Two days ago we had the Riverdale Bible Study, led by Ning Ning.
I did not confront her during the session this time as a gesture of mercy. I only confronted her error this time after the closing prayer. It is regarding her claim that Jewish doctors were not allowed emergency cases on Sabbath. As before (on issue of her insisting the requirement of faith for the lame to be healed at the beginning of the chapter), she did not admit to her fault. She said "maybe the doctors were allowed today", when I emphasized on the word "emergency" and pointed to the fact that she did accuse the Jews of saying Sabbath is Sabbath, if you die who cares. She immediately said she doesn't know about emergency cases, and she became a bit awkward. I think it is better I do this in public during the Bible study. Of course, I will only be asking questions based on what they teach, I will not give any comments, such as introducing Pikuach Nefesh.
I am not trying to give Ning Ning a hard time. But teaching of the Bible must be taken seriously. It, especial pertaining to important doctrine, is not up for discussion, as Elder Lyna insisted on separating two kinds of Bible teaching (the discussion type and the teaching type). They think they could solve this problem by someone "special" like the pastor, who always give the last words. This last word method is barbaric, not to mention ignorant. It is not to listen to questions or reasons. It is belittling the minds of fellow believers.
I imagine that Rev. Lin probably had tried to comfort Ning Ning regarding my late interference. Her Bill Gothardian method is predictable, but destructive at best. It didn't work on others, I'm not sure how she expects it to work on Ning Ning, perhaps it fits Ning Ning's type. Then, there is no discernment of truth.
Now, on to the real topic, what I learned from the Bible study:
This passage deals with the issue of Christ's person. "The Son can do nothing of himself" (v.19), has stood the challenges of Christ equality with God. CCCNY used Arthur Pink's version. Which is very enlightening. The divinity of Christ is concerned by church Fathers when challenged by Arius. I believe Pink was relating to Calvin's version, apply only to the Son of God, so far as he is manifested in the flesh. Pink used "Divine glory of the Son of God incarnate" instead. Pink also rejected the idea that Christ was referring to himself as a servant of God here, which Rev. Lin used in her "last words" method. She used "2nd class citizen" instead of "servant". Pink rejected the servant notion to fight against the accusation of the Jews regarding Christ's blasphemy. It is about the person of Christ, the Son, the second person of the Trinity. But what Rev. Lin failed to realize was that Pink also said:
But before passing on to the next verse let us pause for a brief moment to make application to ourselves. "The Son can do nothing of himself." How this rebukes the selfwill in all of us! Who is there among the saints who can truthfully say, I can do nothing at my own instance; my life is entirely at God’s disposal?
She and Ning Ning did not get Pink. They were confused like the Fathers whom Calvin criticized, that they focused entirely on Christ's simple divinity and failed to see the logic of verse 19. Alex might have a field day on this against them if he were there, as he did Dr. Tong pertaining to the creation of Christ's human nature. It is not just about proving Christ's divinity. It is about Christ's dual nature: divine and human (incarnation, manifested in the flesh). Therefore, we are to apply to ourselves what is being taught. If we do not do so, it is merely a praise of vanity, which is a common problem of CCCNY. It is no wonder, those who hold to this twisted interpretation of non-obedience never serve God with joy, but merely seeing God's works as a burden to be suffered, and praising those who would suffer with them instead of rejoicing in the Lord in the work of Christ.
Yesterday, it happened again, at a more serious level. Rev. Lin denied Christ's obedience to the Father. If she meant it to be the case only in verses such as John 5:19, then she confuses herself even more. It is no surprising some said they were so confused after the bible study. Barbaric method never resolves anything.
I on the other hand, have to correct myself that it not only is Christ's obedience in John 5:19, but also Christ's humility (which Rev. Lin denied as well) as stated by J.I. Packer:
OBEDIENCE
JESUS CHRIST FULFILLED HIS FATHER’S REDEMPTIVE WILL
by J.I. Packer
Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his
Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” JOHN 5:19
Humility in Scripture means, not pretending to be worthless and refusing positions of responsibility, but knowing and keeping the place God has appointed for one. Being humble is a matter of holding on to God’s arrangement, whether it means the high exposure of leadership (Moses was humble as a leader, Num. 12:3) or the obscurity of subservience. When Jesus stated matter-of-factly that he was “humble in heart” (Matt. 11:29), he meant that he was conscientiously following the Father’s plan for his earthly life.
In this he was keeping his place as the second Person of the Godhead. The three Persons of the Holy Trinity are eternal and self-existent, partaking equally of all aspects and attributes of deity, and always acting together in cooperative solidarity. But the unchanging cooperative pattern is that the second and third Persons identify with the purpose of the first, so that the Son becomes the Father’s executive and the Spirit acts as the agent of both. It is the Son’s nature and joy to do his Father’s will (John 4:34).
Regarding redemption, the Father’s will for the Son is sometimes called the covenant of redemption, since it has the form of an agreement between two parties on a program and a promise. The Westminster Confession summarizes the agreement (the Father’s purpose, accepted by the Son) as follows:
It pleased God in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his Church, the heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (For the ideas and phraseology of this statement, see Eph. 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 3:22; Heb. 5:5-6; Luke 1:33; Eph. 5:23; Heb. 1:2; Acts 17:31; Isa. 53:10; John 17:6; 1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 8:29-30.)
This purpose of the Father for the Son had two stages. The first stage was humiliation. The eternal Son let go of his glory and through incarnation became a poor man and a religious outsider. Finally, by means of a show trial and unscrupulous manipulation of Pilate’s moral weakness, he became a condemned criminal dying a dreadful death as mankind’s sin-bearer (Phil. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5).
The second stage was exaltation. Christ rose, ascended, and now by his Father’s appointment reigns as king over the world and the church (Phil. 2:9-11), sending the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7; Acts 2:33) and thereby applying to us the redemption that by dying he won for us. Drawing those given him to himself (John 12:32), interceding for them (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; John 17), guarding, guiding, and caring for them as a shepherd cares for his sheep (John 10:27-30), he is currently bringing many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10) according to the Father’s plan, and he will continue to do so until all God’s elect have come to repentance and new life (2 Pet. 3:9).
In all of this the Son is obeying the Father in true humility, living out a natural, voluntary, and joyful subordination. Meanwhile, the Father’s aim of having the Son worshiped and glorified equally with himself is steadily being fulfilled (John 5:19-23).
From: Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs
On two wills of Christ, refer to Aquinas' Summa Theological.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4018.htm
And a good source (collection o commentaries) regarding Christ's equality with God in will.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/5-19.htm
Of course, it is the means how Christ identifies his will to God's on Earth. That is by obedience. Perfect, active obedience, which no man is capable, which also proves Christ's perfection and divinity.
Even Arthur Pink was different from Rev. Lin:
http://teachingresources.org/2010/01/02/the-obedience-of-christ-by-a-w-pink/
His miracles of mercy were wrought in obedience to the Father’s revealed will…. Christ was tender, sympathetic, and full of compassion, yet the first and deepest motive which moved Him to heal was that the will of God might be done. Beautifully does this come out in John 11. Though Martha and Mary had sent a message unto Christ that their brother was sick, He responded not to their appeal till the Father’s hour arrived: see verses 4-6. [Also consider John 5:19].
Excerpted from A.W. Pink’s Studies in Scriptures, November 1932. All bracketed notes are the editor’s summaries.
Andrew Murray also touched on Christ's obedience and humility on this verse:
Oh this blessed Christ-like obedience, leading to a Christ-like abiding in the Divine Love! To attain it we must just study Christ more. He emptied Himself, and humbled Himself, and became obedient. May He empty us and humble us too! He learned obedience in the school of God, and being made perfect, became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey Him. We must yield ourselves to be taught obedience by Him! We just need to listen to what He has told us how He did nothing of Himself, but only what He saw and heard from the Father; how entire dependence and continual waiting on the Father was the root of implicit obedience, and this again the secret of ever-growing knowledge of the Father’s deeper secrets. (John 5:19, 20. See Fifteenth Day.)
Excerpt from Like Christ, chapter 27, by Andrew Murray.
On Humility, Aurelius Augustine (which is the famed St. Augustine) also said so in his "Lectures on the Gospel of John Vol. 1, XXII John 5:24-30, pg. 325":
The Only Son saith, "I seek not my own will," and yet men desire to do their own will! To such a degree does He who is equal to the Father humble Himself; and to such a degree does He extol Himself, who lies in the lowest depth, and cannot rise except a hand is reached to Him ! Let us then do the will of the Father, the will of the Son, the will of the Holy Ghost.
It is interesting that John Gill mentioned Thomas Goodwin's work referred to a kind of obedience that is not an ingredient of our justification which is that of Christ's miraculous works. I couldn't find the reference from Gill's citation. I believe his reference is real but erred in citation. Still, this is an act of obedience. And that which is not imputed to our justification is that obedience of doing miraculous works or divine works. So Rev. Lin & Ning Ning erred on 6/20/2014 Bible Study by rejecting the notion of Christ's obedience in John 5:19. This has many side effects.
So bottom line, yes, it is very important to heed Christ's divinity being displayed in John 5:19, that His will is identical to that of the Father's, His action is identical to that of the Father's. As the Son, that is the Son of God, not as the Father, Christ is claiming divinity here. However, because some have attempted to make Christ of a lesser nature than the Father via the same verse "the Son can do nothing by himself...", we must not be so confused as to deny the means Christ, in the position of the Son of God manifested in the flesh, identifies His will to that of the Father's. That is, through obedience. Or else, we would have no example in humility and that Christ would not be in the flesh. It just does not make sense to equate or make unison the Son's will to the Father's will without any proper means when it is given such relationship of the Son manifested in the Flesh and the Father in Heaven. At the same time, we recognize that "the Son can do nothing by himself..." does not refer to an inferiority, learner/student, handicap nor passive obedience. It is an active obedience, though in this case, the kind that is only between the Son (not Servant) and the Father, such that this kind is not imputed to our justification for we are not The Son, but it is still obedience nevertheless. Hence, we must learn obedience and humility to the Son, to God.
說：“我是根據歸正正統（Reformed）在教會歷史里培養的教義。從奧古斯丁到巴克（J.I. Packer） 都是在這第五章提到基督的謙卑與順從。我不是照著林牧師的解釋。”
Regarding the Holy Spirit
I heard once, I don't remember if it was this session of the Bible Studies, that Rev. Lin explicitly said that John Calvin flawed specifically in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I supposed this is where I can confirmed that Rev. Lin is not reformed.
I have searched for a while until I stumble upon B. B. Warfield's quote:
In the same sense in which we may say that the doctrine of
sin and grace dates from Augustine, the doctrine of satisfaction
from Anselm, the doctrine of justification by faith from
Luther-we must say that the doctrine of the work of the
Holy Spirit is a gift from Calvin to the church.
Rev. Lin discredited Calvin right after I quoted some passage from Calvin's commentary during the study. It was unbecoming of her to do that to Calvin. But for some reason, perhaps, she felt like she had to not make me look too good or something, thus, her response. This is me trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. But if she were to truly believe that Calvin's theology on the Holy Spirit was weak, then I do not know what doctrine of the Holy Spirit she adhere to. She did on some occasions favor the Charismatics' view of the work of the Holy Spirit (eg. when the copier stopped working, she told me that it must be God/Holy Spirit who let her print the flyers that she had wanted me to distribute for Dr. Tong's rally in Boston - I had my own flyers and I used virtually none of hers and threw them away eventually).
My conclusion is, since the work of the Holy Spirit is a practical doctrine, it is beyond Rev. Lin's grasp. For I had already observed that she is weak in practical theology, despite her fluency in most if not some textbook reformed theology, like many American reformed theologians.
Reading on Monotheletism vs. Dyotheletism/Dyothelitism (two wills of Christ), really shows some enlightenment. It was apparent, that Rev. Lin subscribed, at the time, to monotheletism, since she was adamant about Christ being wholly equal to the Father in will, without any regard to the human will of Christ, which is perfect submission. Perhaps, "perfect submission" is nonsense to Rev. Lin. Jesus was definitely referring to his human will, if not both, but definitely not his divine will alone (for if it was only his divine will, then how could the divine will say: "Of myself I can do nothing"?) I need not argue further, for she may change her mind, hopefully, whether admittedly or not (holding both views would be absurd), it does not matter, so long as she changes it, that perfect submission was evident in the passage.
To conclude what I said against Rev. Lin's heretical monothelitism interpretation of John 5:19:
In John 5:19, If Christ's will is equal to the Father's, then the Son is not unable (can do nothing), the Son IS ABLE!!!
So the key of divine claim in 5:19 is what Christ DID (divine act = the Father's act), not how he WILLED.