I was given a broken link to Apsona's alleged macro tool to add mergefields into word documents. And doesn't look like Apsona have this on their website, nor do I feel the need to reach out to them, because it's easy to create the merge fields in Word manually. There's no need for some macro plugin to do this.
Word > Insert > Quick Parts > Fields... > MergeField under Field Names: > type a name for the field on the right of it, done.
DLRS: Declarative Lookup Rollup Summaries is an app/tool that return summary value of a sub-record/object.
For Time Formats in Apsona generated Documents, it can be done in the Word Document by adding a "@" next to the merge field name and follow the time codes for the format:
yyyy
Four digit year, e.g., 2017
M
One- or two-digit month, e.g., 1 for January and 10 for October
MM
Two-digit month with a leading zero if necessary, e.g., 01 for January and 10 for October
MMM
Three-letter month name, e.g., Feb for February
MMMM
Full month name, e.g., October
d
One- or two-digit date
dd
Two-digit date with a leading zero if necessary
EE
Full weekday name, e.g., Monday
E
Three-letter weekday name, e.g., Mon
HH
Two-digit hour of day, in 24-hour format
hh
Two-digit hour of day, in 12-hour format, with leading zero if needed
h
Hour of day in 12-hour format
mm
Two-digit minute of hour, with leading zero if needed
ss
Two-digit seconds, with leading zero if needed
a
AM/PM indicator
9/18/2024Users must also be listed in Apsona Settings > Configuration > add object to Profile (default configuration can't be changed, so clone a new one)... or else this would be a common error message when trying to generate a document/report: "Merge failed: Can't find object ... - perhaps you don't have access to it. Please contact your system administrator"
9/19/2024 Apsona's Conditional IF-Then-Else Directives are fun, allowing me to change Word Template data based on Merge Field values.
All religions, have denominations and sects. That's normal. Just like countries, 12 tribes of Israel, etc. There is a sense, diversity in the theological phrase: The one and the many. There is also in another sense, the fall of man, that fallen men in sin form absolutes on their own accord without God. The Roman Catholics have sects, the Eastern Orthodox have sects, and not surprising, Buddhism and even Islam, have sects.
Here I am dealing mainly with understanding Muslim Sects.
The best diagram I've found that covers as comprehensive the Islamic sects as possible, is this one, I've also saved this in my drive in case this image gotten moved:
I'll also dive in here into various sects in depths and not just the major two: Sunni & Shia.
Sunni 80% of all muslims = True successor of Muhammad was his father-in-law Abu Bakr. Shia 20% of all muslims = True successor of Muhammad was his cousin/son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Sufi = Mystical form, sort of in between of Sunni & Shia.
Quranists = Qur'an only folks, rejects hadith.
Sunni comes from "Sunnah, the behavior and traditions of the Prophet".
Demographics:
Shafi'i, 29% or the largest of the Sunni subsects. This is in Malaysia.
v.5 "...money to usury..." Compare with Jesus' saying in Luke 16:9 "...make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings." ESV. Both seek to benefit the self. However, one is at the temporal cost against the innocent; while the other is grounded on eternity, which can only be found before God.
Watching 老尤 Mr. You, blasting Kamala Harris on Youtube is fun. In her first candidacy speech, "she did not laugh, that means she was well prepared" ~You. And it is educational as well, here are some Chinese idioms good for memorizing, Mr. You describing Harris with 16 words:
準備有餘，新意不足， 陳詞濫調，胸無點墨。
囂張：excessively proud or confident. I didn't realize this is hard to write.
8/23/2024 To reap what one has not sown: 坐享其成. Stephen Tong on those who misunderstood grace. Unbiblical Grace: Do nothing, just receive. Biblical grace: Receive grace with responsibility. This is especially weak in American conservative churches. Such as my GCC in Bridgewater. The right doctrine of suffering: Even Christ has to suffer.
8/21/2024 A good site that analyzes and compares different AI models (chatGPT, Claude, etc.): https://artificialanalysis.ai/
8/20/2024 When a church leadership (consider Rev. Lin of CCCNY, and many others) doesn't think of the church as a family of God, but a network of philanthropists and who's who, this church will fail soon. The members do not care about any fellowship outside of church service, the pastors will leave (mere hired hands). They will blame everyone else but themselves, the dumber ones will blame the Holy Spirit. The state of this is most transparent in their Prayer Meetings.
8/19/2024 Stephen Tong on 3 times of shame mentioned as the antagonist of glory:
Genesis account of Adam and Eve, not ashamed
Hebrews 2:11, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brethren
Romans 1:16, Paul was not ashamed for the Gospel
The Redeemer Westside Men Fellowship/Bible Study (Tuesday Mornings) has devolved. I was last with them during the post-Covid short lived Zoom period. When they decided to move back to church, I just cannot make it that early on Tuesdays at 7am - 8:15am. I am rather convinced that this is only for Andrew Melton's own benefit. Yes, he started this group and it was great. But judging from the means of the group, which apparently is not even called "fellowship" anymore, and the departure of some better folks such as Gary Bowler, etc. I don't see Robert May much anymore, the singer whom I knew from helping his move once. Seems like May has moved to Nashville.
I do wonder if Matt Mundy's still there. He an actor and I'd always enjoyed his Scriptural reading during Sunday Services. His view also seems geared towards reformed.
Melton never seemed interested in forging fellowship in the group. Perhaps this was only motivation for his own Bible study. He always sent out emails with his own study notes. This way, he gets to study it as well as claim that he's running the fellowship. But never bother knowing anyone at the group other than the ones who were already serving in the church as old timers, even that, I don't think they click well with each other.
8/18/2024GCC Sunday School: Christ's Claims of Deity
P: gave new revelation. But quoted verses with "you have heard that it was said to those of old". These examples are more of correction of human sayings rather than "I gave you new commandment". The "old sayings" references are never the law, not OT. These are errors devolved from Jewish tradition over time. It is no surprise if this is being treated as "new revelation" by the fundamentalists, because all they care about is "what did God say exactly" without deeper analysis. So anything else, even if it's actually quoting the old for correction, is taken by these fools as "new revelation". And they will never see their own faults when pointed out because they believe they've followed the law to the letters, any deeper variation of the law is taken as twisted by them, instead of deeper creativity.
Consider Tong on this subject:
C.S. Lewis' trilemma mentioned @22:00. The academia would point out the flaw of trilemma as not being quadrilemma: Either lunatic, liar, Lord or legend. Lewis' idea was probably from some ancient Latin phrase: aut Deus aut homo malus (Either God or a bad man). I would say this is not proof, just affirmation. Because if it's used as proof, then you've thrown away your footstool and wonder if these all just fell into the right space, Jesus claiming who He claimed just at the right time, right moment, "coincidentally".
@28:06 E's apologetics against the JW is a typical one, it will go round and round in circles with JW, because she focused on arguing against "Jesus as not the archangel Michael", which was JW's belief. The JW used the fact that the only two places that archangel was mentioned was 1Th 4:16 and Jude 1:9, to which, based on their wrong presupposition, could easily be interpreted to be Jesus. And they could easily explain E's Hebrews 1:5 in their view as well: That Jesus was not an angel, but the chief, archangel, which is the only one in existence. This also got me looking into LDS (Mormons). While the JW do not worship Jesus, the mormons do worship Jesus, they would not worship their divine Heavenly Mother, Holy Ghost, etc. Thus, JW takes monotheism more seriously than the LDS. The best way to deal with JW is just to focus on the requirement of a God-man rather than debating with them on scripture with different presuppositions.
@34:10 P: "They don't want accountability, ...to God" That's is true. But when P elaborated, "but you want accountability to IRS, etc." that becomes bad, because the opposing response would be "we don't want accountability to fake authority".
P: There's an identity of male & female, because Jesus said in heaven there's no given into marriages. <= error, that it's not an absolute determinant for the future existence of two genders in heaven.
@36:25 on Trinitarianism, P: "That is not rational, because it must be above us" This is a bad language, because it conflates "not rational" with "beyond rational". Of course, the only way to define "not rational" is irrational, which is different than supra-rational or beyond rational. It's like saying "that is not beautiful, because it must be beyond beautiful" as it alludes "that is ugly, because it must be beyond beautiful". Though what needs to be conveyed can be understood, but bad language will lead to misunderstanding. It would be better to add "it's not irrational either" after saying "not rational".
@37:20 P went against creative art of God. Matt tried to defend the creative, so P answered "I'm with you on that until it contradicts Scripture", which shows that P was not completely fundamentalist-bent. But P: "When you paint God, you violated the 2nd commandment" [which P has taken it out of context, for the second half of that commandment calls against worshipping such creation]. Perhaps next time I'll ask about painting certain manifestation of God, such as the burning bush or the dove. This is obviously a topic debated among the reformed, I'm on John Frame's side (his book "The Doctrine of the Christian Life"), I'll post Justin Taylor's article on this at TGC in the comment.
@39:00 Someone asked if we will see the Father in Heaven. P wasn't wrong to say if you see Christ you see the Father. Thus, real answer is a Yes and No. We cannot see God or the Father as if He's part of creation, but through Christ, we are in union with God. P was wrong in saying "any visible manifestation of God is the Son". F alluded to Isaiah 6:1, which Calvin agrees can be seen as the Son, but warns against limiting this to just the Son.
@40:00 P: "Everywhere there is a theophany, it is a Christophany." This is not accurate. All Christophanies are theophanies, but not the other way around. We can say it maybe the Son who walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, but the burning bush would be a question mark. Certainly the Holy Spirit descending as dove during Jesus' baptism was not Christ himself. And more: Gen 15:17, the pillar of cloud and fire, etc. This was well discussed here.
@41:50 P quoted Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven" to be interpreted as "there is an identity of male and female, but it's not the way we divide it here", I am not sure what he's trying to say, maybe this goes back to when N asked "will there be male and female" and P had felt compelled to answer yes, with the presupposition that God created "male and female" before the fall. We don't know this for sure, but the argument for the case is a bad one, even if the answer could be correct. But the alternative could be true: That in glorification, we may have cast off gender identity, just as we will no longer could sin (impeccable). Hence, we don't know.
To save storage space, I will just place links here, and if the links are broken, then we'll just have to rely on the search for these illusions based on the titles/descriptions:
8/17/2024 Hebrews 2:10-13 We are Jesus' brothers, not his children. Stephen Tong: unlike the Charismatics, if you hear some spirit says "I'm coming, I'm coming to my children" This is absolutely the evil spirit. Tong: "God has children, Jesus has brothers, the Holy Spirit has neither brothers nor children" I'm not sure about the Holy Spirit not having children, but somewhere else Stephen Tong was known to compare the Holy Spirit to a charitable mother "...當聖靈講這句話的時候，是以慈愛的母親對孩子那樣的心情講的..." (資料取自唐崇榮牧師的《聖靈、良心或撒但的聲音》第一章 - 良心是什么？聖靈的聲音)
Stephen Tong on Isaiah 53:
8/16/2024The Rasmussen Reports: allegedly by Youtuber Mr.You to be a rather non-bias polling on this year's presidential election. We can see that Trump only beats Harris by a small margin. I do agree that it really depends on Trump, to win or lose as he's often a loose cannon with his mouth, saying yesterday that he has the right to go ad hominem on Harris.
Sound Illusion, Veritasium on Youtube did an episode on what I always thought I had trouble with learning languages by audio: Was it pronounced with V or B, etc.
Alex posted a long comment he gave from grading a student's Apologetics 101 paper on Western Culture based on Carl Trueman's "A Strange New World". I'm just going to note some terminologies here:
Thirty Years War = 1618 - 1648 Battles in Europe between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Early Orthodox Period = 3rd to 8th Century in Christendom (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria & Constantinople)
High Orthodoxy Period = 1620 - 1700 (Post Synod of Dort pursuit of comprehensive systematic theologies.
8/15/2024 “没受苦就做领袖，一定教会失败” ~ 唐崇荣
8/14/2024 How to get Wok Hay/Wok Hei in American home. Because homes in America are gas-lined, we don't use gas tank/propane tank for cooking:
We are children of God, not children of Jesus ~ Stephen Tong on Hebrews:
As I am taking Hillsdale College's free online Music History course by Hyperion Knight, they played one of my favorite classical but I had never gotten the name of it until now - Arcangelo Corelli's Christmas Concerto - Concerto Grosso Op. 6 n. 8:
8/13/2024 Finishing Jordan Peterson's Interview with Brett Cooper. It's a good insight into conservative Gen-Z's view on growing up without a father figure. When Jordan Peterson's name was mentioned, I am sometimes reminded of a fundamentalist's view, from Messiah's Reformed Fellowship (MeRF), Kelvin Morales' comment on the guy during one Bible Study: "I don't watch the guy, why? Is he Christian? No." - Kelvin reminded me of a missionary allegedly criticized Pak Tong when he bought an encyclopedia at a very young age - "Do not buy such useless things, buy books related to Christian spirituality", May God forgive Morales, I suppose - Though claiming reformed, these fundamentalists do not truly distinguish General from Special Revelations, they actually hold to Solo Scriptura instead of Sola Scriptura:
Study on Color Contrast. For computer graphic/web design.
Since TomTom had a knee injury recently caused by basketball playing and will need operation, this article on scientists growing knee cartilage is interestingly coincidental.
An analysis of why Solomon Page didn't do well last year - hence less bonus/raise: Is it because Americans are afraid to quit jobs due to fear of recessions since COVID?
8/11/2024GCC Sunday Church Service: Sunday School: Discerning Movements of God, week 6, Practical Application - Pastor Chris' own summary of previous weeks:
@06:31 - "God exists, we know because Nature tells us...because happy accident is really unreasonable" [I guess by happy accident, the pastor meant randomness, otherwise, not sure what he's trying to say as any other alternatives just make no sense, the "...impossible by mathematical principles" reference also makes no sense. So he's trying to argue God by design here, I am guessing.]
@07:48 - "If the Bible is not true, everything is relativism" Kind of a weak one, since it's not grounded in Presuppositional Apologetics.
@09:35 - E raised a good one: What about a Hindu's view point? The pastor answered well by identified divine revelation as the key, that Hinduism lacks such. But he went on to mistakenly attack Islam's Quran as not claiming to be of divine revelation.
@12:00 - Phil questioned on how come the Bible sometimes is off on science. Actually this is a good question, and the best answer is simply the Bible never concerns itself with science. In the pastor's notes, I don't know why he kept using "specific" revelation. Special Revelation should have been used instead. It's proper and traditional reformed terminology, there's no need to side track it, nor trying to avoid mention of "reformed' doctrine. If it is an intentional avoidance, it is only pride, not humility. Unless the pastor, though knew, but could not relate "Special revelation" in this context properly.
@15:23 - The pastor got the Quran all wrong here, calling it human authority. Failing to acknowledge that Muslims see the Quran as divine revelation. "First copy of the Quran was even lost" - That's not historically accurate, and also, our Bible does not come from the original copy as well. This is a very weak apologetics against Islam.
@19:10: T asked what is Judaism. I wouldn't agree with the pastor who would just blatantly say "what they believe is a different god". This goes against the fact that everyone knows God exists. The real answer would have been: "Yes and No" to does Judaism believe the true God. T actually got it by bringing up the fact that no other religion has a suffering Christ, which is exactly what Judaism threw out!!!
@24:30 T shared the outreach our church did the day before reached some people on "I prefer cleaning up myself first before coming to Christianity".
@26:10 E shared that she used to believed that kind of legalism. The pastor admitted it as well until he read the Psalms.
Now I'm curious how Joy was behaving at the outreach in that context. But perhaps she came at a different time.
@28:10 K asked if any other religion says "God is of yesterday, today and future"? The pastor at least got Islam correct here. I think here is a good place to introduce the creator-creation distinction, and how so many other thinking is simply pantheistic. K: "The Bible proves that God is of yesterday, ...", I would say no, not "proves", but "affirms" or "reveals".
@30:20 The pastor: Creation is a trap. I think by this he meant he cannot talk about the gospel when it comes to creation. As there's no way to deal with science on creation. It seems that his concept of "general revelation" wasn't strong enough.
@34:40 The pastor's bringing up of the irrelevance of dispensationalism debates set the question for Joy to ask: The Bible doesn't say our past, present and future sins are forgiven. P answered well: He died for our sins once and for all (Hebrews 10:12, Peter 3:18, etc.). J referred to Romans 3:25 "...his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." to show that God only forgives past sins, not present nor future. I looked it up, this "former sins" were generally seen as the sins of OT saints (Gill) or legal expiations (Calvin). The pastor was also right in identifying the reference being "before Christ" and that verse is not talking about our individual salvation today. Ez referred back from verse 21, to understand it as sins of OT laws. The pastor then re-read from verse 20 to pronounce that this is Christ's righteousness, not ours. That's good, but I think he later tried to make a distinction inaccurately about "propitiation" and "expiation", as "total substitution" and "do this and you're forgiven, but later you sin again", respectively. I would just define these as "satisfied God's anger" and "cleansed of sins".
@41:22 J understood in Hebrews 10:12 "once and for all" as Jesus only needed to die once. A bad interpretation. Key word is "...forever..." KJV, "...for all time..." ESV, and so this is not just about dying for only one time. But even so, even with that bad interpretation, one sacrifice should also be rightly understood as for all sins.
@42:10 R interrupted with the mention of the veil torn in two as a symbolic answer to this as well. But I think that's not where Joy was going for.
@43:00 Joy is now dealing with Arminianism view. I don't think I need to do further analysis on this. As this view generally rejects Christ's Active Obedience. Though not used by the pastor, but he rightly called it "by Christ's righteousness, not ours."
I think the key is in verse 21, "...apart from the law..." meaning obedience to the law does not grant such righteousness. Such righteousness has never been possible to obtain until Christ. A good supplement for this is also the introduction of active/passive obedience of Christ. WCF 11.1. It's interesting that though the exact phrase is not found in WCF 11.1, it is found in 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith 11.1. Nevertheless, the language is understood as such in WCF unquestionably. Joy perhaps only understood passive obedience and may reject active obedience of Christ. I have already another entry on this, but I shall just paste a quote from there here:
...However, that [passive obedience of Christ] is not enough, because that only makes us sinless. To truly be saved, we must not just be completely sinless, such as rocks and stones, we must also be righteous!
To answer Joy, I would do it this way: God's love/our salvation/election causes us to repent; Not our repentance causes God's love/our salvation/election. As an elect, I obey God out of my love for God; I don't obey God out of my fear for hell. If I have to tell someone to repent out of fear for hell, then I am already doing the Gospel wrong.
BillZ rightly mentioned sins unknown to us, "hidden faults" being forgiven, as stated in Psalm 19.
My summary: Obedience is an inevitable affirmation of the elect; not a required condition to be elected. Here, Joy's use of "repentance" is interchangeable with "obedience", and "saved" is interchangeable with elect/elected/chosen.
As supplements, I am jotting down Stephen Tong's exposition on Romans 3:19-31, in his new expository without translator in Taiwan (after the HK debacle), to #15-#18 (Though #18 may not have been part of the passage focus). 第015讲 律法引人到耶稣基督的面前
This will be my thorough review of it, after the debacle claims from the East against U.S. Congress, which one can easily search online. But this is an American Bipartisan attack on China using a Singaporean as a strawman. It worked well for both American parties because as long as they got the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" going, they won't have to worry about stepping on each other's foot. A clever person would see this flaw and could easily break these two parties right there and then. The Democrats care more about how much TikTok is making and not sharing or spending the profit "wisely" as a bottom line, the Republicans care more about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), But I think Chew's playing the normal role game, from a pragmatic side.
I believe Project Texas is just an additional measure that specifically cater to American policy and need. However, the Americans took it as patronizing. It would only seem patronizing if the Americans in their hubris think themselves the only absolute measure of world policy: As if what is fit for Americans, must also fit for the world, and thus Project Texas should be called Project Global. Although I'm curious how Project Texas is going to identify real American accounts? by Social Security Number?
@34:50 Mrs. Cathy Rodgers' first question was disingenuous as it wasn't really a question as she claimed so, but more of an accusation. She immediately jumped to the "next" question and expect a yes or no answer. This next question is about heating content, a way social media platforms suggest certain videos that align with users' interest. This is a fair but vague question. Fair because we don't want partiality, vague because the control if this is virtually impossible at a federal level against any companies. In other words, it's not the business of the government to police such partiality, most Republicans should know this, so I would have expected this from a Democrat like Frank Pallone and not a Republican like Rodgers. So nobody would answer no to this. It's clear she's trying to insinuate something.
@35:20 She then asked about the removal of videos associated with Uyghurs Genocide. This is now just a moral question based on false propaganda on the word "genocide" without proper historical context as I posted the video below answered by George Yeo in another talk, and then she went on to another China's problem, the ban on Tiananmen Massacre videos, even dared to insinuate Chew of lying. The funny part is she wanted to slap a "United States federal crime" label to a Singaporean who's invited to the States for his testimony. It would have been better if she had used "international law" or something of that sort:
@36:20 She wanted 100% certainty from Chew on security (100% no surveillance on Americans). She must be a fundamentalist.
@41:00 Pallone was basically insinuating something here by questioning the details from the general (i.e. Are you selling data?) which Chew answered well by saying he would get the details for him.
@47:00 Republican Michael Burgess of Texas' questions seem to show that he himself is a bit slow on understanding international matters: He seems to want to distinguish CCP from Chinese Government.
@50:00 California's Democrat Anna Eshoo. There's something I don't quite get is that the Congress kept saying "American data" as if they are putting the burden on TikTok to police real American data. How can a service company be certain of fake accounts? The best method I know of, though not 100% hacker proof, is to require some kind of federal identification such as SSN, etc. And I doubt any social media, including TikTok is requiring such identification. So how can they be sure of the involvement of American data. I think Eshoo thinks China = Singapore. But I think she also recognized her own lack of understanding in these matters and yielded back very quickly.
@55:00 Ohio Republican Bob Latta brought up a case that America's own judge threw out about suing TikTok for some choke challenge that caused the death of a 10 year old American girl. So it is a low blow. Not to mention TikTok's not the only media for problems like this. I think even AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), one of the Democrats that's most looked down by Republicans, is more clear minded about this.
@1:00:00 Democrat Diana DeGette of Colorado, her questions on the control of dangerous videos are not just limited to TikTok, but she wants it to be all about TikTok.
@1:06:00 Richard Hudson, Republican of North Carolina, became infamous with the question "Does TikTok access home wifi network?"
@1:11:19 Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Democrat, just brought up bunch of possible fake news.
Schism in American Presbyterian church from 1741 - 1758, controversy surrounding the First Great Awakening. Also known as the Old and New Light (including Congregationalists and Baptists) debate: When denomination splits into two: Old Lights = conservatives who do not wish changes, New Lights (George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent, etc.) = those who prefer the changes. The Great Awakening calls for true conversion via preaching "terrors of the law". The Old side thinks that this type of faith policing has gone too far.
Old School vs. New School:
Schism in American Presbyterian Church in 1837, lasted 20+ years.
Old School, led by Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary, conservative, did not support the the 2nd Great Awakening.
I'll place criticism of the study here, but the essence of the passage I shall place in my Proverbs entry.
@10:40 R mentioned that the Holy Spirit hadn't been given yet (I guess it was an allusion to John 7:39..."had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified", thus the answer would be both yes and no, contrasting John 3 as Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about the Holy Spirit). The pastor acknowledged that it wasn't poured out the same way in OT vs. NT but he didn't elaborate further. A good topic on this was answered by Ligonier a while back:
Horton: The pouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 brings the whole world into a new era.
Derek Thomas aligned with Pak Tong when he quoted Psalm 51:11 "...take not your Holy Spirit from me" even though the old covenant saints were saved the same way as the new covenant saints: by the works of the Holy Spirit in the promised Christ (for OT).
TGC has an article, by James M. Hamilton Jr., about this as well and made it clear that the Holy Spirit did not indwell the OT believers. That kind of indwelling was in the temple and among the people. There was a need for the temple as the shadow type of Christ.
@14:23 on verse 34, the pastor asked for the definition for humility.
Pak Tong on the definition, which I think is better:
@14:58 Rd gave the answer to the definition for humility that the pastor was anticipating: "not deserving, not worthy". And the pastor then aligns with John Gill on grace comes before one exercises humility.
I would add here, more accurately, "not deserving before God", that in contrast to the Buddhists' way of humility, Christian humility is the only true one. Any other types are naturally corrupted.
@21:51 The pastor said of being humble is "not about results". I would disagree here. The disagreement would probably have to be more of the language, semantics. But important. True, we're not concerning ourselves with results as in successful great numbers of accomplishments even the whole world would recognize in their sinful state. But this result should be focused on the result of God's grace upon us. The very faithful act in us, is the result!
@22:44 Here the pastor seems to equate the disgrace of the fools to people who have no legacy, despite acknowledging the fact that some good Christians also left no legacy. I think this view is just too shallow and there's no need to further expound on it. This is different than David in Psalm 37:36 "...he could not be found" for David sought after them in a sense of the lack of eternal value. Perhaps this affected his flawed view on cathedrals (not commanded by God to built, but looks God-glorifying nonetheless).
@24:50 The pastor rightly called out the ones who would rather sit on the fence. E answered with "we must run the race". The pastor prefers: "someone who says why I would even bother, is someone who hasn't really encountered God". I think it's good because there are folks in all general churches under this judgment. But then I think he tried to give methodological examples of what one should be doing for God, which kind of defeated the purpose of the answer he gave. How can someone do those if he hasn't really encountered God? Not an easy rebuke for any church leaders to give, so at least Pastor Chris dared to bring it out in the first place, against the complacent believers.
@27:20 Phil completely went off topic from this and brought up Eric Liddell on how he gave glory to God. The pastor tried to accommodate it by "there's no a hierarchy of service to God". Then I think he was alluding also to but without mentioning the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The pastor then segued into the topic of anything can be idolized or used to glorify God. Mary's spikenard was mentioned vs. Judas' criticism, as a means to view sports as God glorifying. I don't think Mary's spikenard case is coherent with sports that's God glorifying. Though there's nothing wrong with sports. "it's possible to serve needy people with the wrong heart", hearing this I was reminded of Tim Keller's Counterfeit Gods.
@30:30 F, as I may have guessed, now rebutted saying that "I would like to see what else these guys [athletes] will do, it's easy to cross the finish line...but then they go buy gold chains and Maserati..." The pastor tried to calm the atmosphere by calmly calling "it has to do with the heart, the character". I told Nadia later that, using Tim Keller, I would have responded "everything, even volunteering for food banks, helping the poor [Judas' case], can be turned into idolatry". N then tried to add that those who are wasteful will be broke in the end anyway, so they need to be money savvy. That's a soft general feedback to Frank's comment. He also added that the camera moves away the moment the athletes praise God, which I could only think it was an inaccurate fundamentalist type comment. The pastor the rightly quoted Matthew 5:16.
@34:20 G & E then acknowledged that some thinks the only way to serve God was to become pastors, preachers, etc. The same think from Keller's Counterfeit Gods can easily answer this, so I am not saying more here.
@36:10 In somewhat incoherency, the pastor responded G on "and the whole world just going to have people serving in soup kitchens, etc." with his famous "cathedrals" case. P: "No Christian would sincerely say that God wants these Cathedrals...a thousand years of labor and money...however who among us find it awestruck...in other words, the Lord uses people who were wrong to still glorify and serve Him". So shallowly wrong, I could easily rebut with this basis: All things can be done for glory of God, in fact, what P does now is against the argument he was trying to make before - it's about the heart. Perhaps do that to the athletes again, pastor Chris. Try "No Christians would sincerely say that God wants these medals".
The pastor's point to G was that if there were only just one thing [all serving in soup kitchens], because of such a small amount of true believers, and the fact that non-believers [indirectly from his Cathedral builders example] are around to sort of accomplish God's glory, it will still be okay. And Ez continued with (I could vague make it out, so I'm guessing this was what she said) "...and no one will ever have money to send missionaries" and all laughed. This is so bad I don't even feel like I should respond to it. The "soup kitchens can be idolized" is enough blow against any of these comments.
@38:40 F tried to fight back subtly against the pastor's Cathedral case by citing how a documentary showed the stone masons dedicated their work to God. But then F side tracked to that being an opportunity for the masons to share the gospel when a kid came and ask why you did this. The pastor tried to work around that by still trying to make it as if a "sin" to still build the cathedral because the only reason do so, according to the pastor, is that one thinks "God needs/commands such architectures". He connected this to the hubris and pride of the empire.
@39:48 D actually surprised me this time by giving a great biblical response to this cathedral case by alluding to the old testament beautiful temple. The pastor tried to go around this as well, but I don't think it's a win.
@41:15 R also brought up the fact that some may come to Christ through the beauty of these cathedrals. A minor answer, but I do agree and like it. The pastor only looked at the danger in this view (i.e. virgin Mary's statue, etc.). I told Nadia later that many of these cathedrals have the gospel story etched into the beautiful stained glass windows. Interesting here that the pastor compared this to building the Golden Calf, which would be something some of us reformed folks used for Contemporary Christian Music. He failed when he said "God can used the Golden Calf to lead someone..." because principally, this is heretical, if he meant that the golden calf can sometimes be a good thing. The golden calf is a pure result of a completely erroneous way to serve God, it's like saying God can use porn as a positive, God glorifying factor to lead someone to Christ. I personally don't think the pastor was going this way, but he's trapped himself in a language that could only lead to this conception. P: "St. Peter's Basilica is an absolute abomination". I would just go as far as the means of building the Roman basilica is an abomination.
TGC actually as an article on this, contrasting Puritan architecture view (church buildings = meetinghouses) vs. the Catholics' "the sacred space" cathedral view. "But this does not mean that it must be unattractive or drearily utilitarian...John Calvin...chief principle...decorum" How we behave is more important. Bottom line, just don't worship the building itself. This is something only those who care to understand God's aesthetic.
@42:32 Phil mentioned Mother Theresa in response, in a confused way to suggest "God is the one who judges in the end". Rob quoted Colossians 3:23 as conclusion, "no matter what work we do, as long as it's legal and not sinful..." I think it's American if not Western hubris to think that their legal laws are sinless, because to pick a tiny bone, Rob's point here would fail with not doing the kind of work that's "...illegal but not sinful...". again, play of words here, not saying that they are believing what they are saying.
@44:00 The pastor went back to the Spikenard case by saying Martha's the busy one, her heart wasn't right.
@45:10 R asked "doesn't the Bible say that the heart is wicked?" I think this was a Catholic thing and the pastor answered rightly with "the New heart".
@45:50 Not sure why N was trying to justify accountants' place in the world using Bernie Madoff. If I think what N was saying is right, then it's a very shallow argument. Of course we don't overgeneralize things.
@46:55 Nadia asked about the mentioning of Martha by P. P: "Martha was trying to impress people, show off...instead of pleasing God". Rick then gave the best answer among all, but wasn't quite heard by many I think, by saying "Martha was about work". Nadia wanted to make a case that "then what happens if everyone just sat by Jesus like Mary", the pastor couldn't respond well: "that's not the message, the message is..." Even M also asked @48:10 "Martha was showing off?" and F corrected "at least not let Martha criticize Mary".
My conclusion on this is the pastor, maybe not alone on this, perhaps due to the fundamentalist upbringing, has a very bad use of English conversation/conveying proper meaning which is from shallow thinking of matters, of logic and reasoning, as eloquent and better at vocabulary than me as he could be.
8/7/2024 The Paris 2024 Olympics boxing event had people concerned about gender identity when Imane Khelif of Algeria, being identified as female since birth, won a match against Italian Angela Carini within 46 seconds. As a result, Khelif's gender as a female was called into question due to her mainly figure. This also sparked debate on social media as IOC delays in settling the controversy. Another alleged female boxer, Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, her gender was also called into question. The International Boxing Association (IBA)'s earlier disqualification of the two boxers in 2023 was brought up, consequently. IBA's president, Umar Kremlev, claimed that these two showed XY chromosomes in testing. It would appear that IBA is the only source of such gender information on these two boxers, but unfortunately, IBA had been barred by IOC in 2019 and in 2023 due to alleged governance of the sport, and, Kremlev's claim was never officially published. So all we have is just hearsays from some questionable officials.
I believe I first came across this from social media. People like David Tong and Alex posted opposing views. Tong was using the "XY" chromosomes as fact while Alex was focusing on accusation of Khelif being transgender as determinant of the invalidation of the fact. They both have multiple posts on Facebook. The moment I learned that Khelif's from Algeria, I already thought to myself, intentional transgenderism would be likely unlikely in Khelif's case, as Algeria's a Muslim country, it was a no brainer for me.
My conclusion is that the gender in a gender sports is ultimately determined in the most fundamental basis that we know of...the chromosomes, regardless of certain abnormality of mutations. Visible physical properties can only go so far from birth certificates to passports and so on. In this case, chromosome testing is important. However, I can also understand why the results are kept confidential in many case, because an intersex generally do not wish to be publicly known, as it results in unwanted consequences such as not able to get married due to prejudice, etc. Therefore, a lot of trust is placed on the qualifying entities. And if the entities are politically motivated (i.e. Supporting LGBTQ+), then it raises a lot of question in such trust, because now we're not talking just about genetic science, but social influence as well, as highly questionable determinant skills. If I'm not wrong, that seems to be where Alex was heading (likely due to his love of claiming to have LGBT friends), even though he is likely not supporting of LGBTQ+ since he once gave that "Because God said so!" fundamentalist answer when I suggested years ago in the Bronx Bible study, arguments from the ends in such political debate among the secular, non-Christians.
This also reminded me about Neil DeGrasse Tyson on sports at least a year ago: split people by categories, not gender, because we're not dealing with gender differences but hormone levels:
8/6/2024 Stephen Tong on how John the Baptist was greater than all prophets: All other prophets prophesied John's coming, unlike them John was able to baptize Jesus, they had to be filled by the Holy Spirit later in life, John was filled since birth, they hoped to see Christ but John became the friend of the Bridegroom, no fundraising only lived by God in the desert, not a single miracle done by him, greatest reductionist - all his words were the central essence of faith.
8/5/2024 Famous Greek composer: Manos Hadjidakis, noted from the Greek series: maestro in Blue
8/4/2024 Since what I have is mostly critiques on GCC's Bible Study, Sunday School & Sermons, I shall place my entries in the Journal of the Week entries instead of independent entries, unless under special circumstances: i.e. important topic that can be expanded.
Sunday School: Week 5, continuation of Jonathan Edwards' "The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Applied to that uncommon operation that has lately appeared on the minds of the people of New England: With a particular consideration of the extraordinary circumstances with which this work is attended"
We did I. Negative signs first weeks ago [What I would call, paradoxes]: 1. Newness 2. Physical effects 3. Strong affections for God 4. Impressions on the imagination 5. Examples 6. Imprudence 7. Errors 8. False Believers 9. Terrifying Preaching
Then II. Scriptural Evidence of a Sincere Work: 1. Leads One to Jesus Christ 2. Action Taken Against Satan's Kingdom and Worldly Desires 3. Greater love and regard for the Scriptures 4. Embracing of the truth even when it is uncomfortable, ugly, or unpopular 5. Love for the brethren and neighbor
And today we do III. Practical Inferences: 1. Using rules (Word of God) and Facts (self observation + others observations) @8:50 I guess Nadia wasn't the only one having problem with Pastor Chris' language, as B asked: I'm not familiar with that term...pit of hell (P said it so quickly it sounded like Pitahal).
Christians became more spiritually mature and joyful over 6 years in Edwards' perspective.
@11:50 P mentioned mega churches again, as usual, opposing it personally. I think mega churches are good. Unfortunately, when the great preachers of the mega churches have gone, those churches also dwindle, unless there's greater preachers continuing the work, which is incredibly rare.
2. [Basically a build from what insufficiency Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-42 said: If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought, if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.] Not only do not oppose, but do our utmost to promote (which I think the pastor did not touch much on as he only talked about affirming it, not promoting it) the work of God.
@23:00 Interesting that Patty brought up Oneness Pentecostal. I know of them, but I had to looked it up to confirm that this "Oneness" is really just the heresy of Modalism. The effect of it, I guess, not to mention a confused state Christianity, if you want to call it Christian, is the failure in seeing duality in Christ's natures. Thus, one would either become legalistic (There's no creaturely humanity in Christ) or extremely liberal (a limited god view) from this.
@24:00 Second Great Awakening was brought up as a turn from Calvinism to Arminianism. Unlike the pastor, I would like to give people like Charles Finney (I don't know anything about Billy Sunday, so I'll leave this guy out, but the pastor rounded him with the ilk of the "revival", but Finney apparently has lots of credits as promoter of social reforms such as abolitionism, equal education for women and African Americans) benefit of the doubt. The Britannica added the term "...shifted from Calvinism to a PRACTICAL Arminianism..." which I think is more apt, using the word "practical". As it is complicated. As Stephen Tong would have it, "美國從前有一位芬尼牧師 （Charles Finney, l792-1875）所屬於歸正宗的教會，當他鼓勵人傳福音時，他的精神像亞米念的精神，但是當他跑到亞米念的教會要將上帝的主權告訴人時，他求上帝藉著祂的主權將恩典賜下來，他又變成歸正宗":
But one cannot deny that, the 2nd Great Awakening is more rejected than the first. It's been treated not just as Arminianism but also moralism and legalists. I think something like Charles Finney's case is illtreated more from the methodological aspect rather than his doctrinal stand. P: The cause of the Temperance Movement which lead to the Prohibition, corporate evangelism, show window Christianity, [revival tents and invitation of professional revivalists by local churches ~ Britannica]. P: their error was - take away the evil and you'll be on the right track, backwards; whereas Christ's message was get your heart right first... Not bad, but I would further to say: know the Lord personally. There were sayings about people being scared away from bars for 5 years and then come back again, scare tactic revivalism.
3. On how to promote #2. with humility: When we have great discoveries of God made to our souls, we should not shine bright in our own eyes.
@35:10 Edwards' grandson (maternally) Aaron Burr was mentioned as not a believer and chafed under a strict household, thus his heart's not in the right place. I had to look this up: Burr was known for his illegal duel with Alexander Hamilton (killing Hamilton, but Burr was never tried, I guess due to the common practice of such illegal activity) as well as the Burr Conspiracy - alleged plot to create his own countries, but was acquitted each time. I take it P meant that Burr was not a good guy in this context, not knowing Burr well myself.
@40:08 P: I think if we have a gospel of grace, it's almost impossible for someone to truly measure their level of spirituality on an objective scientific scale...what people like to do is to make everything into a science, i.e. I do not play cards, therefore I'm a better Christian. [I disagree with the use of the term science here, because then it really is not objective science is it? Thus, as I said before in another entry, bad English. A better alternatives are: just theory, personal opinion, private own understanding, self-made rules, there's no fixed formulas, etc. In this case, I think this is due to the pastor's misunderstanding of Matthew 7 on "judge not", as if we can never judge others. Speaking of science, I would say somethings are not quantifiable, however, if one is to really bring science in, then you must get your definitions of the terms correct: what do you mean by measuring this or that, then we will decide if we are truly talking about science or not. Also, I think like Nadia, probably, many such folks are incapable of dealing in probability, as part of science. When they talk about science, they want absolute numbers, not just statistical probability]
On Sunday Sermon: Revelation 2:1-7. Q1: Why is it still commendable to what is Biblically right even if it is for misguided reasons? What can help you engage for the right reasons? This question is based on Rev. 2:4, that Ephesus lost their first love despite all the earlier commendation on labor in patience, cannot bear them which are evil, tried false apostles. P: Ephesus did these for the wrong motive. [This scripture context is not about motives being wrong, for there was their first love. Wrong motives never have any love to begin with. Ephesus failed due to not faithful in their struggle in this world]
I finally got to ask Doryce of the song that she once said sounded similar to Maranatha's Make Me A Servant. She couldn't remember nor could I. But she gave me something close enough, and that's Muppet's The Rainbow Connection:
