently deceptive can be a misleading argument. The question of frequency here needs to be qualified. Also, they did not clarify the issue as to how can somebody know which experiences are deceptive and which are not.  Davies, stating his case said that experience is a source of knowledge. I would concur to his idea that it is indeed generally a foundation for our knowledge no matter what kind it might be. To say that experience is frequently deceptive is to blatantly lambast this truth and that those who say it are deceiving themselves.

That statement is unfounded and was not well thought of. If experience is a game of deception, then majority of what we know now is a deception in itself. When skeptics say that experience is frequently deceptive, in the case, their statement could be a product of their ‘deceptive experiences’ and could not be trusted as a fact in the rule of thumb.

             When oppositionists say that some people are taking mere illusion and hallucination as a ‘God experience’, we ought to be careful with these. Yes, it could be a fact that it is possible for hallucination and illusion to be taken as an experience of God. Yet, we cannot categorically say that ‘all’ people who are talking about their ‘God experience’ are hallucinating and are disillusioned. As Davies said, not all claims need be mistaken as such. For if there are a hundred illusions as against maybe ten truthful ‘God experiences’, the latter could not be discounted and the argument will remain an argument for the existence of God.

             Suppose that the experience was just an illusion, it is safe to say that the person had a wrong interpretation of his experience. But so goes the other way. People might think as well that what they termed as an illusion of a ‘God experience’ could possibly be a factual experience of God.

Psychological and social pressures leading people to believe that their experience is a ‘God experience’ could not be a solid argument to trash out experience as a source of God’s existence as well. When we say that people are ‘only swayed’ by the pressures mentioned above, we are downrightly saying that these people could not decide with their own senses and need the help of others to decide whether their experience is right or wrong, an illusion or a truth as how it appears to them. Being ‘pressured’ is not a basis for ‘everybody’ to give up their own credibility in assessing the veracity of thing as it appears to them.

The best argument I guess for the unbelieving is the test of verification. They believe that any claim of a ‘God experience’ must be rejected since there are no agreed tests on the experience of God. There is no standardized test as to assessing the validity of the experience. So in the case, anybody can just claim yet we can’t just believe all of them. So standards are supposed to be set up. But the problem in this argument lies in the issue of who decides the standard. We have to be reminded that experience may come in different forms and could all be true no matter what the form may be.

Davies said that in order to deal with the issue at hand, we need to recognize that it is indeed God that was there in the experience. However, the problem still stands, what is the standard, if there is any, in recognizing that it is indeed God? Davis said that in the Bible there are somehow contrasting statements as to the experience of God.  In the Exodus account, we are faced with the statements ‘The Lord spoke to Moses face to face’ and God telling Moses that he cannot see Him for if he does he will surely die. So, are we to trash experience as a valid notion for the existence of God because of contrasting testimonies and statements?

The quick response to this is simply, ‘No!’ It is still possible that experience is valid despite of all these. As Davies said, ‘context’ is very important here and this is what is going to break the whole issue even. Skeptics will say again that if some people experience God, still there are also others who say the nonexistence of God in their experience. However, this still does not call for judging the ‘God experience’ of the optimists as invalid. Those who cannot accept the idea will continue by saying that the mystics themselves are quoted as saying that the experience of God is a faith issue and this answers it all. But faith is in itself is an experience of the divine.

 Philosophers believe that since God is an ‘ineffable being’, that is indefinable or beyond words, and that there is no standard of experience of the person that we do not exactly know who, then we might as well scrap the argument and forget the ‘God experience’ since we do not know what we really are talking about. It is a nice try to say those eloquent yet sincerely wrong prejudices. However, we have to keep in mind that even the ‘God experience’ cannot define who God is because who he is, is His wonder and mystery. God cannot be contained in the words of man. Describing him in an experience is possible but defining him by that same experience is unfeasible.

Experience could be deceptive in some cases, but some does not mean all and could never be a basis to brush it aside as a ground for believing in the existence of God. Recognizing God and explaining the experience that people have had with him could somehow be painstaking for those who had it when questioned by the skeptics, but their belief should not waver in the hands of the unbelieving for they are only subject not to man but to the Object of their experience.

To sum it up, no matter how complicated the issue might be, it doesn’t mean that there are no possibilities of the existence of God based on experience. For I believe that, even if there is a single truth claim of a ‘God experience’ as against a million, that one claim will suffice to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being indefinable and incomprehensible as he is.

MAKING SENSE OF OUR GOD-TALK

The use of human language to describe God is an issue that has embattled Christians throughout history. Believers tried to explain God in plain language and exhaust vocabularies to illustrate his truths, yet nothing still comes close in making a great sense of the ‘God-talk’. As I closely examine the ins and outs of using the human language in talking about God, I realized how limited words are in somehow giving us a clear picture of God. We can only be content with the truth that we will never be able to find perfect (human) words to describe a perfect (divine) being.

The problem with language is that it is not enough to describe God, nor would it be satisfactory in doing so. The words of man could never interpret what God is like completely. However, this is not to say that we cannot fully trust human words to identify God in our ‘God-talk’. Let us once again use the idea of the ‘incorporeal person’ when we talk about God. In human language, this is somehow absurd to talk about. We talk of persons as physical beings and not spirits. If we are to say that a person is ‘incorporeal’, that would be an absurd statement that is somehow unacceptable in the limited human mind. But how are we to explain such cases if the words that we have are very limited and cannot encompass that which is beyond the physical dimension. Can we use still use our ‘language’ to completely comprehend the ‘incorporeal’ realm? 

I would say that we still have to go back to language in order to describe that which we know though it may not be complete. We have to understand that incomplete as it may be, words can still be used to communicate truths. We can still use language to give us an idea of what God is like. I would agree with skeptics that it is difficult to use words in talking about God, but this is not to dismiss language as a basis of our God talk because this is what we only have to identify and characterize him. Though it may be difficult, we cannot say that words are useless in its entirety in talking about God because to do so is to say that we are not making sense as well in talking about things, (other than God) that are somehow difficult to comprehend.

There is a problem of delimitation when it comes to describing God in human terms. We do not have a clear guideline as to when it is and when it is not possible to use words in describing God. The use of metaphors somehow is helpful in our ‘God-talk’. Nevertheless, it could not be exact. It gives us an idea, but an idea which is not complete. If it is through metaphors that we will be discussing about the comprehensibility of God, figurative definition would not suffice our description of God, because questions as to the literal meaning of who he is will always pop up and cannot be answered by this approach.

The use of negation in talking about God has a lot more problem in our understanding of who he is. When we say that God is not like this and that, we still have to somehow get the picture of what he is like in order to obviously understand the idea of negation. In doing so, it will give us a lot more problem to discuss and describe God in our ‘God-talk’.  Also, we cannot always talk of what God is not in order for God to be intelligible for us humans as we are not used to define things using the idea of negation. If we say God is not like this and that, the question that would usually follow is, ‘So what is he?’ then, the question remains unanswered.

Thomas Aquinas largely contributed to the use of analogy in describing and talking about God. However, he maintains that words cannot be applied to God and creatures equivocally, and that, they are used analogically. However, the use of analogy cannot be trusted entirely, for analogies especially in the ‘God-talk’ since they cannot still be exact representations of who God is.

So, how are we to respond to the following questions: ‘Can we really talk significantly about God and who he is?’ Is he comprehensible or not? Are words meaningful enough to describe him? Or could he ever be describable?

We have to acknowledge at the outset that neither human language nor the attempts of the different approaches are successful at describing and articulating God in their ‘God-talk’. Words are not enough to give us an intelligible meaning of the Supreme Being. However, is there still a reason for us to talk about God amidst all these issues? As a believer, doubtless to say, there should be a positive response to this question. We have to realize that God has revealed himself to us in his Word who and what he is like, and from this, we can infer that God in a way is intelligible. Human words which are God-inspired are trustworthy statements for it did not come from man but from God himself. However, in explaining these God-inspired statements in our own words, we have to accept that our words will always fall short in exhausting and expressing who and what God is.

Again, we can only be content with the truth that we will never be able to find perfect (human) words to describe a perfect (divine) being. We will not be able to completely comprehend God nor exhaust him for all that he is. For if we will be able to do so, God will cease to be God.

God is God, and so let Him be....

VANGUARDS OF THE GOSPEL OF GRACE (Gal. 2:11-12)

At the start of the school year, a freshman student enrolled in a popular university was asked by his professor to introduce himself in class. He said, “My Name is Paul Closa, 17years old. My Father is a teacher and my mother is a homemaker.” Then his professor asked, “How about your faith?” Suddenly on his mind were flashbacks of that one evening when his mother led him in a prayer to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. Then his professor said “Mr. Closa?” and so he answered, “My Father is a Roman Catholic and my mother is a Born Again Christian.” “So that makes you what?” the professor asked again. The young lad trembled when he answered back saying, “Well…. that makes me half a Roman Catholic and half a Born again Christian.”

The story of Paul Closa is not new to many of us. In a way or another, we have experienced denying Jesus, if not hesitant of our faith in front of many people. We avoid talking about him because of fear which is a sad reality that we need to overcome. For when Christ saved us through the gospel of His grace, we then should automatically be vanguards of our faith. 

The book of Galatians has been tagged as the Magna Carta of the Christian Liberty, (McArthur, p.ix). In here lies the truth that we have been saved by faith and never by the works of the law. It was written to combat religious legalism and to champion the “Gospel of Grace.” 

In Galatians 1:6, we can see the Apostle Paul astounded by the Galatians’ accommodation of a counterfeit gospel, which quickly turned them away from the apostle’s teachings, and had accepted a ‘different gospel’. In Gal. 2:1-10, Paul narrates his return to Jerusalem for the council, where they are to resolve the problem that some Judaizers have created adding the Law to the gospel (Acts 15) which brings them to the shackles of legalism. Knowing the Judaizers, they wouldn’t accept the idea of Peter, whom we know as the apostle to the Jews, eating with the Gentiles for they believe that in order to be pleasing to the Lord, they would not even consider eating a holy meal with an unholy Gentile because this is a moral issue for them.

Our text Galatians 2:11-21 revolves around this particular incident in the Galatian church as a reminder of Gal. 1:8 which says, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

In this line Paul convinces us that to live in the defense of our faith, we should be vanguards of the gospel of grace. It is along this proposition that we will dig deep on how we are to live as vanguards of the gospel of grace which leads me now to my first point.

I. WE SHOULD DEFY COMPROMISES IN THE GOSPEL (vv.11-13)

When Paul saw how Peter compromised his belief only to accommodate the heretics of his time, he opposed the latter to his face. Paul defended and protected the gospel which was being harassed by the Judaizers. Peter, in his actions sided with the Judaizers which he himself knew in the first place was very wrong, deeply hurting the Gentile believers in Antioch and leading astray the rest of the Jewish Christians. However, true to his being a defender of the faith, Paul reprimanded Peter and there preached the only “genuine gospel of God’s grace.” Peter lacked the firmness to stand by his faith, and this example we need not emulate. The Christian liberty that we have rests on the assurance that it is only by grace that we are saved through faith (Eph. 2:8-9).

In this postmodern world, our faith is being harassed by countless cults and counterfeit religions. Their beginnings had its root from their desire to accommodate certain practices that have no room in Christianity. We who have been saved by the gospel of God’s grace, should never compromise the truths from all these counterfeits and we should defy all the heresies proliferating in the world and creeping inside the church. We need to guard the purity of our faith.

Sad but true, we Christians are sometimes like Peter here. Instead of defying the compromises in our faith, we become afraid to stand firm on it because of what the crowd might think of us. We tend to withdraw from our godly walk and just do what we think would be approved by them. WE BECOME HYPOCRITES. On the one hand, we proclaim the God-given liberty that we have, but on the other hand, we stand against our own words. We tend to “buy-in” to the truths of Christianity but our actions loudly proclaim our not being “sold-out” to the same. We break what we make out of the gospel we preach, thus making Christ, whom we say we emulate, unattractive to more and more people.

II. WE SHOULD DECLARE THE TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL (vv.14-16)

Verse 14 points out to a clear indication of Peter’s inconsistent behavior. At the start of his ministry he was associating with the Gentile believers in Antioch. We have to note here that Peter was a disciple of Christ, but in this situation he might have forgotten the very freedom that Christ gave to him as a man saved by grace and is to live as freedman for Christ’s sake.

With all his might, Paul now declares the truth of the gospel of grace- that man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ. Thus in verse 16 he said, “…for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Notice here that Paul gave no room for any compromise, but he stood firm and immovable in his faith.

The truth of the gospel is anchored on what Christ and his grace did for us. It was through this grace that we had the privilege of being saved and this we should always take hold of. And so, out of the abounding gratitude of our hearts we should continuously keep watch over the purity of our faith. Living in light with the truths of God’s Word, breathing its very purpose and guarding ourselves from “another” gospel would be helpful for us to remain faithful to our Lord especially that Christ had entrusted to us his very own possession- the Church. We should not just sit in the laurels of our salvation, but we should wear our faith- a declaration of who we are and whom we are serving. We wear our faith in school, in the church, in our homes, at work for it is an everyday walk of the believer, thus we are declaring only the truth of the gospel of Christ, in our everyday with Him.

III. WE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THE POWER OF THE GOSPEL (vv.17-21)

The truth of the gospel is pictured on the Father’s giving up of His dear Son for our redemption, thus displaying the power of His Word. This expression of the gospel of grace is anchored on the Person of the gospel- Jesus Christ who is the actual demonstration of God’s love for the Church.

Paul certainly elaborated his cause in his defense in v.19 saying “For through the Law, I died to the Law, that I might live for God.” The apostle’s statement is a sure clash between the idea of legalism and of grace. It is a way of saying, if Paul lived in strict adherence to the Law, he could have never lived for God. Now he is implicating that he is living for God for the Law has no power in him anymore.

As individuals who have tasted the goodness and grace of our Father, we ought to walk as freedmen. We are no more slaves to the Law, but now, we are slaves to the freedom that we have in Christ. We are to be constantly reminded of this, for now as emancipated from the Law, we ought to walk as vanguards of the Lord’s freedom- the power that saved us, and the same power that would keep us marching on towards our purposes for His glory. Paul declared himself as crucified with Christ- that his old nature is now dead and now the new man, the man saved by the gospel of grace, now lives. Thus as being crucified with Christ he continues to live by faith and in victory. Because of this truth, Paul was resolved that he would fight for the God who fought for his salvation- Jesus Christ who is the demonstration of the power of the gospel, he himself being the gospel personified.

We Christians are vanguards of the gospel of grace-the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation of man. We ought not to be ashamed of it. We uphold and preserve the pure gospel of the Lord despite the countless attacks of the heretics and compromises of some professing Christians.

Believers are given that precious privilege of acquiring the know-how of apologetics so that we can defend our convictions and take actions to safeguard the thrust of the Christian faith. Whatever challenges might be, soldiers of the cross ought to make a big leap forward, stand up for Jesus, and hold high the banner of the cross.

Just as the military has its vanguards who are in the forefront of protecting the country from anything that will try to harm it, we are the front liners in defending the gospel- the vanguards of the Christian faith and we must be fearless and bold to defy anyone who endeavors to stain the purity of Christianity. As God’s children, we are the vanguards of the gospel of grace and we are to live in the defense of our faith.

With helps from:

Keyword Study Bible

The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians by John Allan

The Epistle to the Galatians: A Study Manual by Floyd Hamilton

The New Bible Commentary

*This is one of the first messages I wrote. You can use this manuscript for whatever purposes possible provided that proper citations be made. Thank you.

A TRIBUTE TO A GRACE PREACHER: HAPPY BIRTHDAY PASTOR PAUL!

Today, my home church, Evangelical FREE Church in GMA, Cavite and the the whole FREE Mission Philippines are celebrating the bigday of our senior pastor and national director, Rev. Paul P. Hernandez.

To honor him today, I am sharing four things that are so endearing about Pastor Paul.

1. GENEROUS: I will never forget the time that I was still a student at FEBIAS College of Bible. For five years, he would always make sure that I am doing what I need to do and he would surely help in every he can. He was always there for me. I believe that what makes him blessed is the fact that he never withholds anything for himself. He is such giver. And among the many lessons in the ministry that I learned from him, generosity will always be on top of my list.

2. GRACIOUS: He is a grace preacher. And he does not just preach it, he breathes and lives it. He is an epitome of a gracious person. For everyone who knows him, we all can attest to this.

3. WELCOMING:  What I love about Pastor Paul is that even though I left the country to study (for a while), he is so welcoming everytime I come back. He never changed. What more can I ask when my senior pastor would volunteer to pick me up from the airport everytime I go home for a visit and treat me to a nice sauna after. There was never a time that I went home that we never had a time to talk, to bond, and to catch up. Isn't he so pampering? haha....BUT HONESTLY, I APPRECIATE HIM FOR SUCH A NICE GESTURE. Starbucks at midnight, anyone???

4. HE'S ALL IN ONE: He is a friend, a pastor, a brother, a father, and a mentor all in one: Pastor Paul is somebody I would never replace in my life. Our time of just sharing and talking about life, dreams, future and ministry is so precious and enlightening. He would always encourage me to follow God's dreams for me. His guidance in my ministry both then and now is so refreshing. His perspectives are awesome.

This day, I honor the man to whom I look up to. For the wonderful years that God has blessed you, I am thankful to the Lord for making our paths cross in this journey of life. A big part of what I have become is because of you...

Maraming salamat po Pastor Paul! Happy birthday and see you soon...