In the Bible, the Hebrew has vague distinct vocabulary for the word fear: יראה (yirah, H3374, also yare H3372 H3373, mostly positively, for reverence) פּחד (pachad, H6343, also H6342, mostly negatively, for dread, terror) מורה (mora, H4172, mostly negatively, for dread, terror) It seems for the Hebrew, though they have at least 3 terms for fear, they do interchange them sometimes.
In Greek, we have about at least 3 but more distinct meaning terminologies: εὐλάβεια (eulabeia, G2124, good reverence, twice: Heb 12:28, Heb 5:7), εὐλαβέομαι (eulabeomai, G2125, thrice: Heb 11:7, Act 23:10, Heb 11:7), εὐλαβής (eulabes, G2126, thrice: Luk 2:25, Act 2:5, Act 8:2) Also note that in Koine Greek (from Alexander the Great 336-323 BC), εὐ is pronounced as the modern Greek pronunciation "ef", not "eu" which is the pronunciation in classical Greek (from 5th & 4th Century BC) which is older than Koine Greek. δειλία (deilia, G1167, timidity or cowardice, only once 2Ti 1:7, 胆怯), δειλιάω (deiliao, G1168, afraid, only once John 14:27), δειλός (deilos, G1169, fearful only thrice: Mat 8:26, Mar 4:40, Rev 21:8) φόβος (phobos, G5401, also φόβητρον phobetron, G5400, φοβέω phobeo G5439, φοβερός phoberos G5398, mostly negative, but sometimes used as reverence: Eph 5:33)
In Chinese, we have the two obvious ones in general: 敬畏 (good) vs. 惧怕(bad). And these two terms are not confused.
6/21/2025 It seems like R. took my advice to do a Q&A during the Men's Fellowship instead of just only a full lecture. Turned out well even though R could only seem to ask the same question "What can you be thankful for" in the beginning and at the end. People were talking. Phil enjoyed it. The topic was on thanksgiving. I got distracted a bit and did my own deep thought contrasting real thanks and the fake thanks in Jesus' parable on the Pharisees and the Tax Collector. Then Rob reminded me of my "debate" with Ben a few days ago. It would seem that Rob was trying to defend both Ben and Bruce, by asking me, why is this important? I wasn't able to respond way at the time, as I just answered "by painting a very broad stroke, this shows that both Ben and Bruce are irresponsible." I should also add, that a narrower stroke would be, had I not mistaken what Ben & Bruce were implying, then, based on their logic: Ben would be saying that the Japanese people are basically uneducated (for not able to have an opinion about Japanese's awareness of Christianity in general), and Bruce is a fraud (for claiming to known French and yet not recognizing the existence of accents in any language). If they were too young or inexperience, then I really cannot see them as missionaries, but just some sort of assistants who couldn't pass the basics. Should I even doubt their confession? Their faith? Perhaps I should. Perhaps my questions for these from now on would be: are there any locals or converts under your "ministry" aspired to be in the ministry, to become a preacher, full/part time minister, missionary, etc.? How zealous are they? Do you have to warn them the hardship that it comes with or does it not matter?
Later that they, we paid a visit to Rob and Maria's home along with Joy and R & E, to comfort her in remembrance of her mother's passing. According to Nadia, this visit was first suggested by Joy, who was applying Romans 12:15 rightly.
Then when Nadia pointed to how I "debated" with Vincent and thus missed the Sunday service, Eleni tried to confirm with me at the table that I love debates. I think she meant well. But I wasn't prepared enough to answer her better, instead, I said "It's not really the debate, but I just wanted to get to the truth of things." What I should have said, is "Depending on the context of the debate, if it's with church members, then the goal was to initiate true and faithful fellowship before the Lord. If it's with those who think debate is immoral and proud (like Gene, I suppose), then I could use the "get to the truth" answer. I find that dealing with Eleni is beneficial with my English improvement, it's just that I often times couldn't give accurate sound bite answers at the time.
6/19/2025 Just came across these AR (Augmented Reality) smart swim goggles via Facebook ads. Holoswim.com vs. Formswim.com. Holoswim has better classic feature (peripherals and prescriptions-but only up to -7.0D) while Formswim is more expensive but has better AR technology (no need to press a button each lap, can show heart rate, etc.) per the youtube review below. I would sacrifice the prescription need and pick formswim's goggles. But since both could only link to apple/Garmin watches, I'd rather wait.
Either way, will need to monitor how I swim like before when the Holmdel LA Fitness was still around to improve myself:
Reflecting back: sermons, pastors, that I've encountered, the clip (Stephen Tong on Suffering - Hebrews 5) below reminds me of something I should have noted in my journal but may not have done so. It was about my disagreement against certain view of the so called "God's blessings" with some pastor getting a blank check by a wealthy church member for church planting, or some testimony about a $90k check given to an evangelist out of no where to kick start his ministry, some church leaders love to play the role of "introducers" connecting those who wish to serve the Lord with rich or famous people (in Christendom), etc. As if as long as it's not robbing a bank, anything with money is always God's blessings. Such is a weak understanding of Biblical suffering. Without Suffering, you cannot truly give thanks to God. Therefore, I not only look down on these ministers (despite giving them the honor they deserve of their title), I find their philanthropists even more despicable. For these are those who have too much money not knowing what to do with it, instead of those who are experiencing God's blessed work through whom they are giving to to show appreciation and as a sign of acknowledging the quality of the work done.
6/15/2025 In principle, I don't work with frauds in missionary fields. I don't generally take gospel-supporting too seriously, because simply put, they are just supporting, not Gospel-centered. Therefore, I could easily say to any church, including our Grace church, that I support your support of "missionaries". I put missionaries in quotes because I find most of them are bordering fraudulence as real missionaries. Some of their version of mission work is simply sitting at a coffee shop waiting for people to talk to. Today, we have Ben Shimomura, the second time I see him and his wife presenting their work during Sunday School hour. As expected, I wasn't impressed.
I later tried to confirm with him after service, something he said in the morning, about how foreign Japanese saw Christianity. I wasn't sure what he meant by that. As his answers seem vague sometimes to someone else's questions. It would seem that he didn't believe in judging a culture, or just being ridiculously ignorant as a missionary: "I don't work in China so I don't know what their view of Christianity is like" - not even some general clue? really? Sounds like he's influenced by the Western post-modern Christian/Charismatic "don't judge" christian culture.
So when I asked if Japanese was aware of the existence of Christianity, it seems that he thought I was asking if Japanese understood Christianity very well, and thus he said no. I tried various attempts to clarify but it seemed to hit a dead end: I asked, don't majority of Japanese do weddings in churches, his reply was, a church is just an European inanimate building, which has nothing to do with Christianity. Seemed that he was implying that I don't understand Christianity from that point on, which has nothing to do with my question.
Ben's not the worst. The worst on the list of "missionaries" here would probably be Bruce (I think that's his name), some guy who supposedly done mission work in South of France and Morocco. Said that he learned French for his work field. But when I asked if he could tell different French accents (i.e. African vs. France, etc.) he told me that French is a unique language that there cannot be accents in French. I was so shocked that I had to check with my French speaking friends on FB to confirm that he was lying, weeks later. It should be a no brainer, but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that he can't be that stupid or that much of a fraud. Not questioning his own French language (not yet anyway), but his understanding of how the world works.
Perhaps they both (B & B) hold to a perverse post-modern "judge not" interpretation of Matthew 7. "You've got to do a poll before you say anything about those people", "no such thing as an opinion without doing an official poll first", "I cannot tell you about anything places I've never been", "you need experience to say anything about it", etc.
Of course, both Bruce and Ben could simply misunderstood what I said. Which would be my fault. Although, I highly doubt I could say these any more plain. So in short, one says there's no accent in the French language; and the other says the majority of people in Japan are not aware of the existence of a religion called Christianity. Apropos of that, I would for now consider the "callings" of these two questionable if not fraudulence. I would think the London one (Barry Schutter) as such from just the word "London", but he's proven to be most legit among all I've seen. Woe is a church that has money not knowing where to spend. This concludes why when Rob asked, I refused to join the mission's team. I can play ball, but I would highly question their callings. It would seem more like they couldn't find other jobs in life, and this is an easy way out, to be a "missionary".
Now, onto Pastor Chris' sermon. It's on Acts 6. I find myself having to correct a couple of his messages in my notes:
Pastor: Why do I go to church? "Because I want God"
Me: To be with the children of God. "Because I want God" is just shallow and vague. You want God, go read the Bible.
Pastor: Why do people come to church? "For discipleship, through relationships (one introducing another to church)"
Me: That's conflating evangelism with going to church. Also, this answer can fail horribly as it's possible for the blind leading the blind (the greater the number, the greater the shame). The pastor could take his own medicine on this as he love to quote "You attract people to what you attract them with". Why do people come to church? Because they see the presence of God in the church.
I've also started practicing revising his questions for discussion and self reflection in the bulletin, since last week. To improve myself in correcting confusing questions and statements. These I will not post here for now, as they are trivial.
6/9/2025 A JavaScript Developer's Guide to Go: here. Helps me learn Go I suppose.
天使所說的基督論七大稱號 (seven great titles by angels in Christology): 耶稣，基督，救主，主，圣者，上帝的儿子，以马内利 Jesus: Angel to Joseph Matthew 1:21 Savior, Christ, Lord: Angel to shepherds Luke 2:11 Son of the Most High/God: Gabriel to Mary Luke 1:32/35 Immanuel: God to Isaiah Isaiah 7:14 The Holy One of God: Demon to Jesus Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34
6/12/2025 Thursday Bible Study on 1 Peter 1:13-16.
@3:00 It's as if they were saying humans were not perfect. I think they wouldn't want to mean that, but there's a view that they hold to about holiness from a against "holier than thou" perspective.
@7:00 They focus again on holier than thou idea being a pride thing. As if don't judge. Tim Keller has tons of quotes against the "holier than thou" idea, ChatGPT knows.
@13:30 P: "Grace is not a license to sin". I would add to this shallowness: it is also not a means to excuse sin. A paradox that the pastor was not able to handle well.
@14:30 P: "Christians do things out of love for God = holiness" => over generalization, could become subjective, especially when not defined properly what love is.
@22:30 Rene's wondering of Fear vs. Awe. Why there is only one word "fear". I've already touched on this in other entries, it's a limitation of the English language.
@29:00 P: "Not burning down my father's house" as fear. Shallow.
@42:40 Phil mentioned "fear and trembling" from Phil 2:12. E. continued verse 13, focusing on crediting God. But I think the rest of them the pastor, Frank, went completely the opposite route, off topic, as if talking about "don't worry about your salvation" - it's right from the assurance of salvation sense, but Phil's talking about fear and trembling, which was on topic with the discussion of fear. Not dispelling every single essence of fear and mutating it to fear = love.
@45:00 P: "Confess your sins to one another just means confessing that you are a sinner (another shallow take), instead of sharing your deepest darkest sin". This verse has to do with fellowshipping in truth and humility with one another.
@46:00 Elizabeth mentioned about VBS's faults in talking against sin too much, "look at how good David was". I think though there can be VBS that headed to the Pharisaic's fundamentalist way, but it's important to understand the order of things: Justice/righteousness of God first (OT), then Grace of God (NT).
@49:20 P: "Just talking about Jesus" is not wrong, but shallow. David's greatness is importance.
Maybe they were all poisoned by the American Catholicism before, hence the shallowness.
A fail in the order of Grace/Love of God and Justice of God (of righteousness Hebrews 5:13) is clarified by Stephen Tong:
Repent first. Not you're saved because God loves you first. 先把律法賜下來，后把救恩賜下來：公義先於慈愛
To properly understand God's love, is to know there's no cheap grace, to know the true cost of God's grace. Otherwise, the resulting love for God is useless.
"一個人懂得公義的道理，就不會浪費恩典。" If you truly know the cost that the Son of God has paid for us, only then you can truly treasure the love Jesus has given you.
“如果你只愛聼恩典的道理，你永遠都是吸奶的嬰孩”
＃為何上帝慈愛之先是公義❓為何我們沒有付代價就能得到上帝的救恩❓（希伯來書要理問答 第754問）
＃靈恩運動成功神學是如何違背聖經，叫人只能吃奶而不熟練仁義的道理❓（希伯來書要理問答 第755問）Luke 14:27, Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23, Matthew 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
It just hit me from a conversation with my mother. It's not how well you can recite the Bible. It's not how eloquent you can convince people of God's sovereignty and election. It's not how astonish you can react to God's works. It's not how obedient you are of the statutes of God.
It's how much joy you find in the Lord in your affliction and suffering. In fact, inverse-proportionally (the more suffering the more joy). This is not some fake joy because fakeness won't last and is easily perceived to be vain. Paul said it. Peter said it. As the Lord in His own example taught it. Such is someone who has truly been admitted before the bosom of the Lord. A true believer indeed, if not professed to be reformed.
Saint Boniface, born around 675...A Benedictine monk...to evangelise the Germanic peoples...commissioned by Pope Gregory II in 719, who gave him the name Boniface, meaning “doer (facere) of good (bonus)”...“Apostle of the Germans”...the felling of Donar’s Oak (also the title of our painting), also known as Thor’s Oak...dedicated to the god Thor (or Donar)...To demonstrate the powerlessness of the pagan gods and the truth of Christianity...many to convert to Christianity on the spot...symbolising the triumph of Christian faith over pagan superstition. we see the tree to the left of Boniface in our painting...On 5 June 754, while preparing to confirm new converts near Dokkum, he and his companions were ambushed and killed by a group of pagan raiders. He famously told his fellow clergy not to resist, embracing martyrdom with peace and dignity...an Englishman who became a saint, bishop, and martyr in the heart of the continent.
Fr. Patrick van der Vorst linked this to John 17:11b-19: "Father, keep them from the evil one", that how unsuspecting gazelles can easily be ensnared by a clever man, the proverbial evil one. This is the Vorst's take on the artist:
...Joseph Wolf. Born in 1820 in Mörz, near the Moselle in what was then Rhenish Prussia, he showed an early talent for drawing animals and birds.... Sir Edwin Landseer described him as “the best all-round animal artist who ever lived”, and some even said that he must have been a bird before becoming a man.
6/3/2025How to ask AI? Specifically as a programmer. Here's what someone's take on it.
6/1/2025 On GCC Sunday School, week 13: Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom:
@3:44 The pastor conflates and thus wrong in relating the ascetic lifestyle of ancient Christians/monks with verses that call for "denying oneself", I presume to be 1 Corinthians 7:35 and 1 Corinthians 7:9, when he said: "Paul says that if you are able to do it, better to have less distraction. The problem is so few people are able to do it, that it actually becomes an impediment most of the time...from what we know about Ambrose...they were able to do it" These Biblical verses do not separate Christians to different "classes" of "holiness" so to speak. That pastors are more able to do certain things that other Christians are not able to. It's a typical fundamentalist mistake I would say.
@4:30 thus, it's no surprising when he said "I think evangelical Christianity ignores the benefits of singleness too much...not everyone is meant to be a family person either" Which is dead wrong. Everyone IS meant to be a family person. Paul was like a parent to the believers he preached to. Jesus is the bridegroom of the Church waiting for consummation. We are His children. I've taken on this before, that the only biblical reason that God would allow someone to be single and not having a true parental role in the ecclesial sense (viz. no responsibility to care for certain ministry, bribing Sunday School children with candies and movies do not count), is because had this person gotten married, he/she would likely ruin it with a quick divorce. So, it's only in the negative sense, a rebellious attitude that ought to be fixed to fit the teaching of Matthew 19:12 "Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven" or get married. There is no such thing as the gift of celibacy in the Bible, a flawed Catholics view brought into churches today. But I can agree with the pastor that it's not good for culture to force everyone to find a match.
@6:40 I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Rome differs from Jerome on the canon, as both Rome and Jerome recognized the same books as the apocryphal. The apocryphal books were included in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Maybe the pastor took this view from the text book he used.
@7:33 "gospel of grace...not as brutally clear as the American presentation of it" American?! I would disagree. Reformed tradition is not an American thing. I don't mind the "Dutch", "Calvin", or any prominent identity from Reformed history, but, really, not American. But this is trivial.
Some of the good stuff brought by pastor Chris will I add to the church history entries here when I get the chance, as they are good supplements. I'll need to take time to verify, study them. The pastor brought lots of good stuff along with the bad, so I find myself having to refine these materials in these entries. To train myself discern errors in people better and find good solutions for correcting them.
@15:00 "we don't work this way anymore, and I don't know that we should work this way" the pastor obviously follows the chicken way of play safe of today, on Ambrose having the authority to cause an emperor (Theodosius I) to repent in public for ordering a massacre. [Ambrose famously quoted saying "You cannot wash away the stain of that sin with tears alone"]. A true man of God, even today, can cause kings and presidents to submit to the statues of God. This is not a thing of different eras, but of all times, for God rules over all times. The pastor tries to justify himself with "what we want is a balance...civic leaders to be living in the fear of God...not for the Church to have her hands on the throats of civic leaders." a shallow conclusion. Ambrose did not do that, he called for the former (viz. "leaders to be living in the fear of God") Ambrose did not do the latter "to have his hands on Theodosius' throat, not even figuratively speaking. It's slander to imply otherwise without evidence. By excommunication, I'm sure the pastor meant that Ambrose refused the emperor communion and barred him from entering the church until he repented, which is a fine term to use. I don't believe that's having hands on the emperor's throat. To imply that the emperor did it out of fear of Ambrose without evidence, is also slander, double slander now. I think it's irrelevant to argue about whether we should excommunicate members or not here, as it's a very different issue. The more relevant question is did the emperor saw Ambrose as a man of God. It would seem that he did. If not, he would have gotten rid of Ambrose easily. It's useless to excommunicate someone if he never saw you as a man/people of God.
@18:20 "If it weren't for the internet, I think we'd all have a hard time finding many Christians that could articulate their faith intelligently and logically with some depth" I can agree with this. This also shows that the pastor does care about logical, intelligible articulation of one's faith and not those of Phil's or Vicent's "mysterious...oh...men just cannot comprehend anything of God if you asks me a question I don't have answers to but don't want to show you that I don't have answers" type of copout.
@25:30 Tom called Pelagius can't be born again. The pastor said he wasn't interested in that. I think the pastor did not quite get the differences of the Church's condemnations on both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, as he's unclear, like Alex Tseng, as to whether his object was Christians or non-Christians (and sometimes interchanges them in a subtle way) of today, who hold to Pelagianism. Because unlike what the pastor was trying to get at, that many churches today are influenced by Pelagianism, it's actually semi-Pelagianism that that infiltrated the church, not Pelagianism as most Christians can agree that they are sinners and no one is perfect. Phil was right to try to clear that confusion by saying semi-Pelagianism indirectly, but being too subtle, Phil's way wasn't noticed.
@35:31 "Augustine was kind of nice to semi-Pelagians", I wonder where the pastor got that from. Augustine's arguments have never sided with semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism became known today to be as early as 428 AD in Gaul, which is quite late with Augustine's death in 430 AD. For probably geographical reason, Augustine had never interacted with John Cassian 360AD-435AD (well known Semi-Pelagian), and our best account, according to ChatGPT, is probably Augustine's Letter 93 to the Bishops of Gaul around 418 AD:
“We have learned that some monks and clergy in your regions hold the view that the beginning of faith and good works is in human nature without divine grace. This is a dangerous error condemned by the universal Church.”
@36:00 Phil asked "Does Billy Sunday fall under Semi?" I had only heard of Billy Sunday, but I do feel the pastor's response kind of funny, I think he was a bit aggravated by the question. Maybe Phil really liked Billy Sunday. I only looked it up on Youtube (clips of video recording of him preaching) quickly and I may agree with the pastor more, though I don't know nor am interested to look up Billy Sunday's sermons/service. The pastor: "Billy Sunday believed whatever made him money" Phil: mhuohuohuo! (laughers of others as well) Pastor: "I'm gonna be very cruel to Billy Sunday, to me he's more of circus performer than a preacher" Phil: Woaw! Pastor: "I've read sermons...not talking about the gospel...just about drinking...technically he's supposed to be reformed...Bob Jones' the same way...Bob Jones at least lived long enough...at least as an old man...did preach grace..."
@37:45 I can appreciate that the pastor recognized that "the invitation to come to Christ can sound Semi-Pelagians..." So he's not hyper-Calvinism on this point. But he completely dissed (or contradicted himself) altar-call ("we know walking to altar doesn't mean you're saved"), etc. Which is an unnecessary oversimplification of matters.
The popular explanations have always been a tad childish (i.e. "because he having the same emotion as other humans at a funeral", "because how ugly death is", etc.) Thus far, Stephen Tong's answer's the best one. I have come across someone else (Dirk) giving similar reasoning to Tong's, but such is rare.
Tong starts with the common theme between miracles and crying by our Lord, that it was never for His own sake but others'.
3 times the Bible records Jesus wept: John 11:35, Luke 19:41, Heb 5:7
John 11:35 is most well known and probably the most misinterpreted. Tong liked the reason to John 11:53, that He cried for the suffering of the stubborn hearts that took counsel together to put Him to death since that day forth.
Luke 19:41 is obvious, for Jerusalem.
Heb 5:7 doesn't indicate the specific. Tong believes this was in Gethsemane.
However, all there could easily share one familiarity, that Jesus cried for sin, not death: That how the world rebel against God, that the sin of mankind has become so grievous, that men do not understand the wrath of God that has come upon them.
Jesus was not recorded to laugh. But rejoiced on several occasions. So, it's very likely that he laughed. And one time recorded to be singing (Mark 14:26) praises, which Tong said to be Psalm 118, the passover hymn that all Jews sang, while sung generally in joy, Jesus must have sung it in both joy and sorrow, a paradoxical emotion no one can fathom:
Other than the 4 great inventions of China (compass, gunpowder, paper, woodblock printing), toilet paper is also a popular invention of China, and here are more:
Umbrella: 鲁班 507-444 BC. Also invented 斗栱，锯。
Paper money (交子): Song Dynasty, 1023 AD
Toothbrush: Tang Dynasty
Hand Grenades: 震天雷 Song & Jin Dynasty
Mechanical clock: 蘇颂 1020-1101 AD, invented water clock, 天梯, from 一行。
Fr. Vorst took the passage of Luke 24:46-53 for this painting with regards to the ascension of the Lord: "...Their poses reflect a mix of worship and human astonishment, grounding the divine event in human emotion..."
5/27/2025 Interesting: In his podcast, William Lane Craig defended the position that animals do not experience suffering or pain in a human sense, such that this is not necessarily a bad thing in nature, opposing the Young Earth Creationists' view of no death nor pain even in animals before the Fall, accusing the YEC for falling into the trap of anthropopathism. A form of anthropomorphism. The former more focuses on human emotions and feelings upon non-human beings or inanimate objects. Though there's some mystery to the distinction between animals and mankind, WLC is not wrong if folks like YEC could only argue from an anthropomorphic foundation.
Painting of the day: The Baptism of Æthelberht, King of Kent, by Saint Augustine of Canterbury in 597, Engraving based on the painting by William Dyce R.A. (1806-1864) at the House of Lords, Engraved by R. Anderson, issued circa 1870 Alamy
Fr. Patrick van der Vorst on the piece (using Luke 10:1-9, on the harvest is plentiful): Our Victorian engraving depicts the moment of the King's baptism on Christmas Day 597. Æthelberht was baptised, a powerful public act that signalled not only his personal conversion but also opened the way for the Christianisation of his kingdom.This event laid the foundations for the spread of Christianity throughout the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and firmly established Canterbury as a centre of the early English Church. Our engraving is based on a painting by William Dyce R.A. (1806-1864) at the House of Lords. We see the king in a great act of humility, stripped of his clothes kneeling before Saint Augustine and the baptismal font. The bystanders in the background are not looking at the event but rather discussing whether they too should get baptised.
5/26/2025 Ok, let's see if I can say this in the shortest way possible: Stephen Tong's (probably last visit) to America is as he has promised last year, in the form of concert, bringing his Jakarta Oratorio Society and orchestra. Coming in July. I may go to the one in Philly due to time (7/14 Monday) and transportation (better traffic than NYC). Admission is free, so this is for God's glory and to inspire young minds. Below are the repertoires:
Repertoires
Suppé Light Cavalry Overture // Orch. Dvořak Symphony No. 9 // Orch. Indo Song Rayuan Pulau Kelapa // + Choir Indo Song Garuda Pancasila // + Choir Mendelssohn Elijah: Hear Ye, Israel! // + S Elijah: Be Not Afraid! // + Choir Lobgesang: I Waited for the Lord! // SS + Choir My Song Shall Alway Thy Mercy // + ST The Night Is Departing // + Choir Haydn Creation: Sing the Lord, Ye Voices All // + SATB+Choir Handel Messiah: Worthy Is The Lamb // + Choir Messiah: Amen // + Choir
We already told Tante Lyna last year we're not interested in just concerts when she first mentioned it. The a few days ago, she texted me about Stephen Tong coming to deliver sermon on 6/1 during CCCNY Sunday service, with poster and everything, just seems like PR to me. I asked what was this for, she was frank enough to tell me that Tong will be attending his son's 2nd doctorate graduation as well as Peter L.'s father memorial service which will be in Cleveland. I thanked her for it. I think it's innocent enough. I told Nadia, had it been Rev. Lin, I might not reply as kind, as it would be obviously a kind of publicity for the church, which is fine by itself, but to do PR and making it look like it's not PR, it is despicable. Which would be Rev. Lin's methodology, at least back then.
But today, I got an email from Rev. Lin, offering me and Nadia tickets to the Jakarta concert at Carnegie Hall. I thought to myself, these are free tickets (that can be obtained online), why even bother, if not for some twisted kind of PR. But I tried to be fair, and kindly rejected the offer, because concerts are everywhere, anytime. She tried to convince me back again with some weird attachment that's allegedly Stephen Tong's own narration/bio about the concert in Chinese, but it read suspiciously penned by someone else or cut & paste from here and there. But this is not important. What's to note was that she tried to I guess persuade me with the fact that there are "good" Christians from her church that sing at the concert. Apparently, she thought these are the kind of stuff that's going to get me to come. I thought to myself, funny, I keep hearing lots of promotion of people amongst those who allegedly "support" Stephen Tong's ministry, but I never really see any of these folks achieve much in Christendom. In the secular world, maybe, but when I see them in church, some of them scrolling through galleries of photos on iPad during a sermon, some just don't seem like they care about the Bible much. Maybe they attend some church. Maybe they gave some money. And lo and behold, these are people you should come meet. Yet, the ones that truly want to step up and serve God, these are being rejected by them after certain degree of recognition, especially when the bad actors realized they had no part in the rearing/promotion of such folks.
This is clear divine indication what sort of alleged "servants" of God these are. The Bible speaks of them plenty times. Jesus considers them "strangers...depart from me..." Since I know not for sure how far they have fallen, I think I'll just ignore them as best I can. Unless I am opportune to smash their heads, as the serpent's head is crushed, let them go hunt the poor somewhere else. This concert is really for the young minds as Stephen Tong intended. I'd be as guilty if I just focus on bringing the kind of folks, myself included, who only care to be entertained and simply remarked "what a wonderful concert!"
I'm trying to catch up my Youtube videos since returning from my time in Malaysia. So some of the Youtube posts here may be of videos from a couple of weeks ago.
Stephen Tong on laughter being blessings from God, not invention of men, as Nietzsche (Tong incorrectly attributed this to Arthur Schopenhauer):
Google AI correcting Stephen Tong: It was Friedrich Nietzsche who stated that "Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter.". This quote appears in his book "The Will to Power"
Stephen Tong: 你对基督所受苦难的认识，就是你爱祂的基础. How well you perceive the suffering of Christ, is proportional to the foundation of your love for Him:
Jesus said don't be joyful because of the power bestowed upon you to "tread on serpents and scorpions", I would interpret Luke 10:17-19 as church growth in numbers, but rejoice rather because your names are written in heaven. This also implies that one's ministry success does not necessarily mean one's name written in the book of life. Also, Jesus personally took on the hardest ministry himself while He was on Earth, hence His disciples rejoiced over the easier tasks:
Fr. Patrick van der Vorst chose John 14:23-29 for this painting, to emphasis reliance on God in times especially of great trials:
we see a weather-beaten fisherman rowing alone in a small wooden boat. He glances anxiously over his shoulder towards a larger, more secure ship in the distance, with fog beginning to roll in behind it. The sea is choppy, a wave lifts the bow of his boat, and two large halibut weigh down the stern, preventing it from capsizing. Homer learned from the fishermen he knew that halibut fishing was among the most dangerous, requiring long journeys into the open sea. It was a risky business.
On the Sunday School at GCC: The Early Church - Post Apostolic Era to Fifth Century AD, Week 12 Rise of Monasticism.
@4:00 The pastor claimed that monasticism is not from Christianity/Scripture but from culture. I think this is a shallow understanding of how to relate to natural revelation. The right way of viewing this is "radical Christian monasticism comes from the wrong understanding of Scripture."
@9:11 On fundamentalist/gnostic view of asceticism, the pastor chickened out with "if you are doing these for the Lord, that's fine." It's a bad reasoning. The best view on this is simply various level of faith: viz. some people feel drinking alcohol will suffer God's wrath; while others simply don't believe that is true -> differences in interpretation of Scripture. It appears that the pastor could not deal with biblical conflicts between Christians to some level.
@11:00 seems that the pastor has problem with Christians doing their own thing without the church's approval. If that's true, it's historically insensitive as well as wrong view of ecclesiology: a confusion of a church and The Church.
It's good that the pastor listed some key names worth looking into: St. Anthony of the Desert, Alexander of Unsleeping, Simon Stylites of the Pole, Pachomius, Basil of Caesarea.
@30:40 P asked the pastor why didn't God stopped all these extremists that are twisting God's word. The pastor: "That's a question to God", Tom answered better: "so that we can learn how the church survived through all these."
@34:50 I think the pastor got the whole concept of Christian Monasticism wrong. It's not about "look how righteous and holy I am", but more about "getting closer to God by abandoning the world" - however, the pastor was aware of it when he related earlier to the Greek/Gnostic view on this. But it's hardly a pride thing, which seems to be what he was implying.
5/19/2025 After sending Nadia to work, I drove to Sandy Hook beach on this Monday morning (around 7am). A quick tour around Parking Lot C of the beach:
First time this year and free, right before Memorial Day Weekend (following Monday) until Labor Day (Sept 1 2025, Mon) 8am - 6pm, which they will charge $20 per car, for "parking".
5/17/2025 Saturday, I had Men's Fellowship first time after coming back from Malaysia and we did some church cleaning after that with a few (I counted about 3) ladies. I left around 12:30pm while the outdoor husbandry was still going on, as I promise Nadia to return by 1pm. What I did was basically weeding out the children's playground and saw off some dead branches. And I'm going to have to bring my electric saw (Joe's originally) some day to saw off some stump on the trunks.
I would have to critic on the Bible study which was led Phil this time as I didn't get a chance to respond during the session (nor could others) because as usual, Phil, like many, does not really do discussion, so it's more about "listen to me because my view is God's view, and then someone please end with a prayer" kind of deal, despite me trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. This time Rob also didn't persuade for discussion as he did with Bill S. last time. So these are the folks who don't care about discussion: Bob, Phil, Rudy (hopefully he changes because he was the only one I spoke to about this issue), Bill S. There could be more, but I only remember these. I don't think it matters I put their names here as these are just first names and nobody outside who even know who they are, and those who know would have something to do with this church and care enough to know in other means anyway.
I would say Phil's topic today is officially on the names of the Lord: El Shaddai, El Elyone, etc. which he asked people to read a million Bible verses. A classic Charismatic/fundamentalist move (showing off knowledge of the Bible), which anyone can easily look up these days in the internet. But his motive I would say is more about his struggle with people of sciences, or in short, people who study more than he, and he couldn't stand it, so he use God as his excuse to justify his own short coming.
Because of that, there were flaws everywhere in his arguments or shall I say...opinion. I would just some these flaws up as simply strawman arguments and thus, contradictions:
Strawman and contradiction:
It seems that he was speaking of non-believers: those who try to replace God with science.
But then he mentioned these are believers (strawman - as if he's confusing himself as to whom he was referring to), as if he's trying to say science is wrong, but he was afraid to do so and thus he said science is good. Which leads to contradiction.
2nd Contradiction:
Yes, he love talking about election/God's sovereignty. And he had once affirmed also that some who allegedly believe in election are not necessarily elect.
But he appears to speak of those who allegedly believe in such that they must be elect. I now wonder how he understands this as, based on his rhetoric - since he appears to conflate believers vs. non-believers often times.
Though he did not open to discussion, it was good that the pastor interject at one point for Exodus 15:26 (on Jehovah Rapha - the Lord who Heals), emphasizing the context being a conditional one: "...If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God..." hence I think the pastor aligned with my critic that let there be no confusion that this is to the believers, not the unbelievers.
In the new covenant, I think it is crucial to discern this. I didn't speak up because I wasn't sure if we get the chance to speak. So next time, with the likes of Phil, I should get ready to interrupt and speak up against confusion as it does not do God justice. Shooting blanks and patting oneself on his own shoulder that he's done a good job speaking God's word, but is in fact just an accomplishment of a glorified stage speaker in the wrong time and place.
Phil basically treats non-believers as believers and believers as non-believers with his strawman arguments and contradictions.
I would caution the distinction of the two: We speak to/of believers one way, and should to/of non-believers another way. This is not to say that we know for certain who are which ultimately, but that these two terms show that this is the reality of truth nonetheless and should not be conflated. To be ignorant of so, and to reject academic study of science and other fields without proper cause while also accepting science in one's own term is starting a contradiction. And justifying or confusion thoughts using contradiction is an offense to God, as it is basically calling God a liar whether one admits it or not. This is typically common of reformed-wanna be folks who are actually fundamentalists (i.e. Reformed Baptists) as they do not trulyunderstand general revelation, a doctrinal contribution by ONLY the Reformed, because the 1689 London Baptist Confession struck such terminology out. And Phil fell for this, seeing that this was his background apparently.
As for how a Bible Study/Fellowship should be done as discussion or a monologue, I do not have a fixed principle on such but where there's too much discussion, then a monologue should be insisted; and if there's too much monologue, a dialogue should be promoted. In the case of our fellowship, I think it should focus more on dialogue since most don't seem to care about what others think, which is bad. It is pride. Unless one is certain of the correctness of one's own view and that others are learning from it, one should seek to find how others are thinking, especially when there are silent disagreements. A responsible host should care about it and not just discard this point simply as "I'm just a broadcaster of God's word, I've done my part, the rest is none of my business." This is actually no difference from a Biblicist (Solo, not Sola Scriptura), a stand which all true Reformed reject, but I am skeptical if any of this church, especially Phil, even know this term to its full definition. A Biblicist basically sees his own interpretation as the only inspired one and those who differ from his are basically having a low view of not his own interpretation, but of the Bible.
