My Journal

Sunday School's topic on WLC's Q. 194: What do we pray for in the fifth petition? (Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors)

The pastor suggested different grades of forgiveness (and he preferred even different words than "forgiveness" which he solely wished to apply to post-repentant): i.e. letting go but not completely forgiving those who especially do not apologize, but letting go is a type of forgiveness. This "grades" of forgiveness is different than the two kinds of forgiveness presented by John Calvin, Matthew Henry and John MacArthur. Greg Wright wrote a good piece on this called "Forgiveness from the Heart: Are Christians Obligated to Forgive Unrepentant People". I'll paste this article in the comment section. In terms of kinds of relationships, I would differ from the pastor's interpretation, though we may use the same words like reconciliation, restored fellowship. The difference is that this is not mutual. My offender does not cause me to turn away from him, it is he who turned away from me, and by reconciling, he's the one returning, not me. I am already ready to have a restored fellowship, so it is up to him, never up to me, as I have already forgiven him. The benefit is solely on him, not on me for I lack nothing in this. Opposing sides would use Mark 11:25 vs. Luke 17:3 to defend their cases, but it can be treated as one and the same and the side that chooses not to call one of these two "forgiveness" but "let go" instead, stands on more unstable ground.

Forgiveness is simply to release the obligation of the offender to the offended and it includes the love to wish them well. Forgiveness is never giving approval to the offense itself, regardless if the offender apologizes sincerely or not.

I do differ in this as this question wasn't new to me. Michael Liu had brought this to my attention before (years ago when we first met) when he called me one day, with an unsettling tone in his inquiry because he had heard his preacher preaching about there's no need to forgive if the trespasser does not apologize. I disagreed with that preacher, as well as now Pastor Chris on this, even though our pastor does take this less extreme than Michael's former preacher. Pastor Chris even admitted that, for the second time (the first was probably last year when the similar topic was brought up) that I've heard of him, this was just his own view and he's open to disagreement @12:30 ("I think...you tell me if I'm wrong"). And it would seem that he may consider my disagreement (@41:31 also I could use some improvement in my oral as well listening to myself speaking...cringe), despite him watering down forgiveness to different grades of forgiveness, which I would have disagreed. Forgiveness is just forgiveness, there's no different grading of it. I did gave them the example of Amish Grace and other testimonies that make the case where to forgive is divine, in this case, to forgive before the other side apologizes. I could have listed: Edith Taylor, possibly Corrie Ten Boom, etc. But Jesus' forgiveness on the cross which is copied by Stephen at his own death, was what I promoted. For some reason, when "Father forgive them for they know not what they've done" was brought up before I responded, the pastor's interpretation of it was that the forgiveness was aimed at their original sin, which was strange. Perhaps it was the only out he could think of at the time. That was why I had to speak out to include Stephen, who also said something similar. Though I couldn't quote Stephen's exact phrase (Lord, lay not this sin to their charge-KJV, Lord, do not charge them with this sin-NJKV, Lord, do not hold this sin against them-NASB, Lord, do not hold this sin against them-ESV, 主啊，不要将这罪归於他们-CUV) until I looked it up later.

Of course, this time Nadia also asked a question @35:20 related to this because Eleni mentioned @12:00 "When God forgives, He forgets". She wasn't quite satisfied with the answer but was not eloquent enough to follow up with the discussion. I later gave her this great article I found on TGC: Does God forget our Sins? by Joanna Kimbrel (Isaiah 43:25, Hebrews 8:12). I believe that the pastor did his best to answer Nadia. Perhaps he needed to touch on the definition of "forget". Both Joanna and Chris quoted Psa 103:12. Joanna went further by saying "as if we never sinned", which should be good enough of a definition. The only answer to this (how God could forget), which wasn't brought up by anyone in Sunday School was, as Joanna puts it well, the cross of Jesus Christ. Thus, this is true, as a mystery, for OT Israelites.

The pastor @13:00 understood rightly that God's forgiveness is not universal but for the elects, however, he treated the concept of "we have to repent" from our perspective as it being valid for us to wait until others repented in order to truly forgive them. I think here is a misapplication of it. I think Joseph gave us a great example on this. That if I visit someone who shot my relative in prison and said "I forgive you" @14:10, pastor Chris understood that as a mere letting go the grudge and handing it over to God. Both Chris and Dirk later tied that into different levels of relationships with people you merely let go of grudges regardless of their permission and people you have truly forgiven because of their repentance. Joseph, however, had never treated his relationship with his brothers any differently, if one reads the Bible carefully. There are many movies made to show Joseph holding grudges, but that interpretation is not founded on the Bible, even though the Bible never clearly stated Joseph's state of emotion at the crucial moments where should he acted with grudges. What Joseph did in his wisdom to test his brothers were not necessarily a sort of resolving his grudge if he never had it to begin with. In fact, it would make one a better saint to forgive better. I believe when Joseph said "God meant it for good", he didn't need to wait until his brothers repented to have a "total restored fellowship of forgiveness" as the pastor called it (@19:00 & @20:00 though not about Joseph). Therefore, relationship between two men matters not in terms of repentance, that responsibility goes to wisdom and not repentance. But it does matter in terms of forgiveness. The one who forgives first always opens the door to great horizontal relationship, therefore it matters not if such great relationship is eventually realized or not, because it is already held in waiting by the one who forgives. Those who think it resulting in being a doormat, pushover, need to focus on wisdom and the right definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness is the same as God's forget of sins. However, how we treat a relationship is how we apply our wisdom from experience, from what we've learned from God. I wouldn't simply just trust a person whether he has trespassed against me or not. Or be their doormat. That is wisdom. So when I'm being careful around people who have sinned against me @17:00, it doesn't mean that it was the consequence of their sin, but a consequences of me over trusting people in general. So I disagree with the pastor that it was the consequences of the perpetrators. I could simply not press charges against that person, this is forgiveness and though it might invite objections, I think it is possible to be in my right fully to not press charges against someone who sinned against me, thereby obliterated the "earthly consequences" that the pastor spoke of. Also, forgiveness doesn't mean there's no consequences. David was an excellent example on this. He repented, God forgave, yet "the sword shall never depart from your house" said God. This is not about God not giving David a "total restored fellowship of forgiveness" for there is no such thing, but a way for David and the rest of us to learn not just of consequences but on the statutes God places in His creation.

Matt brought up Jesus' "Father forgive them" @25:00, and I shouted Amen in my heart. And I think the pastor answered wrongly with calling those charge of original sin. Of course, I am also not saying that Jesus was necessarily praying "for all indiscriminately as John Calvin puts it in Luke 23:34". Original sin is the state we are born with after the fall and that state is not corrected by forgiveness but by our regeneration and Christ's imputation of righteousness upon us. Therefore Christ's prayer was aimed towards what was done to him at the time, not the original sin. I believe Christ was praying for the elects among them. As for Stephen, his prayer was different than Christ's from a imitation stand point because Stephen has no hand in election of the saints, but he could only hope in his gospel ministry. Yet, Stephen was able to forgive this way because much has been forgiven him. "A Christian loves much after much has been forgiven him, not the reverse: that much has been forgiven him because he loves much." as Vos puts it. I don't think it is right to place forgiveness anywhere in ordo salutis (i.e. comes before or after repentance), as it is a categorical difference.

Mary brought up indirectly the matters of Matthew 6:14-15 (though the pastor quoted it later as a good reminder) @30:07, that if you don't forgive others theirs, neither will your Father forgive you yours. Calvin on this verse said it well: "...and on no other condition does he admit us to pardon, but that we pardon our brethren whatever offenses they have committed against us." I would add, in reverse, that if you cannot forgive others, it maybe that you have not fully comprehended and accepted God's forgiveness of your trespasses. So in a way, thought I wouldn't say "God's forgiveness is not contingent upon us forgiving others" because God is the active agent in forgiveness (Eph 4:32, Col 3:13), Mary would be wrong if she thinks it's okay not to forgive others. Though we are to imitate God in forgiveness, we do not go too far into confusing the difference between God's vertical forgiveness and our horizontal (with each other) forgiveness. God regenerates those whom He forgives, we do not regenerate people. God is the absolute active agent, we are the passive-active agent in forgiving because unlike God, we needed God's forgiveness first.

One asked @37:30 about judgment in the end time, the pastor erroneously defined judgment as "receiving penalty for sin". I think this comes from dispensationalists influence, by separating one final judgment into two: great white throne (Revelation) & judgment seat (Romans). Pastor: "Judgment seat = accountability seat of Christ, that's the bema seat, that's different from the great white throne". I've already done a general overview over this here. Then pastor then gave a very waterdown interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:15 "...wood, hay & stubble being burned up..." the stuff we wasted our time with gets burned up, but He rewards us for the things that were done for God, as if there should not be any negative talk about believers. On the contrary, even Calvin would not agree completely: "...that those who have mixed stubble, or wood, or straw, will be disappointed of the commendation which they had expected...Such persons, Paul says, could be saved, but on this condition - if the Lord wiped away their ignorance, and purged them from all dross."

After another challenged the pastor's view on forgiveness @43:44, an elder interjected @45:20 in defense of the pastor by re-emphasizing the different level of relationships pertaining to different grades of forgiveness, which I think is still in error. It was great that the pastor responded with slight disagreement by saying "I don't think there's a line where I don't speak to certain people". So there's some in between the pastor was trying to get, and I hope that it will improve. The way I see it, if one harbors this kind of leveled relationships, which of course is different than the level of relationships with Christ among his disciples, I should thread carefully with this kind as I think they could be slightly shallow, and this has nothing to do with forgiveness yet again, but wisdom.

The pastor also modeled our grades of forgiveness to the fact that "God doesn't forgive everybody" @44:02. Here Rene answered perfectly with the most common answer one often uses "but we're not God". The association made by the pastor here seems to fall away from basic reformed doctrine of election and into very fundamentalism Arminian view. Here the pastor conflated grace and forgiveness. Common grace is not forgiveness when we speak of forgiveness in terms of salvation. If we are to model after anything, it would be after God's common grace in forgiving others, and not His reprobation. God's reprobation is to be modeled after hatred against sinful things. This is why it is important to apply the quote "Hate the sin, love the sinners". This is an essential key in evangelism which many reformed, especially American reformed, failed, due to fundamentalists influences (from both extremes - legalistic view & shallow-interpretation-self-righteous view), resulting in objection to that quote. So no, we cannot model our "grades" of forgiveness after the fact that God forgives some and not others because our offenders are never so bad that God couldn't forgive before their repentance. And there shouldn't be grades of forgiveness in this sense.

I finally found my response to Michael Liu on this, it wasn't in my journal, but in the email I sent him in 2011. I shall paste that email in this comment.

Now, here is what the Scripture says about it: Matthew 6:14-15, Luke 17:3-4, Matthew 18:15-35 (Calvin's commentary on Matthew 18:21), Matthew 5:23-24 (reconcile with him who has something against you before coming to offer your altar gift), Luke 23:34 (Father forgive them, for they know not what they do), Acts 7:60 (do not hold this sin against them). More supporting verses: Matthew 5:7, Mark 11:25, Luke 6:37, Ephesians 4:31-32, Colossians 3:13, Luke 6:27 & Proverbs 25:21 (love your enemies), Proverbs 10:12 (love covers all offenses), Proverbs 17:9 (covering for others).

Calvin on Matthew 18:15-35:
v.15: for nothing is more difficult than to exercise forbearance towards men, and, at the same time, not to neglect the freedom necessary in reproving them. Almost all lean to the one side or to the other, either to deceive themselves mutually by deadly flatteries, or to pursue with excessive bitterness those whom they ought to cure...[three steps of brotherly correctly: Private, witnesses, the Church - for we are too eager to publish the faults of others]...against thee = private sins as oppose to open sins which is to be rebuked publicly (i.e. 1Ti 5:20).

v.16: if we distinguish between denial and evasion He who explicitly denies the fact, and declares that he is falsely and calumniously accused, must be left alone. But...evade...towards such persons it is useful to observe this method...The Church...We know that, after the Jews returned from the Babylonish captivity, a council was formed, which they called Sanhedrim, and in Greek Synedrion [modeled after Jewish custom as the Church was yet to exist]...Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican...that we ought to have no intercourse with the despisers of the Church till they repent.

v.21: ...It is natural to all men to wish to be forgiven...But...far from being equally gentle towards others...Luke differs somewhat from Matthew...that we should be prepared to forgive seven times [not seventy times seven, Peter asked 7 times perhaps due to Luke 17:3-4]...but the meaning is the same...But the words of Luke give rise to another question; for Christ does not order us to grant forgiveness, till the offender turn to us and give evidence of repentance...there are two ways in which offenses are forgiven. If a man shall do me an injury, and I, laying aside the desire of revenge [Pastor Chris would support this but to support the following sentences...?], do not cease to love him, but even repay kindness in place of injury, though I entertain an unfavorable opinion [The pastor would like this phrase too] of him, as he deserves, still I am said to forgive him. For when God commands us to wish well to our enemies, He does not therefore demand that we approve in them what He condemns, but only desires that our minds shall be purified from all hatred [the pastor would also agree with this phrase]. In this kind of pardon, so far are we from having any right to wait till he who has offended shall return of his own accord to be reconciled to us, that we ought to love those who deliberately provoke us, who spurn reconciliation, and add to the load of former offenses. A second kind of forgiving is, when we receive a brother into favor, so as to think favorably respecting him, and to be convinced that the remembrance of his offense is blotted out in the sight of God...But here another question arises. As soon as a man by words makes profession of repentance, are we bound to believe him? ... I answer, first, the discourse relates here to daily faults, in which every man, even the best, needs forgiveness...what will be the consequence if, at the second or third fall, the hope of forgiveness is cut off? We must add, secondly, that Christ does not deprive believers of the exercise of judgment, so as to yield a foolish readiness of belief to every slight expression, but only desires us to be so candid and merciful, as to stretch out the hand to offenders, provided there be evidence that they are sincerely dissatisfied with their sins. For repentance is a sacred thing, and therefore needs careful examination; but as soon as the offender gives probable evidence of conversion, Christ desires that he shall be admitted to reconciliation, lest, on being repulsed, he lose courage and fall back. Thirdly, It must be observed that, when any man, through his light and unsteady behavior, has exposed himself to suspicion, we may grant pardon when he asks it, and yet may do so in such a manner as to watch over his conduct for the future, that our forbearance and meekness, which proceed from the Spirit of Christ, may not become the subject of his ridicule...as repentance is a wonderful work of the Spirit, and is the creation of the new man, if we despise it, we offer an insult to God himself.

Forgiveness is an active agent, not passive. Though unlike God, our forgiveness to others is active before men (i.e. not dependent on their repentance), passive before God (Christ's sacrifice). The power I draw to forgive others comes from me being forgiven by God in Christ, not from how much repentant that other person is toward me. The offenses committed against me should only either make me wiser which I should in turn be thankful for or instill in me the sympathy for the blindness of those who fight against God at my cost. (the best remedy for over-coming temptation is, to recall to our remembrance the blindness of those who fight against God in our persons - John Calvin on Luke 23:34)

Sermon on 1John 5:21

Pastor: The smartest person is one who says I don't know. [Socrates, Paul, etc.]

I would add: The dumbest person is one who thinks he's the smartest ~ Stephen Tong.

Pastor: Pride -> Armchair Politicians. This reminded me of my entry on "Armchair bloggers", a quote from DC series.

It seems lately there's some input from Christians, the fundamentalist type, to debunk claims of aliens by saying that it can only be angels and demons. The activities of these spirits. Some even confused the spiritual and physical realms as if the spiritual must be a creation of this world as well, which I would cast questions and doubts on, as that is going further than where the Bible did not go.

Here's Stephen Tong's (allegedly) answer on such: 家庭·生活·其它

34、假如在火星或其他星球上发现生物，基督徒应如何解释？关于时下流行的外太空人，飞碟等说法，基督徒应采取何种态度？

　　答：圣经并非包容万事万物的百宝箱。它是讲述神在这个世界所造成的人与他之间的关系。因此，只有关于人的被造，人的堕落，神为人类预备的救恩，以及藉着基督与神和好的理想，才在它的范围之列。它并不涉及火星，土星或月亮等事物。因此，如果火星上确有生物，并不影响基督教信仰。至于外太空人，飞碟的说法，圣经上没有记载。圣经告诉我们：「我们所领受的，并不是世上的灵，乃是从神来的灵，叫我们能知道神开恩赐给我们的事」(林前十二12 [林前二12])。换句话说，圣灵启示我们，是要我们知道有关人与神之间的事情至于圣经没有告诉我们的，我们只能说不知道。但是「自然」乃是神放在人之下，使人依神所给予的理性，智慧去发掘其中的奥妙，因此，神愿意敞开宇宙，让人探究。然而，人终必发现：没有一个地方比我们所处的地方更美好。正如德籍哲学家来普尼比所说：「The world is the best possibly created word」(这个世界乃是可能被造出的最好世界)。关于外太空人或飞碟，最近传说甚多。其中一种说法认为地心是空的，并有人居住，自从西元一九四五年地面上的人在广岛长崎投下原子弹后，地心的人纷纷派遣飞碟出外观望。不过这个理论，今天科学家多予以拒绝。

Sunday School:

On WLC Q191: 2nd petition "Thy kingdom come". We talked about "the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in..." It appears that the pastor took a bit of a dispensational view towards understanding this as well as Romans 11. That ethnic Jews still have a place in God's kingdom ethnically.

But I would say: Christianity is Jewish, though Jewish is not Christianity. More over, The city of God was Jerusalem, therefore we think of God's kingdom when we say Jerusalem, but Jerusalem is not the city of God.

Pastor also raised the suspicion the Q191 of WLC sounds sympathetic to Postmil ideology, which is held by Jonathan Edward, giving his time in the great awakening, the pastor reasoned, that the world will be becoming more like the Kingdom of God, gradually.

I believe this to not be the case. Or at least does not need to be interpreted that way. "purged from corruption", "the civil magistrate", they speak to culture mandate, a concept important in Reformed theology and offended by many fundamentalist Christians against the term "Social Justice" which Tim Keller applied at Redeemer. Of course, we must also remember that WLC was made in England, where Civil Magistrates were expected to hold to Christian faith, without the separation of Church and State.

Loved Renee's comment today. I think that takes the cake of all comments during Sunday School. She stressed on the importance of being bold to talk to others about the Gospel, strangers or not; while the pastor though did not object hers completely, but did emphasize, especially after Renee mentioned that we as Christians haven't really been boldly spreading the Gospel, as he usually do whenever this topic comes up, that American evangelism is all about works, about how many souls we win, we convert, as if God's not the one doing the conversion. He equate making disciples = making friends (and living a testimonial Christian life by example), confusing witnessing and preaching of the Gospel. The problem with this is we are not the perfect example, Christ was and is! Our good friendship only affirms the Gospel, it is not preaching the Gospel. Preaching of the Gospel is opening the mouth and speak the word of God. So, it doesn't matter what means we use as called by God differently in the individuals (on the streets to strangers, with friends, etc.), whichever wisdom we apply (seek opportunity rather than land the Gospel on people like bombs), in the end, we are still require to boldly open our mouths and lay the word of God, the Gospel on the hearers. Our witnessing lifestyle and testimony are insufficient for the Gospel. I wonder if Pastor Chris was traumatized by the American Evangelism when he mentioned here that he'd done it in his teens. Wonder who forced him? That he now thinks he would never do it anymore because he wouldn't want people doing it to him (strangers talking to him about religion or giving him tracts which he would consider all these are garbage), and therefore it would be hypocritical of him, so he thought, to do the same to others.

Interesting also that after the fellowship meal, there was a bat that somehow made its way in our dining area at church, flying here and there. I opened the door to let it out smoothly.

Recap:

Sunday School:

On the side note, while pondering on Ute's discussion regarding infant vs. believer's baptisms at Ocean Grove beach house, I realized something important. It's been there all along, but I just never would have put it this way as a persuasive argument, particularly to those who have great desire to have union and fellowship with others while still being caught in the false theology that believer's baptism brings. I could have tried:

Believers' baptism (BB) can never honestly accept paedobaptism (PB), but PB always readily accepts BB.

When I brought up John Piper's indirect rebuking of R.C. Sproul "Sproul, you are not baptized my brother", the group at the beach were appalled by Piper.

While we were doing our Week 7 topic on Prayer in Sunday School, going through WLC's questions on Prayer, I thought of building up a list of questions to ask Pastor Chris when the time comes to discuss with him about Evangelism (for myself) in the Bridgewater area. I shall put these questions in the comments here.

In Sunday School, the topic of what's heaven like was brought up. New Heaven and New Earth mentioned but the pastor support total destruction of the old and the complete creation of the new, instead of the historical Christian reformed approach of "renewal" and "restoration". I added an excerpt from a very good article on this from TGC in the comment section. The pastor's argument is of the fundamentalists' camp, focusing more dispensationally rather than covenantally. It is renewal or restoration because of Romans 8 and the fact that Jesus' resurrection was the first fruit of the new. Renewal is complete, but a completely new creation is basically ex-nihilo which is absurd as far as our resurrection goes. This fundamentalist view, which John MacArthur also holds is a bit gnostic in my opinion: Hate all things material in this world, but love the spiritual. The pastor's argument was based on 2 Peter 3, where everything gets burned up therefore renewal is not possible. John Calvin is clear against that argument in his commentary, that basically nobody knows about how the fire will dissolve, but focus should be placed on what God exhorts here:

What afterwards follows, respecting the burning of heaven and earth, requires no long explanation, if indeed we duly consider what is intended. For it was not his purpose to speak refinedly of fire and storm, and other things, but only that he might introduce an exhortation, which he immediately adds, even that we ought to strive after newness of life. For he thus reasons, that as heaven and earth are to be purged by fire, that they may correspond with the kingdom of Christ, hence the renovation of men is much more necessary. Mischievous, then, are those interpreters who consume much labor on refined speculations, since the Apostle applies his doctrine to godly exhortations. Calvin on 2 Peter 3:10

I believe the pastor's definition of renewal/restoring is the problem. It seemed narrower than ought. The renewal appears to be the terminology used organically in Scripture on this, but the definition should not be narrowed just because we don't have clear understanding of it.

The pastor emphasized: You could be more comfortable with God than with any other human being. Who on Earth is closer than God to us? The intent was to drive at the dependency solely on God. But I wondered if the pastor would dare go as far as stating "your parents, your spouses, your children, etc" which would be biblical and more crucial to his point.

The pastor also said "All theophany are christophany", which I think is problematic. As the burning bush is theophany but can hardly be considered strictly christophany, or Abraham and the Fire (by Tim Keller Jul 3, 2011 @20:00 time), etc. Though we are not denying the anticipation of Jesus in all theophany but this may even run the risk of being christomonic. Therefore because christophany refers only to the second person of the triune God, all theophany are triune, all theophany are not christophany, but all christophany are theophany.

Sermon on 1John 5:12-18

1John 5:13 The repetition of "that believe on the name of the Son of God...that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" has the connotation of "from faith to faith".

1John 5:16 If one ever needs to learn about John Calvin's take on Venial vs. Mortal sins, his commentary here takes the cake.

Mostly based on Stephen Tong's series.

I started taking this note taking seriously on this after the exposition on Deism:

On Hebrews 4:13, it's interesting to note that this verse refutes Deism most obviously in Chinese CUV: ...那与我们有关系的主...
KJV and NASB got it quite well as well: ...Him with whom we have to do.
But not as clearly in NKJV nor ESV: ...Him to whom we must give account.