6/6/2025 Painting of the day: Crucifixion of Saint Peter, Painting by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610), Painted in 1601, Oil on canvas © Wikimedia Commons
Vorst's take of the painting based on John 21:15-19 "...This he said to show by what kind of death Peter was to glorify God"
6/5/2025 Painting of the day: Saint Boniface Felling Donar's Oak, Painted by Johann Michael Wittmer (1802-1880), Painted in 1860, Oil on canvas © Sold Lempertz Cologne, 15 November 2014, Lot 1540, sold €34,000
Vorst on John 17:20-26,
Saint Boniface, born around 675...A Benedictine monk...to evangelise the Germanic peoples...commissioned by Pope Gregory II in 719, who gave him the name Boniface, meaning “doer (facere) of good (bonus)”...“Apostle of the Germans”...the felling of Donar’s Oak (also the title of our painting), also known as Thor’s Oak...dedicated to the god Thor (or Donar)...To demonstrate the powerlessness of the pagan gods and the truth of Christianity...many to convert to Christianity on the spot...symbolising the triumph of Christian faith over pagan superstition. we see the tree to the left of Boniface in our painting...On 5 June 754, while preparing to confirm new converts near Dokkum, he and his companions were ambushed and killed by a group of pagan raiders. He famously told his fellow clergy not to resist, embracing martyrdom with peace and dignity...an Englishman who became a saint, bishop, and martyr in the heart of the continent.
6/4/2025 Painting of the day: The Persian Gazelle (Gazella Subgutturosa), Print by Joseph Wolf (1820-1899), Issued 1861-1867, Hand-coloured print on paper © Alamy
Fr. Patrick van der Vorst linked this to John 17:11b-19: "Father, keep them from the evil one", that how unsuspecting gazelles can easily be ensnared by a clever man, the proverbial evil one. This is the Vorst's take on the artist:
...Joseph Wolf. Born in 1820 in Mörz, near the Moselle in what was then Rhenish Prussia, he showed an early talent for drawing animals and birds.... Sir Edwin Landseer described him as “the best all-round animal artist who ever lived”, and some even said that he must have been a bird before becoming a man.
6/3/2025 How to ask AI? Specifically as a programmer. Here's what someone's take on it.
Learning Robotics. A forum for this.
6/1/2025 On GCC Sunday School, week 13: Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom:
@3:44 The pastor conflates and thus wrong in relating the ascetic lifestyle of ancient Christians/monks with verses that call for "denying oneself", I presume to be 1 Corinthians 7:35 and 1 Corinthians 7:9, when he said: "Paul says that if you are able to do it, better to have less distraction. The problem is so few people are able to do it, that it actually becomes an impediment most of the time...from what we know about Ambrose...they were able to do it" These Biblical verses do not separate Christians to different "classes" of "holiness" so to speak. That pastors are more able to do certain things that other Christians are not able to. It's a typical fundamentalist mistake I would say.
@4:30 thus, it's no surprising when he said "I think evangelical Christianity ignores the benefits of singleness too much...not everyone is meant to be a family person either" Which is dead wrong. Everyone IS meant to be a family person. Paul was like a parent to the believers he preached to. Jesus is the bridegroom of the Church waiting for consummation. We are His children. I've taken on this before, that the only biblical reason that God would allow someone to be single and not having a true parental role in the ecclesial sense (viz. no responsibility to care for certain ministry, bribing Sunday School children with candies and movies do not count), is because had this person gotten married, he/she would likely ruin it with a quick divorce. So, it's only in the negative sense, a rebellious attitude that ought to be fixed to fit the teaching of Matthew 19:12 "Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven" or get married. There is no such thing as the gift of celibacy in the Bible, a flawed Catholics view brought into churches today. But I can agree with the pastor that it's not good for culture to force everyone to find a match.
@6:40 I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Rome differs from Jerome on the canon, as both Rome and Jerome recognized the same books as the apocryphal. The apocryphal books were included in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Maybe the pastor took this view from the text book he used.
@7:33 "gospel of grace...not as brutally clear as the American presentation of it" American?! I would disagree. Reformed tradition is not an American thing. I don't mind the "Dutch", "Calvin", or any prominent identity from Reformed history, but, really, not American. But this is trivial.
Some of the good stuff brought by pastor Chris will I add to the church history entries here when I get the chance, as they are good supplements. I'll need to take time to verify, study them. The pastor brought lots of good stuff along with the bad, so I find myself having to refine these materials in these entries. To train myself discern errors in people better and find good solutions for correcting them.
@15:00 "we don't work this way anymore, and I don't know that we should work this way" the pastor obviously follows the chicken way of play safe of today, on Ambrose having the authority to cause an emperor (Theodosius I) to repent in public for ordering a massacre. [Ambrose famously quoted saying "You cannot wash away the stain of that sin with tears alone"]. A true man of God, even today, can cause kings and presidents to submit to the statues of God. This is not a thing of different eras, but of all times, for God rules over all times. The pastor tries to justify himself with "what we want is a balance...civic leaders to be living in the fear of God...not for the Church to have her hands on the throats of civic leaders." a shallow conclusion. Ambrose did not do that, he called for the former (viz. "leaders to be living in the fear of God") Ambrose did not do the latter "to have his hands on Theodosius' throat, not even figuratively speaking. It's slander to imply otherwise without evidence. By excommunication, I'm sure the pastor meant that Ambrose refused the emperor communion and barred him from entering the church until he repented, which is a fine term to use. I don't believe that's having hands on the emperor's throat. To imply that the emperor did it out of fear of Ambrose without evidence, is also slander, double slander now. I think it's irrelevant to argue about whether we should excommunicate members or not here, as it's a very different issue. The more relevant question is did the emperor saw Ambrose as a man of God. It would seem that he did. If not, he would have gotten rid of Ambrose easily. It's useless to excommunicate someone if he never saw you as a man/people of God.
@18:20 "If it weren't for the internet, I think we'd all have a hard time finding many Christians that could articulate their faith intelligently and logically with some depth" I can agree with this. This also shows that the pastor does care about logical, intelligible articulation of one's faith and not those of Phil's or Vicent's "mysterious...oh...men just cannot comprehend anything of God if you asks me a question I don't have answers to but don't want to show you that I don't have answers" type of copout.
@25:30 Tom called Pelagius can't be born again. The pastor said he wasn't interested in that. I think the pastor did not quite get the differences of the Church's condemnations on both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, as he's unclear, like Alex Tseng, as to whether his object was Christians or non-Christians (and sometimes interchanges them in a subtle way) of today, who hold to Pelagianism. Because unlike what the pastor was trying to get at, that many churches today are influenced by Pelagianism, it's actually semi-Pelagianism that that infiltrated the church, not Pelagianism as most Christians can agree that they are sinners and no one is perfect. Phil was right to try to clear that confusion by saying semi-Pelagianism indirectly, but being too subtle, Phil's way wasn't noticed.
@35:31 "Augustine was kind of nice to semi-Pelagians", I wonder where the pastor got that from. Augustine's arguments have never sided with semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism became known today to be as early as 428 AD in Gaul, which is quite late with Augustine's death in 430 AD. For probably geographical reason, Augustine had never interacted with John Cassian 360AD-435AD (well known Semi-Pelagian), and our best account, according to ChatGPT, is probably Augustine's Letter 93 to the Bishops of Gaul around 418 AD:
“We have learned that some monks and clergy in your regions hold the view that the beginning of faith and good works is in human nature without divine grace. This is a dangerous error condemned by the universal Church.”
@36:00 Phil asked "Does Billy Sunday fall under Semi?" I had only heard of Billy Sunday, but I do feel the pastor's response kind of funny, I think he was a bit aggravated by the question. Maybe Phil really liked Billy Sunday. I only looked it up on Youtube (clips of video recording of him preaching) quickly and I may agree with the pastor more, though I don't know nor am interested to look up Billy Sunday's sermons/service.
The pastor: "Billy Sunday believed whatever made him money"
Phil: mhuohuohuo! (laughers of others as well)
Pastor: "I'm gonna be very cruel to Billy Sunday, to me he's more of circus performer than a preacher"
Phil: Woaw!
Pastor: "I've read sermons...not talking about the gospel...just about drinking...technically he's supposed to be reformed...Bob Jones' the same way...Bob Jones at least lived long enough...at least as an old man...did preach grace..."
@37:45 I can appreciate that the pastor recognized that "the invitation to come to Christ can sound Semi-Pelagians..." So he's not hyper-Calvinism on this point. But he completely dissed (or contradicted himself) altar-call ("we know walking to altar doesn't mean you're saved"), etc. Which is an unnecessary oversimplification of matters.