12/10/2023 Sunday School: Week 7 on Sin - Transgression & Iniquity (Purgatory)
This prompted me to look up purgatory, seeking Rome's best defense against it. There's quite a great deal of information from my very brief research and it would appear that Rome's pretty serious about it until today.
Here's summary from the pastor's note:
The horrible fiction of Purgatory. Second Council of Lyon 1274, Council of Florence, Council of Trent 1545-1563. Eastern Orthodox do not believe it [duh, the great schism was in 1024].
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Part 1 Section 2 Chapter 3 Article 12 III: The Final Purification, or Purgatory. They laughed about how long the sub parts are nested in the catechism, I don't see a need to laugh at that, as long as it's properly organized. Of course, I don't know nor interested to know how well organized is this catechism. Nonetheless, my point is it's not absolutely ridiculous as the pastor seemed to indicate.
E prompted an interesting question indirectly for me when she stated that the Eastern Orthodox is closer to Reformed than Rome, which is a good question I should look into, because I would likely disagree as the East split with the West since 1054, while the Reformation popularly began in the 1500s from within Rome, not the Greeks. That's about 500 years of isolation in fellowship of the saints.
Of course, it seems that the foundation of Roman Catholic's Purgatory is in II Macabees 12:38-46:...amulets scred to the idols of Jamnia were found with victorious dead Jewish warriors and hence the Jews prayed for their sins, thus the idea of Purgatory was born. It seems that because the Jews of that small particular period (outside Biblical timeline) and seemed to be getting away with that action, it must be how God wanted His people do believe it. It's bad logic, whether it was actual history or not. From there, Rome would fit biblical passages onto that erroneous foundation.
Sermon on I Corinthians 4:6-21 God Displayed
1co 4:6 [This is a very strong verse for Sola Scriptura]
1co 4:8 [This is a strong proof text that men are to reign as kings. I seem to recall that the pastor for a few instances in the past looked down on such notion when he tried to purport that one should not seek to be king or politician as this is not meant for men to handle and that Jesus is the Only King, which is not wrong. However, he also did pray for the politicians of the country. So a mishandling of absolute vs. relative knowledge is happening here.]
12/17/2023 Sunday School: Week 8 on Sin - Death and Salvation (Purgatory)
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 being the verse used for purgatory "fire" => "...saved...through fire".
Do canonized Catholic saints skip purgatory? I asked. Pastor's answer was possibly yes. Brief google search showed that Rome is unsure of this as well. But they are leaning towards yes such that some saints may have achieved total "purity" before they left the world.
On cremation: I asked the pastor after service, whether or not he would be comfortable to administer or attend cremation funeral, since he said he was uncomfortable with cremation, though it's not sinful biblically. He said yes and had hosted such funerals before. I jokingly mentioned that "this info is for my benefit, in case I died", he didn't break character for being serious.
1 Corinthians 15:20-58, touching on Baptism for the Dead.
[Calvin did great commentary on this: v.29 Possible explanations:
-That the Corinthians accustomed to baptizing the living to substitute catechumens who were deprived of baptism by sudden death, stated by Chrysostom, Ambrose, etc., a custom rejected by Calvin, because it doesn't make sense for those who rejected resurrection to hold the same custom.
- According to the writings of the Fathers, who wrote against such superstition that baptism was purposely delayed till the time of death with the believe that they will be in a better state to meet the judgment of God, being purged of all sins in baptism in their final breath.
-Calvin's view: To be baptized for the dead = to be baptized so as to profit the dead => Catechumens who have fallen ill, asking for baptism. His repeating it a second time, Why are they also baptized for the dead? gives it greater emphasis: “Not only are those baptized who think that they are to live longer, but those too who have death before their eyes; and that, in order that they may in death reap the fruit of their baptism.”]
@20:00 Someone asked about Christology in the Trinity (how Christ could be separated from the Trinity under God's wrath on the cross?), though the pastor answered correctly, but it seems that he was unfamiliar with the distinction between the words: paradox vs. contradiction ("If it's a contradiction in the 2nd person and the incarnate son, I am okay with it"). This is where Pak Tong shines when often times, he stressed the difference between paradox and contradiction, as well as the difference between relative knowledge and absolute truth. This avoids lots of issues, something folks at this church (or American churches) are rather weak at.
After the service, I brought for the first time to the pastor's attention that there was a typo in the Romans Doxology, it seems that he was aware as if someone had told him. "For of Him and through Him and to Him are all thing things". I guess it was just the perfectionist in me, that I had to say it at least once. Who else would care?
Sermon on Matthew 14:22-33 God with us
I.a). Good cheer in contrary wind - Matt 14:24,27: [the pastor often focus only on the rejoicing part as if there's no such thing as sorrow. Rom 12:15 is contrary to that notion, as we are to weep with those who weep. The other path could only lead to rejoice or find happiness with or worse, run away from, those who weep. Vocabulary verse in Chinese for myself: Rom 12:16...不要志气高大，倒要俯就卑微的人]
On the pastor's rhetoric: "I" am your strength...recalls Psa 18. I wonder if there's any psychological implication on first person, instead of using 2nd or 3rd person: You are my strength, He is my strength, which is "more" biblical. This is not to say that a preacher can never reiterate first person declaration of God. However, the 2nd and 3rd person obviously reflect priestly prayer and testifying/proclamation respectively. In order to use first person, the context must command the holiness before the presence of God, spoken in a tone of awe, such speech should not be taken lightly as 2nd/3rd person usage. Otherwise, one either has a very low view of God or a very high view of man.