My Journal

In Family: How parents treat their children.

By birth, the child is naturally seen as special to the parents that bore the child.

It is a specialty no other children of other parents will receive from these parents.

Therefore the parents have put all in their effort and care and love to fulfil this specialty of the child, regardless of the child's behavior.

Nonetheless, the child is no different from any child in the world, as a human being.

Thus, we are to also love others who are human, who are created in the image of God, while never denying the special parental love.

This is the fruit of predestination.

Then, to deny predestination, is to say that all children deserve equal love from any parents, dependent (perhaps) on their geographical distance or behavior: If they are evil, then no one will love them.

The line between selfish benefit for one's own children and the existence of special love for one's own children is therefore blurred.

So I would be more inclined to say, that those who reject predestination, have higher tendency to either despise other people's children or ignore their parental role in bringing up their own children properly before God.

And to defend against any thought  that may rise to claim all people are God's children and therefore deserving equal love, I would say, all people are God's creation, but not all are God's children.

In evangelism, we like to say things we are sure of. Hence, again with the arminianism, because we do not want to say to another: You are God's child...but I don't know for sure. So have you "chosen" to accept Christ?

But then again, how certain we can be of one's claim when one says: I am sure I have chosen Jesus as my savior?

Unless we include another heresy that one could lose one's salvation.

Why the need of much hypothetical theories? Is it not easier to say: I believe you are a child of God and I earnestly pray and hope God will continue to be gracious unto you in testifying in the end that you are indeed, His elect!

It is rather easy. Just make mention terms like "John Calvin", "St. Augustine", "traditional music", etc. and the western orthodox christians immediately make goats if not wolves, sheep.

This is how shallow it is. I wonder what are they doing in the ivory towel.

There's been much issue of the internet blog bullying in recent past, particularly in the form of attack against homosexuals.

The way I see it, it is not an additional sin, with the advance of technology. But just in different form.

So the main form can still be related:

If one cannot tell it to the person in person, putting it online for others to read is simply equivalent to gossiping with others.

I have just added to my English-Chinese Terminology in Christianity the phrase:

Expository Preaching.

Contrasting Topical preaching, Expository (釋 經式講道) preaching makes the topics follow the scripture; while topical (專/主題式講道) makes scriptures follow preferred topics.

Like John MacArthur, I generally condemn topical preaching.

Why teach with some topics, when we have a well prepared book by God.

Now lectures/workshops for a particular time, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Because we honestly advertise the topic of the workshop, so that whoever want to participate, could do it on their own will, which is not forced upon when they come to worship God requiring to listen to the WORD OF GOD as the WORD OF GOD.

Perhaps when I think about American non-christians who support the conservative christian views, I think of Dennis Prager, a jew who once pushed a muslim politician to use a Christian Bible.

Comments for and against today's famous evangelists in America can easily be seen and read anywhere on the internet.

Critics telling Mark Driscoll to grow up, John MacArthur to stop criticizing other "christians", etc. have led many others to form their own opinions. Comments grew with less and less conformity to Scriptures.

While it maybe time consuming to debate further theologically, I'd point out one thing which I believe is strong and crucial for discernment:

That Jesus' ministry is not just "attractive" to the 20s-30s youth group. It is acceptable by all age group and without a type preference of any cultural elements.

Consequently, I see a great ministry, a true ministry, one that truly deserves no criticisms from such crowd, when it is conforming to Jesus' "Method".

So if Driscoll's cool stage act or Tim Keller's modern thinker style attract not the seniors, I'd say they really don't deserve the popularity. Because there's that lacking of hardwork for a balanced attraction.

It is better to seek after a truly pious lifestyle that has no shame when dealing with the elders.