I'll keep all notes collected in this thread from now on.
Starting from Chapter 10.
Resources: Dr. Tong's expository in Hong Kong (Which Rev. Lin once told me that she would not use it due to some criticism/heretical arguments made by Pak Tong, thus far I have yet to find one), etc.
Dr. Tong's Expository Lecture:
Disc #70-71
9:13~34
Quoted Martin Luther: Reason is the Devil's greatest whore.
Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Idea/Representation: The world is superficial. Which is how the Jews came to understand their study of Scripture.
v.24: "Give glory to God! but not to Jesus" - Deism. Believing in God, but without doctrine of salvation.
God uses the weak to do great things: John Milton, Homer, Helen Keller, were all blind.
This blind man in his life has found one important principle: God listens to those who live a holy life. How? When he assumed it was a universal truth by inferring "WE know", as if everyone had this knowledge already.
3:2 vs. 9:33 - Nicodemus' theology lower than the blind man's. Nicodemus: God is with you. Blind man: He is of God!
Tong: First, While Nicodemus merely differentiated between "With God" & "Without God" - either or. If the blind man were to be a rabbi, he would teach that which is from God, from devil, from people, from self. Neither Nor - more superior than Either/Or.
Second, Nicodemus had to first observe and study Jesus' works, while the blind man immediately saw where Jesus comes from.
v.34 - Steep in sin - back to problem in v.2. out of ego.
v.41 - If you were blind - if you admitted you were blind, you would be saved. From healing to even resurrecting Lazarus, they Jews got more blind every time.
John 10:1-21
Nadia asked an important question regarding the ultimate purpose of sheep, that they would be slaughtered anyway, or not?
I think I should really bring a recorder next time. I couldn't believe what I heard from the pastor's mouth, in regards to the beginning of John 10. Where thieves and robbers were mentioned, Rev. Lin commented that we are sometimes those thieves and robbers. I had to jump in to say that these verses have ONLY to do with false teachers who preach blasphemy to take away God's faithful children. Thus, beware of false teachers. In order to make sure they don't have the last word to make mine ineffective, as is common with this type of rotating leadership/pastor supervised Bible study group, I ended my comment with the line: This is my stand no matter what, I don't care who is going to talk against it later. I prepared for this study. Rev. Lin could only admit after that - that what I said was right.
I guess the timing was right. I don't usually say anything, merely observing and commenting later to myself here. But after hearing an elderly woman, who's been with the church for quite a long time, saying "As long as people 信教 (believe in some religion, everything will be alright, it shall be enough." I immediately turned to her and asked: What do you mean by believe in a religion? What kind of religion? Her reply: "Well...I don't know about other religion, but for us, will be Christianity". There's no sense of urgency in correction, regardless of Westminster Seminary certification, reformed signature they carry. Lyna tried to justify the elderly lady before she could answer me: She meant Christianity. To which I responded: I was asking her, not you.
Hence, this is proof, the direction they are heading - Post Modernism. Deformed instead of Reformed.
John 10:12
*Hired Hand*: Dr. Tong explained it as those who merely do church works but not care about people. They only want to be paid, etc.
My example:
Why do you teach Sunday school?
Because I was asked to. Invited to. Hired to.
Such cares not. The preacher and the audience lack one key relationship in between - viz. life.
Wu Yujie did not expound on this because perhaps that's what he's been doing, the hired hands' action.
Seems that it wasn't clear enough when I jumped in to clarify the meaning of thieves and robbers, which Rev. Lin referred to us. Some still use it today. The only good thing was that what I said, regarding those famous "Christian" leaders who twisted the gospel into heresy, became a reminder for some during a practical encounter in a rather liberal group. I need to consider how to clarify my point better, I think. May God help me. Amen.
John 10:22-42
I'll not be criticizing much of the shallowness of the "shepherding" in this Bible study group.
Most of my comments will have to do with the scripture in question and beyond the what the leaders are teaching. My main material will be from Dr. Tong's exposition on the Gospel of John series, but I'll give credit where it's due.
This passage will cause people to wonder about predestination, assurance of salvation.
v. 28-29, shows double assurance of those who are saved (In the Son's hand + the Father's hand).
As to the question of who aren't the sheep of Christ, in verse 26, it is clear that these will never be saved. But can we encircle the entire camp of the Jews who were challenging Christ at the time, is a question of hermeneutic. I would not consider it unimportant, even if the answer cannot be determined. Because there is always a resulting conviction:
If I believe this is unimportant, then I am avoiding the question. A nonchalant attitude. I am one who runs away from trouble, responsibility. I want to tell people the point of this verse is some other basic facts about Christ (e.g. Christ is right, etc.), then I'm worse for I am now insulting the intelligence of fellow audience.
If I believe the whole of the Jews who challenged Jesus at the time, then I want to say I am inclined to this belief, leaving room for people like Paul. But it will not contradict Christ's statement, since there could be room in His statement for the true sheep to be excluded. However, that is just unlikely.
If I believe only partial Jews, I should clarify that those whom Jesus designated as "not of my sheep", are eternally doomed. Not one, will be saved. Lest I fall into the sin of the Arminians.
On the last part of Chapter 10. Led by Tante Lyna.
It suffices to say without certain details, as I have tirelessly provided before, that one who has no heart for the Gospel, will never sense an attack or a thwart against and a sincere question for the Gospel, in spite of having mountains of knowledge and years of experience. She will not react in defense nor evangelization of the gospel, unless she felt a personal attack against her. Felt or believed, regardless it being falsely ascertained or not.
Her tendency is not to preach the gospel, but to keep a cult. Cult, not in the modern sense like Mormons or other Christian pretenders. Nor the occult. But in the traditional sense, a group of believers of certain kind that gravitates to itself alone. A tendency, not a plan nor goal, is what I accuse her of. But it is bad, nonetheless.
This, is the result of the lacking of a Gospel-centered ministry.
Instead of living with other saints in fellowship, they, many of them, most of whom not of CCCNY, but of the American prosperous (I'm not talking about prosperity theology, but there may be some connection) Christians, are confused. They cannot differentiate social networking from fellowship. They are the same thing to them, or worse, that social networking overlaps with fellowship.
I judge this not in light of "day and night do not fellowship", but from the heart of a gospel-centered vision, which is required of every true Christians to discern this.
Thus, like many Eastern Christians, they do not fully understand what faith is. The faith now, I speak of is related to chapter 10.
I believe, therefore I see, as opposed to I see, therefore I believe.
Was she blinded thus that she cannot see this? That the only word she could relate is "paradox" and yet not able to elaborate a single word more?
Their habit as shallow Christians is this:
I used to ask a lot of questions about Christianity, but then I figured, just believe! Were my questions resolved? Don't care! Just believe!!!
This has nothing to do with "I believe, therefore I see". This is more "I believe, because I say so".
As the famous Yuan Ziming concluded: "Faith and reason are in two different realms. You cannot reason with faith or vice versa. Because otherwise I will be smart enough to ask you - How could the serpent talk? And you cannot answer because you used reason in what is supposed to be faith. Faith has to do with emotion, not reason. So use your emotion to understand the Bible, not reason, not logic."
A sad conclusion indeed, for some unfortunate souls.