My Journal

I think from time to time, I came across some important soundbites from Stephen Tong and thought I could just remember it on the go. But I think it's important to keep a record of these short clips. Starting today: On Fallen Angels

Tong: "Fallen" is a term from physics (gravity). To be theologically accurate, the Bible does not say "fallen" angels, but angels who left their first estate. This leaving of estate/post, is an important concept and is applicable to us as well. Christ did not leave His estate.

To leave the estate, has to do with self, which is an utmost quality. Satan, not willing to live in his own estate, fell upward:

Sunday School: The Israel of God. I can't help but wondering if the pastor's view was a mixture of Covenantal and dispensational (or remnant shadow of dispensational) theology: as sometimes there seems to be some creeping in of a bilateral ingredient of the/a covenant. Despite his desire to go fully covenant of grace. The true reformed understanding of God's covenant with man from before Adam to now and beyond is a unilateral one, not bilateral. There's no bargaining with God, so to speak. What God commands are what is to be of God's people, they are not conditions: as if if you don't do this, you are not God's people, if you do this you are. It should be more of a: God's people will do this or be disciplined to do this. Two very different thought approaches.

Sermon: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Mystic Sweet Communion

P: Church service is not about learning new things, but about the Gospel...
I would push back and say that it should be about learning new things, because God is rich in His Gospel, filling us new desire in seeking Him through learning and worshipping Him. God is beyond, not fathomable, so this learning is forever.

P: I'll be surprised that there will be members who disagree with your political views.
An interesting and good observation. I think it's healthy to be the case. However, I would focus on the word "surprised". It shows that this church doesn't fellowship well together, otherwise, it should not be a surprise, in true fellowship. This my own minor observation, because the surprise maybe for those who do not fellowship with us or outside of this church.

The pastor shared his "boringness", "weirdness" to indicate his eventual passion about worship. It sounded like a lacking in the understanding of general revelation. Willy even thought the pastor admitted his faults in his choice of words: "boringness", "weirdness", that the pastor was asking for help to make his life more interesting. A complete 180 degree turn in understanding the pastor, something common for those who have ears but do not listen (think: Becky Wang on Tim Keller's comment on LGBT - that she thought Keller was supporting LGBT).

Hymns to learn 4 parts singing: #264 Lift High the Cross, #347 The Church's One Foundation, #731 Doxology, #535 O The Deep Deep Love of Jesus.

Annual GM Meeting at end of service, financial report 2023 vs 2024 budget: For 2023, Facility rental really did help, about 12% of total income. SREC (Solar Renewable Energy Credits) also made about 2.7% of total income, the rest was from general tithes and offerings. Pastoral salary (30% of total 2023 expenses) raise is budgeted at 6%, which is decent as the average American annual raise is 3%-6%.

An overall view, I think it's healthy so far. The 2023 expense vs. income ratio was about 86:100. However, I think due to the church's lack of outreach, evangelism, it is not good to rely on givings from rich folks, if any. Most of the folks I know personally who are more active in a more Gospel-centered lifestyle are not rich. If that is so, this is a problem. As it is the same kind of problem with many American churches - their display of financial stability comes from some form of inheritance: grandfathering, loyalty, altruism (think Uzzah's lending hand) or otherwise.

There's 10% of total expenses for missions in 2023. However, these are mostly for supporting missions. That is fine, but since this church lacks its own outreach mission (we tried one last year), it is a problem. A church that doesn't evangelize is a suiciding church, this principle is not even about numbers. But having her own basic/general missions, it would cost the church virtually nothing financial wise (I'm talking about money for signboards, flyers, printing, which aren't even necessary most of the times). The culture has also affected this: It's either Seminary -> pastors/paid profession or not at all. No concept of volunteerism unless it's for some environmental/feast related cause. But this church does have a few into evangelism, which is good, I hope that spirit does not die down. Gospel supporting is different than Gospel centering. Gospel centeredness is more active than Gospel supporting, which alone, is just a self-justification to be complacent without going out to evangelize themselves.

The comfort in evangelism in today's condition (just believe, why think, why argue, why debate, etc.) is this: I get to tell people/new converts that "When you come to church, my church, church folks may not be as smart as you, but do remind yourself that God is certainly no dumber than you..."

Since someone at church mentioned that the Eastern church (Orthodox, with capital "O") is closer to "true" Christianity" than Roman Catholicism, which just seems logically odd since the Protestant church came out of the West instead of the East, meaning that Rome parted ways (schism) with the Greeks in the 11th century over theological issue and any doctrinal differences must have diverged further through history, thus, making Rome (instead of the Greeks) to be closer to the protestant faith.

But this is just a conjecture of mine. The repetition of such encounter at church only reactivates my curiosity in this subject: What does the East believe? What are the differences against Reformed theology? How wrong were the Orthodox?

I remember trying to look this up years ago, before any personal encounter of the issue. Perhaps it was Frank Schaeffer and Hank Hanegraaff's conversions to the East, that prompted my interest in the matter. But I couldn't find much to go on. Other than the Filioque debate, icons and something about mysticism, I could not find more clarity online.

So I'm redoing this research again. First stop, from an OPC article: A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy by Jack D. Kinneer:

Appeal:

Orthodox Christianity was older than the Roman church. Most Church Fathers were Greek-speaking theologians in the East.

Unbroken succession of churches from the apostles (From St. Andrew, apparently), but not based on Bishop succession of Rome (From St. Peter) and this makes the protestants seen as the product of a schism off a schism. However, they have no problem considering the Reformed as Christians, just not part of their "true" church and thus, invalidating our ordinations and sacraments. By breaking away from Rome, the Greeks do not burden themselves with Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception of Mary, her assumption into heaven. Doesn't really have any medieval doctrines and practices that the Reformation inherited from (mysticism?).

Rich liturgical heritage: clergy garment, elaborate liturgies, symbols and icons.

Otherness: Mysterious, sensual, heavenly. Based on the Book of Revelation?

Shortcomings:

No doctrinal statement other than ecumenical councils and 49 volumes of Ante- & Post-Nicene Fathers and writings of the hermits/monastics = Desert Fathers.

Rejection/No understanding of justification by faith. Sanctification = The whole Gospel is Theosis=deification. Thus, more on Sanctification rather than justification. I would say more on work rather than grace.

Membership intertwined much with ethnicity (i.e. Russian, Greek, etc.), almost synonymous with being Orthodox.

Weak view of sovereign grace. Though not Pelagians, they definitely are not Augustinians on sin/grace. Ezekiel 36:26-27 is foreign to them as God's grace precedes faith & human response. Don't deal much with sin, regeneration, election, etc. Don't really use/understand "original sin" much. Example: Chrysostom vs. Calvin on John 6:44-45.

Use of icons in worship: of Christ, Mary, saints, etc. Annual Feast to celebrate end of Iconoclast controversy (843 A.D.). Icon of Christ is linked tightly to incarnation (Jesus as both God and man).

On the Bible, some are influenced by contemporary scholars of Rome, higher-criticism and liberals are within their church. Ancient Church Fathers have more say in the Bible than sola scriptura.

Passionate for monasticism.

Prayers to Mary in liturgy. Apostolic liturgy involves: the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Prayer, sing psalms, hymns, spiritual songs; chanting "amen", "hallelujah" & "maranatha". Anything else would be later development of the liturgy.

Dr. Kinneer concludes that though he's faithful to the Reformed sola scriptura, he thinks we could learn from the Orthodoxy, though I may not completely agree:
the Incarnation
the meaning of worship
the soul's perfection in the communicable attributes of God (energies of God)
the disciplines by which we grow in grace

I asked the question on FB, and here's a better response, I will bold out the ones (which GO rejects of RC) I have not covered above:

Amie Potter Roberg
Orthodoxy has refrained from these Catholic innovations…

• the papacy
• purgatory
• the Filioque [GO sees this as twisting John 15:26 to unbalance the Trinity as they erroneously call it the balance of eternal procession]
• a juridical, legalistic, and meritorious understanding of salvation
• the doctrine of Original Sin
• immersion baptism for infants
• the idea that when one is made a priest, it is an ontological change
• unleavened bread for Eucharist
• barring infants from communion until they reach the "age of reason" for confirmation
• confession in a box [GO simply just confess directly to a priest in church]
• strictly unwed priests [GO allowed marry before ordination]
• statuary icons [GO: no 3D, but only 2D]
• Western scholasticism [Reason over mysticism. GO: More on Apophatic (definition on what is NOT) rather than Cataphatic (definition on what is) Theology]
• Absolute Divine Simplicity [GO wants to hold to both the unknowable essence and knowable energies of God. As long as both sides concede to a Creator/Creation Distinction, which I think the Reformed is better at explaining, I don't see much difference to argue over]
• a Dante's Inferno vision of Hell [GO doesn't like to speak of hell in the physical sense but mystic spiritual one]
• a classical theist understanding of God's relationship to creation [GO: Immanence over transcendence, more on divine energy in creation and less on distinction of creation/creation, more on caring than sovereignty of God - I would say that's why GO doesn't really do much persecution of anyone in their history]

And here's the GO's version of such comparison.

Next with have GO's view on atonement, which is against PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) which came from Anselm's Satisfaction theory (12th century AD). GO holds to the Ransom Theory, which is later popularized in Gustaf Aulen's book Christus Victor in 1931. Ransom Theory began with Irenaeus, saying that this ransom is paid to Satan, until Anselm changed it from Satan to God.

Stephen Tong gave similar correction of the view: