My Journal

5/19/2024 I think there are more non-reformed claiming to be reformed in America. They follow narrow-minded fundamentalists ideology of "reformed = simply biblical". I speak this from my experience in my current church. I ought to watch myself, for dealing with them is as dealing with the charismatics: narrow mindedness, bad hermeneutics, plagiarising reformed materials without attributing to the source but themselves, disingenuous in reasoning. There's already two, and I don't doubt more, who believe the conspiracy of NASA's moon landing, that it's possible man never set foot on the Moon, it was just some Hollywood tricks to them. Even ANSWER IN GENESIS answers this better than them, accusing these small minded folks of directly or indirectly slandering two Christian Astronauts (Charlie Duke, Jim Irwin) for lying about the moon landing. I believe the chief problem is their epistemology. They wish to separate human knowledge into rational thinking and some mystical "pattern, as some calls it" recognition. This dichotomy is where they fail, because in order to react to that which is revealed (general or special) to us, we must first understand it rationally. The moment we think, speak, discuss, we are applying rational thoughts. To say otherwise, that there is an non-rational approach, is disingenuous, and is equivalent to being drunk or being high or even the desire for witchcraft.

I paraphrase the below diagram that is well-known from Stephen Tong:

And they love to use the term "math" by conflating logic, rational reasoning with arithmetics math. So they love to say things like you cannot solve love with math or you cannot read literature this way as it's not a math problem, because math is just about 1 + 1 = 2 or 10 x 10 = 100. They would say this is different than science. That this is outside of the kind of triangle diagram I drew for Man's knowledge above. Thus, in their pride to justify their lack of IQ, instead of humbly study or be taught by people who know better, they created a new fantasy of knowledge, by conflating supra-rational (God's things that's beyond human understanding) with human capability, hence it is no difference than the pursuit of witchcraft.

5/12/2024 We did missions prayer meeting instead of Sunday school today. Nadia and I were asked to speak of our respective countries in terms of Christian persecutions as both countries were listed as "restricted" (hostile to evangelism) by VOM (Voice of the Martyrs). I don't agree with VOM's categorization for Malaysia. I believe Christian complacency is more problematic than Christian persecution in Malaysia: The West love to conflate human rights persecution with Christian martyrdom. But I'm ok with it, I did not raise this issue, especially when time is short as well, we could barely finish sharing and praying for the hour. Tom did a good job as the group leader for Malaysia, Indonesia and Cuba. The other group being for China and Nigeria. Phil was wrong in trying (in lack of time management) to tell Tom to open another day for such sharing seeing Tom was rushing things, which is something you bring to Rob, not Tom and not during the prayer meeting.

Phil also mentioned a case which I think was where famous Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow led American judicial team (ACLJ) appealing to the United Nation to call Malaysia to answer for the disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh about 7 years ago. I remember seeing that CCTV video clip of the abduction by what seems to be secret police/military force in Malaysia, if not by fake police, years ago. Apparently this is still an ongoing court case. However, Phil, like the ACLJ, was off topic for using this case in our prayer meeting. There's no loophole in Malaysian judicial system against proselyting Muslims. If you do, you do so at your own risk as a legit criminal in Malaysian law, as Christian as you can be. It is wrong and unethical to spread propaganda using an abduction case of a pastor with ambiguous cause to accuse the Malaysian government of intolerance against Christianity. I had to comment on Sekulow's FB. ACLJ's claim for freedom of religion against Malaysian law is therefore moot, in which case, I would not have any problem to stand with the Malaysians calling out against Americans' own inconsistency in use of freedom - that is, in feminism, in gender identity confusion, and many more, between their own left and right parties. It is also a bad Christian testimony to knowingly break the human law in order to serve the King of kings, and then act like backing out or complaining about it when caught by enemies of God, this goes against Peter's first Epistle on theology of suffering (1 Peter 4:13). The reason I say Phil and ACLJ were off topic, because the Raymond Koh's case has nothing to do with evangelizing to Muslims even though it's allegedly so. The true content of this case about how the Malaysian police force handles a missing person case.

By end of service, Eleni pointed out how blessed we are to be in a country with freedom of religion. Then she related how diverse our church is which Phil added "E pluribus unum" in praise of this country. I kept quiet because these opens up bigger, longer discussions otherwise, and we don't have that kind of time. Especially we have the master of off topics and misinformation/lack of time management sense Phil involved, as knowledgeable he can be at times. Also, I need time to figure out who's talking what in the midst of off topics and misinformations. Now, after having time to gather my thoughts, my sound bite answers would be:
•E pluribus unum was originally about the 13 colonies, but sure, you can apply it to the melting pot of diverse global cultures.
•Eleni, I don't think I see it the same as you when I thank God for freedom of religion in this country, but I also thank God for persecution of Christians in other countries. I do not pray for their escape from such persecution, I pray for their testimonies that glorify God's name in this persecution. Those who truly serves God in persecution, they know full well what they're getting themselves into, we can pray for God's strength in them, they do not need the hand of Uzzahs to hold them up. That said, I would also add that, we do not truly have freedom of religion in America either.

Like most Westerners, they do not understand how the East works, they do not get Socrates' quote: An unexamined life is not worth living.

5/5/2024 At Fellowship Meal, first chatted with Miriam and Per who owns an antique book store called https://www.rosenlundbooks.com/. I could use some help for rare books.

Last Thursday, Steve from church asked me to watch this talk by Sproul on what is Evil, after some discussion on the pre-fall perfection of Man.So I finished it (1 hour video) in 20 mins - 3x speed on average, video and my comments below:

Nothing new, but one thing, either it is new to me or I have forgotten was Leibniz's take on evil: Physical evil (natural disasters, diseases), Metaphysical evil (anything by God - i.e. finiteness, creation, etc.), Moral evil. So, because creation is metaphysical evil, thus, moral evil is inevitable. The moment Sproul defined metaphysical evil, I already call it out as a logical fallacy: You do not put God even in terms of metaphysical, because of creator creation distinction. Sproul's critique of Leibniz on this is simply: well you can't blame it on God, all evil would be excusable.

Sproul brought up Rome's view of concupiscence. That in order to make an evil choice, one must have an evil inclination to that choice, allegedly quoting Jonathan Edwards' work on The Freedom of the Will. @31:00. Sproul then rejects it rightly on the ground that such inclination must be evil in itself. He then went on the consider the "alternative", which is making a the evil choice without any evil inclination. He wrongly concluded that it results in a choice that is not a moral action at all. A sort of an arbitrary choice. This shows that Sproul was still stuck at Rome's "inclination to sin". That inclination is a requirement in this argument. I posit that according to John 8:44, SELF, is not, nor does it need an inclination to make an ethical choice. The concept of inclination can be sound, but it fails by falling into irresponsibility, when applied universally, a want of SELF, which in man, should be united only to God's SELF/Will to be not wanting. To insist the need of some moral inclination, as Sproul does, is to insist on CAUSALITY, which is one of Sproul's 4 non-negotiable assumptions (I have another comment on this, calling it Sproul's presupposition, under the Entry of Ligonier Class: Apologetics I). However, Cornelius Van Til rightly states:

God cannot reveal himself in the realm of causality because this realm of causality is the compound of the idea of pure contingency and the impression of our own categories upon it ~ Cornelius Van Til and Eric H. Sigward, The Pamphlets, Tracts, and Offprints of Cornelius Van Til, Electronic ed. (Labels Army Company: New York, 1997). IS GOD DEAD -> What Do They Mean? -> The Help of Science And Philosophy.

I shall posit that WILL, human will that is, also cannot be revealed in the realm of causality. So WILL, is just as it is, WILL. Inclination is not a necessary condition of the WILL. Human will is only contingent upon or against God's will, outside of such contingency, there is no causality to human will, so it is neither inclined arbitrarily nor wickedly and not even goodly, it is only perfect or corrupted. Christ's will was and is a different kind: perfect perfection. A will that can choose good or evil (pre-fall will), is perfect nonetheless, just like the perfection in an infant (10 fingers, two eyes, etc.). A will that cannot choose good but evil (post-fall unregenerated will), is not perfect. A will that can only choose good and not evil (consummation), is the perfected perfection. Therefore, true impeccability is only found in union with God. Which is something all saints shall one day enjoy. Because of that, the will of a creature is itself a moral agency, you don't need inclination for that. How one explains this may also display the direction of one's own Christian culture - towards a choice of action that is either passive (the reliance of act - out of Role Model) or active (the will to act - out of Regenerated Self).

Sproul wants to conclude this: Evil is not good, but it is good that there is evil. Otherwise, it wouldn't be in a universe ruled by a perfect God.

The above quote is not surprising. It's wrong, but at this point, I'm not surprised by someone like Sproul or maybe even his mentor John Gerstner speaks it. As that's a classical approach, Thomist way of seeing a pantheistic world. It's also a play of word. "It is good that there is evil", depends. From our perspective, it is good. Not from God's perspective, for God is not tempted. We now can see that this "God is not tempted" is actually deeper than what most thinks. This is not just about you cannot get God into doing this, but the fact that whatever God does, "does', which is a word in an anthropomorphic sense for God, is inculpable, for that is the very meaning of "God". So, if the quote is seen in the right sense, that is fine, just a bit shallow because it's trapped in a pantheistic sense of God.

Sproul ended with he doesn't know the origin of evil, as Gerstner, according to Frank Turek, concluded the same by saying "mystery".

But I must be fair, it was a good speech delivered by Sproul overall.

Because of this, so, in a way, thanks to Steve, I once again tried to look up Stephen Tong's reference to Melanchthon's rebuttal against Rome when Rome accuses the Reformation of attributing God as the author of sin. In John 8:44, Melanchthon solved the accusation by saying that the cause of sin is the will of the devil and men turning away from God. I've tried to source this for a while, and now the search is finished: Apology of the Augsburg Confession by Philip Melanchthon...Article XIII. (VII): Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments. #77: ...God is not the cause of sin...Article XX: Of Good Works.

Stephen Tong would call the failure in understanding that WILL does not require moral inclination/causality, the lack of Theology of Time, which according to him, is not taught in seminaries, unfortunately: