My Journal

Received in the post mail invitation to service from Garden State Baptist Church. Emphasis on "multi-ethnic". Curious. Sundays 10:45AM & 5PM. 17 mins South of us. I'll just mark it on the map. I do wonder, if this is the best way American Christians do evangelism these days. Kind of sad. But it's better than not doing anything.

On Christ being of Mary's substance: This site lists a few good quotes from great men (See comments for copy).
Came across a section of Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, and I was reminded of a debate I had on FB a week ago, with Mike Hollomon, touching on the subject of female pastor, who claimed to be a Baptist (fundamentalist) preacher of 48+ years and appeared to love Berkhof's. Yet everything he said opposes this part of Berkhof, be it intentional or not:

Berkhof's Systematic Theology: The States of Christ - The State of Humiliation:

d. The incarnation constituted Christ one of the human race.
In opposition to the teachings of the Anabaptists, our Confession affirms that Christ assumed His human nature from the substance of His mother. The prevailing opinion among the Anabaptists was that the Lord brought His human nature from heaven, and that Mary was merely the conduit or channel through which it passed. On this view His human nature was really a new creation, similar to ours, but not organically connected with it. The importance of opposing this view will be readily seen. If the human nature of Christ was not derived from the same stock as ours but merely resembled it, there exists no such relation between us and Him as is necessary to render His mediation available for our good.

So it seems that this is a thing with Anabaptists, that Jesus' human nature is not organically linked with ours, though they may not view His human nature as non-created, at least not according to Berkhof, but the actual fact I am not sure. Although, it is not surprising that the Anabaptist influence today has resulted in a uncreated/uncreaturely human nature of Jesus view. Not just among Chinese Christians as Alex once proposed.

And Bavinck's take on this is just gold:

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) explains the motivation of these Anabaptists: “That [Christ’s] human nature did not exist beforehand. It was not brought down with Christ from heaven and borne into Mary from the outside and, so to speak, conducted through her body. The Anabaptists teach this in order to hold to the sinlessness of the human nature in Christ. But in taking this stand, they are following in the example of the ancient gnosticism, and proceed from the idea that flesh and matter are in themselves sinful. But in the incarnation, also, Scripture holds to the goodness of creation and to the Divine origin of matter. Christ took His human nature from Mary (Mt 1.20, Lu 2.7, Gal 4.4). So far as the flesh is concerned, He is from David and the fathers (Acts 2.30, Rom 1.3, 9.5). Therefore this nature in Him is a true and perfect human nature, like ours in all things, sin excepted (Heb 2.14, 17, 4:15). Nothing human was strange to Christ. The denial of the coming of Christ in the flesh is the beginning of the antichrist (1 John 2:22).”[11] The Divine and Human Nature of Christ by Herman Bavinck

The FB Debate pasted below in comment.

This contrast can also be seen in the Baptist's ("reformed" or not) 1689 London Confession Chapter 8.2 versus the WCF 8.2, where in of Christ the Mediator, the Baptists struck down the phrase "of her substance" after ...being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. Thus, it is no surprise any "reformed" Baptist would hold to a Christ's human nature in error the way the Anabaptists do.

This is largely based on my experience with Rev. Laura Lin's (whose chief problem is idolizing gifts/talents) church but not limited to hers only in my experience. I have already criticized Lin, so there's no need to do any stomping anymore. There there is judgment, there must be room for calmness.

When people say they are leaving a church that they've been around for a while, then we can consider the following:

These are folks who have been around the churches for a while. And they have especially voiced such concern or "ultimatum" to the church leaders/pastor. Therefore, I am not referring to those who have suddenly gone silent for no reason, which they truly meant: We will come when we come. Perhaps they found a better church but wish to maintain some sort of life line connection to their previous churches, hence the silence. Whatever reasons they maybe, these people do not wish to make clear whether they will be coming or not.

No I am not talking about them. I'm talking about those who specifically mentioned to pastor and leaders (and basically anyone), indicating that they have no desire to return. Now let's eliminate one category of these as irrelevant to this topic: Those who have moved away, or for whatsoever reason it is, causes them to not able to attend anymore EVEN IF THEY WANT TO. I'm also not referring to pastors or preachers. These do not get to choose to leave in ordinary circumstances because they are like parents to a family. I do not believe that there is such calling of God that would call a pastor to leave the church for another like a father leaving a family for another.

Alright, now we've filtered out the unnecessary categories, let's get down to brass tacks.

Those who specifically clarified that they won't be returning to the said churches that they have been attending for a while, as if they were already members, are those who obviously meant that there is something wrong going on. And it is the church's responsibility to seek this out. What is the reason for declaration? For who else should care about this? Certainly not the one who already said they are leaving. God? (No wonder churches in the West sank into individualism - and it's a shame for Chinese churches to follow suit, because this is the one thing Chinese church and culture has triumph over Western churches - family-like caring).

Now, to be fair, it's not necessarily that it is the church's fault when some long term members say they are leaving. It could be the fault of the ones leaving. For example: Music isn't modern enough, did not feel welcome, talking about Bible too much, age group differences, cultural differences, etc. These problems I attribute not to the church in general. Nonetheless, the church should still try to communicate with such goats, just so in case that they may actually turn out to be sheep. Confused sheep.

That leaves the part where it is the church's own fault, when someone say they are leaving. Therefore, it is the church's task to find out why, as always whenever a member leaves. It is not necessary the burden of the one leaving to make his reasons clear, especially when he believes that it is pointless or when there is no fellowship. A church however, cannot function like such individual, believing it to be pointless to seek out why someone leaves, for the church has chiefly, a Gospel responsibility. Believer or not, the church should seek that person out to confirm that his departure is solely his own fault, that all attempt to reconcile has failed. The worst thing the church can do, is to make false assumption of why a person is leaving and leave it as that without any communion. First, this shows if the church ever cares at all if anyone stays or leaves, truly care and not just hoping for numbers, second, this also shows if the church ever concerns her own shortcomings.

We have touched on the church's role in this. Now what about the one leaving? What reason should justify one leaving? Obviously in this case, is because that there's some short comings in the church. Lack of caring, age/culture group differences are top on the list, but insignificant, I believe. They are popular but not good reasons enough to leave a church. For the church is a fellowship of saints, not a Caesar's Hotel. The other side of extreme reason possible is that the church has become a cult. Practicing heretical views. This is rare but will validate people leaving so much that those who stayed should really be viewed questionable.

So what else could be a good reason to leave a church? I have no set principle for this. But in general, I would say that when a church is dying and nobody cares. How can a church be dying? When she is no longer Gospel-Centered. Everything we do in the church, is the fellowship resulting from the Gospel, that is the beating heart of all. Without which, the church cannot seriously be talking about evangelism but mere recruitments, marketing strategies, tribalism. Many churches would be fooled into thinking that they are Gospel-centered, but they are actually just Gospel-supporting, because when looked upon closer, that which should be seen in Gospel-Centeredness does not match up with a Gospel-Supporting-only church. Members of a Gospel-Supporting church do not usually know their basic Bible knowledge as they should: ie. who is Moses? Especially after being member of that church for well over 30 years. And when push comes to shove - those members would insist: All religions are good, which may be a tell-tale sign that the church is heading towards heresy, if not already is in.

Last but not least, when a person leaves a church for this very last reason, he should show some discipline of care for such a church. To pray for the church. To check up on such church here and then. Not hoping her to fail, but hoping that God would strike such a blow in her heart that she repent. The wise smacking love of care.

It seems to be an Asian thing for cult founders to consider themselves the divine Christ themselves.

WMSCOG (World Mission Society Church of God) is very similar to Moonism - Unification Church.

China has the "Eastern Lightning", etc.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

The inscription shows that the psalm was composed by David; but though he was its author, there is no absurdity in his speaking of himself in the person of others. - John Calvin

v2 vs. v7: The mentioning of the name of God implies trusting only God. Not in anything else.

v5: Calvin believed "thy salvation" can be referring to both king or God. But more likely to the king's salvation, which God bestows.

v9: "king" = David's successors in so far as they were types of Christ (Calvin).

2022-09-04

Sermon: Col 2:20-3:4

I was wondering where he inserted love from this passage. After consulting Calvin's commentaries, it may be in verse 23 that the pastor derived he bigger topic from, that is love. Although, when he brought up the fact that it is not fair for spouse to ask another: Why do you love me? Because the right answer would simply be "Because I just do", it is tad shallow. For we cannot avoid choosing based on criteria. Now the criteria maybe closer or further from eternal qualities, but they are conditions we have to use nonetheless. Just like judging, there is no way to avoid judging as a human, it is the very gift God has bestowed upon us. To speak of this otherwise is absurd: i.e. I just love you, no condition, if someone else landed before me, she would have been my spouse instead.

2022-08-28

Sunday School: WCF 16 Good Works
@26:00 I find that Luke 17:10 is very lacking in the discussion. "useless" servant => the analogical pen. David Tong once puts it perfectly: It's 100% us, and also 100% God. I would add "100% God first".

@32:00 After I brought up the Parable of the Talents, I find that Matthew 5:16 is very lacking. Though briefly mentioned "if done in Jesus' name, it's premium". The lacking part is the goal is how our light causes others to glorify the Father.