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.