Thoughts on the death of FPJ — was he ready?

This week, almost the entirety of the Philippine archipelago mourn. They mourn for the death of the “king of Philippine movies” and considered by most politicians as the opposition leader. Fernando Poe, Jr., commonly known by his initials FPJ, died of coronary thrombosis Dec. 14. His death was such a big deal, the 2 tv giants cover his wake as if the Philippines is having an election.

People tell stories about FPJ’s endless goodness to them. They tell about their happy memories with him. They cry. Including my wife. Yes, including Joy.

I remember when young actor Rico Yan died, it has almost the same impact. But not with Joy. I can still remember her saying she won’t cry for any artist who died and will die, except when FPJ dies. She fullfilled her promise. I can relate with my wife. She, including myself, is a true-blue FPJ fan. I remember when I was a kid, about 6 to 10 years old, my dad would bring me to Manila whenever there is an FPJ movie. (Another actor that could make me travel to Manila was Lito Lapid, now a Senator). Joy, on the other hand, would tell stories about her succesfully bringing her entire barkada to watch FPJ’s “Dito sa Pitong Gatang”. And when I started going out with Joy in 1997, we would never miss a single FPJ movie. So you could imagine that to her, FPJ’s death is like loosing a grand father.

So why would I file this post under “Theology”? You’ll find out later.

While Joy and I were having lunch this afternoon, she told me about the latest testimonies of people about FPJ. (She was like, literally stuck on the TV screens). She told about FPJ paying the hospital bills of another actress Janice Jurado amounting to P800,000. That house that he gave his horse trainer. The list seems endless. When you watch the morning shows especially those of ABS-CBN’s, you’ll know what I’m talking about. Then, suddenly, I was struck by how profound she talked about FPJ’s death with her sister.

She told me about their conversation. She said, one of the reasons why she’s sad is that she was thinking if FPJ was ready when he died. By “ready”, she meant if FPJ would go to heaven. Her sister, in contemplation, suggests that he was ready because he was really a good person. I could image her sister echoing those people’s testimonies. And besides, her sister said, he is a Marian devotee.

I halted Joy for a moment to ask what a Marian devotee is, having a non-Catholic background that I am. To cut the long explanation, it is summarized as simply someone devoted to Mary. Simple, eh! ;)

And so she continued. Here comes the profound, theological comment from a non-theological minded, believer of Jesus.

She carefully explained, You see, in as far as FPJ’s salvation is concerned, his good works amounts to nothing. Even his being a Marian devotee can’t help him. Unless he accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior, I doubt it if he’s ready, she explained to her sister.

My heart was smiling. There goes the wife of a future pastor. :)

That explain pretty much why I’d like to file this post to “Theology”. Because the issue of FPJ’s death, as far as his salvation is concerned, involves the gospel and his response to it.

Ok, FPJ fans, I’m not here to discredit what he has done for people. In fact, sometimes, when I watch them talk on TV, I am always humbled. Sometimes I would think that even if I have money, I can’t do what he did. But can that be used as his passport to heaven?

First of, the Bible says we are all born sinners — we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Our forefathers sinned and sin is some sort of a curse that is passed from generation to generation. That makes us all in the same playing field (Ps. 51:5, Rom. 3:23)

The bad news is, being sinner automatically qualifies us to death — not just physical death, but also spiritual death. Some people call it hell. But what is worse than hell as we know it but being eternally separated from a glorious, wonderful, loving God?

Our natural tendency is to ‘patch up’ our sins with good works hoping that it may solve our sin problem — hoping that we will be saved if our good works exceeds the number of sins we committed. But unfortunately, that not God’s economy. According to the Bible, even our good deeds are as filthy rags in God’s eyes. (Isa. 64:6). I used to think that it’s unfair. But come to think of it, our good efforts, most of the time has hidden agenda, whether we are aware of it or not. Some do good not for the sake of doing good, but to make themselves feel good, or as what I have said, to pay for the bad things they have done.

If our good works amounts to filthy rags, what then can save us from being separated from God for eternity? Jesus, sino pa? No amount of good works, or even no amount of devotion to any saints can save us. It’s only Jesus — sinless, Son of God, creator who became a creature, who died a sinner’s death so that sinners like us shall live — who can save us. (John 3:16, Eph. 2:8,9) Trusting what he has done — that is, his saving power — and not what we have done or plan to do is the only solution.

Unfair? I don’t think so. You see, we can only face a glorious God if our focus is on Him, not on ourselves. Here’s the logic behind all these. Jesus has to die and by doing it gets all the credit for saving us. The reason is very basic if we only think about it — it also saves us from being self centered. Imagine if we can go to heaven because of our good works. Imagine yourself going around heaven telling everyone that “I am here because I donated canned goods to flood victims, and oh, Jesus also died for me.” Continue doing good, because it is obvious, doing good is good. But we cannot use it as passport to heaven. We can go there because He is good. He loves us so much that he had to endure the pain so we would not. Ang dali lang para sa atin, di ba? Pero naghirap naman sya.

So, was FPJ ready to meet our heavenly father? If while alive, he decided to accept Jesus’ offer of salvation — that is, apart from his good works, I think we can see each other later. We can both say, Pare, galing ni Jesus, nandito ako dahil sa kanya. And both worship him for all eternity.

It’s sad, though, if Joy’s assumption is correct — that he didn’t and just trusted that all his good deeds can save him from his sins — both private and publicly known.

On repentance

“Repent” or “repentance” (‘Metanoeo’, Strongs 3340) simply means “To change one’s mind”. I’ve been reviewing the occurrences of the word “repent” in the New Testament. In the KJV, there are 22 occurrences — none of which has the phrase “repent of your sins”. What comes close is “..repent of their deeds” in Rev. 2:22. Most of the occurrences are stand alone commands (ie. “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matt. 4:17) or “Repent, be baptized” (Acts 3:19). I’m not saying that “repentance” does not involve repentance of sins. But I do have a point that I’d like to make.

Keeping in mind that repentance by the original usage means “to change one’s mind”, let’s review Acts 3:19;

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” (NIV).

The command is, “Repent!” — change our mind about God. We don’t try to overcome our sins and then turn to God. Instead, we change our mind about God (from God being judgmental and after us to punish us, to God who loves and seeks sinners because He has already forgiven them). Changing our minds from trying to save ourselves to Jesus as the only source of salvation. Having faith in this — and the object of this faith is the finished work of Jesus on the cross — trusting our eternal destination is based upon the salvation that Jesus is offering.

In some instances, when the apostles were asked how one is saved, the word “repentance” were not mentioned. For instance, Acts 16:30-32;

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.”

It doesn’t say, “Repent and believe and you will be saved”. It simply says “Believe…” Is this contradicting with the other Biblical passages such as Acts 3:19 that asks people to repent? If we define “repentance” as it was originally used, then repentance will mean changing what you think about God — from being a nobody, an outsider to a savior, thus — ‘believe…”. When we believe, we change our minds and we receive what we believe is a true offer of salvation.

I don’t mean that, upon conversion, you will not be convicted by the Holy Spirit of some of your sins. I, for one, repented of my sin of legalism when I got born again. I thought my religion can save me. I thought being good is good enough for heaven. I changed my mind toward God. I was convinced that Jesus is the only way. Then I repented of that sin.

But mind you, human as I am, when I look back I can still remember those early years of my Christian life where I had some sins that I am not willing to give up! In fact, I can remember praying and admitting to God that I am not really willing to give up that sin yet. Does that mean that I wasn’t a real Christian at that time? If we define repentance the way we typically define it, probably yes. But if being remorseful of all possible sin that we know we are committing is required to be considered truly ‘repented’, thus saved, then salvation become of works. God is faithful, and he did helped me overcome most of them.

Now, does this mean I am encouraging people to just believe and continue sinning? Not at all! What I’m saying is that people need to take the first step of faith by believing in Jesus for he alone can change us. When one will take that initial step, the Holy Spirit will start working in us, changing our desires little by little.

I do not also say that repentance of your sins is not essential or secondary. All I’m saying is, it may happen during or later in the conversion.

This may sound radical, but I really do not like the idea that to be considered repented, you must first feel remorse or hate every sin that you are committing. That’s nice, but it does not happen to every people who has heard of the good news of salvation and accepted it. What if they don’t feel it, does that mean they have not ‘repented’ and believed? If they then asked to be baptized, will you baptize them if you see that they have not yet ‘repented’ of some obvious sins that they are committing?

What will happen to that jailer — he asked how to be saved and he was instructed to “believe” (Acts 16:30-32). What if he believed in the messiah but has not (initially) repented of all his sins? What will happen to a person like the eunuch — he wanted to be baptized. Philip simply said “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:36) Never actually had that mental process of ‘repenting of all his sins’ yet. Is he saved at that moment?

I also have a problem with categorizing sins — sins that can easily be dismissed and sins that are habitual. The assumption is, those sins that can easily be dismissed will have to be repented off first before be considered repented (and saved) and the habitual ones will come in later. Where’s the list, then? Which are habitual, which are not? Is hatred to your brother habitual or can easily be dismissed? (Note that hatred to your brother is considered murder by Jesus). Is cheating on taxes habitual or can be easily dismissed? Who will draw the line?

Lastly, is this what people call “cheap grace”? Grace isn’t cheap, it comes with a price — Jesus’ death on the cross. If one does not feel the urge to process his thoughts, list down all his sins that needs repentance (and categorize it?) but simply accept Jesus in his life and trust that he will do the rest, that does not make grace cheap. It makes it even more powerful. For grace is given free, so does hatred to sin. The Holy Spirit uses a lot of ways to convict us of every sin in our lives. This is where a healthy support group or Christian community will come in. Sinners (which, as I remember, includes all of us) are helped to overcome those sins and are discipled to grow as followers of Jesus.

(I originally posted this to the The Bereans Apologetics online forum)

Common Sabbatarian Arguments

I have been ministering to an Adventist friend for quite sometime. Quite unique, I’m doing this thru a very popular communication medium here in the Philippines we call “texting” (SMS).

I’m not a ‘”texter” so I often times find it hard to explain certain things. I compiled an answer to his common arguments and questions which represents most of the Adventists’ approach to the topic of the Sabbath. I’m posting it here for the benefits of those who are interested.

1. Sabbath was instituted in creation
2. Sabbath is the only ordained day in the Scriptures.
3. Jesus observed the Sabbath and so do I
4. It is prophesied that people will change the laws of God. Constantine changed the Sabbath observance to Sunday.
5. Sunday worship is not found in the Bible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Adventism and Salvation by Grace through Faith at The Bereans Forum

Abugian started a discussion on Adventism and Salvation by Grace through Faith. I feel a little unconfortable because I know he’ll get different answers from diffent Adventist readers. Here’s why (as I also posted there):

To understand better, there are two basic classifications of members within the Adventist church right now. For the sake of discussion, let me call them “evangelical” Adventists, which composed of about 5% of their current population according to my experience, and “fundamental” Adventists, which composed of the rest of the majority. What will make it a little unconfortatable is that they live under the same roof. Some evangelical Adventists would go out if they can’t handle the “legalism” inside the church. Groups I know that did this are Gospel Life Community (http://gospelife-cwow.org), a Filipino based church in West Covina, CA and Grace Place (http://graceplace.org). On the other hand, majority of evangelical Adventists stay for the reason that the church is in a very tightly knit sub-community.

Now, why am I saying this? If you will ask this question or discuss this topic to, say yahoo_dotcom, an active Adventist participant in the forum, you will notice that he will answer differently as compared to that Adventist pastor Justyn spoke with. I know Yahoo_dotcom personally and he is a typical example of an evangelical Adventist. He understands salvation and grace the same way evangelicals do with some Adventist “twist”.

But if you will talk with the rest of them, you wil probably get a different answer. Just like a couple of weeks ago, I spoke with an Adventist friend and the ultimate answer to the question “What will happen if I don’t observe the Sabbath after hearing it?” is “You will not be saved because you disobeyed God’s commandments”.

The big question: is the Adventist church as an organization evangelical or not? Dr. Martin in the 60′s declared “yes”. But before he died in 1988, he wanted to pull back his declaration — but he didn’t. If you’ll ask me, I’d say, I’m confused. Aside from the 1844 doctrine, the Sabbath and regard of Ellen White as a prophet, The official doctrines sounds evangelical. But when they preach or hear their members talk, you will feel the legalism. Whenever I watch their local UHF channel (3ABN) and the “favorite topic” (eschatology) is being preached or lectured, and if you’re a sensitive, well-established Christian, you’ll feel the pressure of legalism. “Obey the 10 Commandments, or else…”, “The Sabbath is the seal of the people of God. If you don’t have it you’ll …”

Further readings:
Evangelical Adventism: Clinging to the Old Rugged Cross
What Evangelicals Say About Seventh-day Adventists
Evangelical Adventist or 7th Day Adventist (looks like this one is written by a Fundamental Adventist or off-shoot fundamentalists)

A Response to Dr. Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s Review on “The Passion of the Christ”

(The following is my response to Dr. Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s article entitled “Mel Gibson’s Slaughter of Christ“. His article has circulated the internet thru email early March; I myself received several, mostly from Adventist friends and mailing lists. This response seems late especially for those of you who are based in North America. But I wanted to view the movie first, which was shown only last March 31st here in Manila, before writing a response)

Even before Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” came out last February, it has already drawn various reactions from different organizations and people. From a simple blogger (a netizen who journals his daily life thru a website) to Bible scholars. From journalists to government officials. From showbiz personalities to religious gurus. Everyone’s talking about their reactions on the film. Some positive. Some negative. But Dr. Samuelle Bacchiocchi’s review was different — not only that it is negative, it is, to my opinion, extremely negative and extremely biased to the point of judging Mel Gibson’s spirituality and calling him a “poor, lost, deluded soul”.

I received several forwarded emails — 3 to 4 of them — from friends and mailing lists. From the title itself — “… Slaughter of Christ”, you will recognize what it is about — a review that aims to discourage and/or caution people from viewing the film. In fact, it had affected me and my perception of the film to some degree. Our community had a scheduled special screening April 3 with about 440 movie goers coming. And when I read his article, I even had a second thought of supporting it. We went thru with it anyway. It was successful, and this response is the product of it.

I first met Dr. Sam back in college (around 1993 at Adventist University of the Philippines, formerly Philippine Union College). I saw first hand his brilliance as an Adventist theologian. While I now disagree with some of his theological conclusions, I still feel unworthy of responding to his lengthy and scholarly review of the film. Nonetheless, I believe it is worth to have a non-scholarly response for those who have read and considered his points.

A Biased Mind

Dr. Sam, before releasing the said review, published a previous negative review of the film — that is, reviewing it without watching it first. Of course, that’s not the way it should be, so according to him he received several reactions. When he finally decided to watch the film, I can imagine him bringing a notebook and a pen with him. He might have watched the movie for one reason — not to see the merits of the film, or not to even simply enjoy it but, — to find faults in it.

He mentioned listing down the “errors” of the film and filling up the entire page. My wife and my self’s favorite date is watching a movie. And I never go inside a movie house with a pen and paper. No wonder, he has only faults to say for the film.

Anti-Catholic

Here’s a word to describe his review: anti-Catholic. But that’s predictable. He is known for being anti-Catholic in his books and symposiums. He discredits the movie by Mel Gibson’s being a Catholic, its Catholic sources, the prominent roles of Mary in the film and some scenes that are not read in the Bible while being part of Catholic tradition.

I’m not a Catholic myself. I don’t agree with most of their doctrines including their traditions and their especial treatment of Mary. Having said that, I should say, I can understand Mel Gibson for inserting some Catholic biases in the movie. The reason: because he is a Catholic. He is influenced by his belief system. If Dr. Sam will be asked to direct a movie about the end time events, I’m sure he will insert Adventist biases around the film. The biases may not be found in the Bible, but nonetheless, he will interpret it with Adventist eschatology. And sure it will contradict with Lahaye’s “Left Behind”!

But that does not mean Mel Gibson’s effort does not have anything good at all as what Dr. Sam wants to portray. I watched the film two times. I was moved every time I watched it. As I spoke with friends who watched the film, nobody commented about the supposed Catholic biases. No one mentioned about Mary’s special role in the film. All I heard were questions and comments about Jesus. It’s never easy to talk about Jesus to ordinary people until they watched “The Passion…” Can we conclude then that only simple minded people, those that entered the movie houses to “watch” and not to criticize, can really appreciate this film?

The people in Jesus’ time asked “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46 NLT) Catholics? Can anything good come from them? Dr. Sam seems to have an answer.

Petty “errors”

Dr. Sam gave real extra effort in listing down what he perceived as Gibson’s errors. He started with the “unbiblical” appearance of a snake, represented by Satan, at the Garden of Gethsemane. He argued that this scene wasn’t in the Gospels. The director, on the other hand, must have referred to Gen. 3:15b, “…he will crush your head… “.

He even faulted the garden for being seen like an abandoned field and Jesus looking dirty while praying (I wonder how someone will look like after sweating with blood). The physical appearance of Satan in the form of a woman, the riot between Jews and Romans, Christ being thrown off the bridge, the part of some children in that scene with Judas, and more. Those were never in the gospels, and so those were wrong, he criticizes.

Paraphrased Bibles are those that are written by authors according to their understanding of Biblical passages. While we cannot use it for deep study and more so, consider it as “the” Bible, I love reading paraphrased Bibles for devotional. The Message Paraphrase is one of those that I like.

Mel Gibson’s film is simply like that. An Adventist pastor friend of mine commented that he likened the “Passion…” movie as that of a paraphrased Bible. A lot of the scenes have been inserted for cinematography purposes. Gibson uses his keen mind on details to portray the last twelve hours of Jesus. Dr. Sam doesn’t seem to give Mr. Gibson the liberty of “paraphrasing” the events according to his experience as a director.

Too much brutality

Too brutal, it’s not in the gospels, says Dr. Sam. But how I wish the gospel writers went into the details on how Jesus suffered. But they didn’t. Not that it wasn’t brutal, but they just didn’t write about it. Until we meet Jesus face to face and asked the details ourselves, we are left with our own historical research, and in most cases, our imagination. In my mind, I was thinking that it could have happened worse than Gibson’s. I don’t know. But at least, we can now visualize a “typical” of the sufferings of Christ.

Dr. B even sounded judgmental to me when he said that the reason why Gibson made it as brutal is that “relentless brutality sells movies”. I’m not here to defend Gibson, but we know the story, folks.

Potential for Evangelism?

Is “The Passion of the Christ” a potential for evangelism? Dr. Sam’s answer is yes. The approach? Tell people that the “Catholic film” is wrong about the brutality and the traditions inserted to it. Tell them that Mary does not have a prominent role as portrayed in the movie. Tell the people, the movie is wrong!

May I suggest another way to make use of the film for evangelism? How about telling them about Jesus, why does he have to die? Why die a painful death? What does his death mean to us?

Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church has created a 3-session evangelistic CD for group studies based on the movie. We are blessed by their passion to find ways to communicate the unchanging gospel to the changing world instead of fault finding. With the help of our local Purpose Driven Ministries Philippines, we were able to get hold of the series and we are implementing it for our church.

In our first session, we had a couple who testified that, after watching the movie, they felt that there is something lacking in them. And they have to find out what it is. The first thing that came into their mind is our invitation for this study. And so they went. Indeed, the film leaves a vacuum, and people wanted something to fill it in. And telling them about Jesus is the answer. Now’s the best time to tell them.

The song “Don’t forget the Sabbath” was written by Fanny Cosby. The “Sabbath” that she meant there wasn’t Saturday Sabbath but Sunday Sabbath. Reason? Because she was a Sunday sabbatarian. But why is it that the song is being sung by Adventists on Saturdays? Because they found a new meaning in it. While the song was not intended to be sung on Saturdays, it is written in SDA hymnal because there is something good about the song.

An admittedly Catholic influenced movie such as “The Passion…” has something good in it. In fact, in my personal viewing, it has a great way of moving a person. It personally benefited me. It’s making people talk about Jesus — openly. I don’t know what Mr. Gibson’s purpose for making the film is. But one thing I am sure of, God’s hand is in it.

So, friends, watch the film. If you’re in the Philippines, the showing will run until next week, after holy week. Don’t depend on reviews, just watch it and you can judge for your self. After watching it, I suggest you join a study group. Find one in your area. If you’re within Makati area, we’re meeting every Monday at 7 pm for “The Passion, The Purpose and the Person of Jesus” group series. Email me for details if you want to join.