Finished Sermon on the mount. Now we start Pesanan Kristus.
The 7 churches refer also the churches today.
Tong studied last night on Ezekiel, Daniel to prepare for the Revelation series.
3 Meaning of the 7 churches: 1. The churches at the time. According to their names. 2. Applies to whole churches of the world 3. The Churches of all time.
James 1:23 - Looking in the mirror, do nothing about it, just like those listened but do not do. The importance of looking into the mirror.
Mark 14:27b: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.
Jesus wisely chose a young apostle - John, so that when all the rest were dead, not because of old age, but because they were killed, only one left, John.
When you lose your position set by God, like Satan, you have committed sin. I think this will apply widely to those gender identity problems. Thus, Tong never take jobs in other countries, even when challenged what's good about Indonesia. But God did not moved him so.
Ameristians love to deny when being caught promoting American patriotism/nationalism = the Gospel, if not over the Gospel.
Thus, all these liberal progressivism, LGBT, BLM, etc. are just such theology biting back at their own asses.
Do we particularly need "non-white" ministers in NYC?
According to Michael Keller we do. Shown below at around @7:38 in the video.
I sensed a trouble with that. Not sure what's being implied: Are whites more interested in this ministry? If so why? Maybe they come from a more well off family background? @10:10 Michael mentioned that if you're not white it's harder to raise funds. Two more troubling things: why would being white be better at raising funds; why even bother to raise funds? Not that these are not true, but I believe it's not the right direction if favor of God is the goal. Of men perhaps. What about just learn of other cultures (for white ministers) in order to interact and love their cultures? Why the need of a gap...white to white, other diverse culture to its own, after all, that's how it looks now that you've made a demand for more non-white ministers, right?
Anyway, I'll just do some quick summary of this video as Tim Keller had some good points.
All cultures/religions believe these 5: God, moral absolutes, duty in identity, sin, afterlife Now, all these 5 are opposed.
Keller: You cannot just say now "God loves you" anymore. Oh I can hear the fundamentalists like Janet Mefferd are going wild hearing this now.
Michael: it used to be the other side is mistaken. Now, it's the other side is evil. (I guess sounds like the influence of the Charismatics evangelism- if they don't believe, they are Satan possessed, they are evil.
Sounds to me like what they mean by "non-white" ministry can't get as much financial support because White has better platform for this, uncles aunties, etc. I guess they don't have the concept of just trusting God rather than relationships.
Keller: Astoria though has diversity, but they are not united. A church should change that.
Conclusion, despite my criticism of Redeemer, Tim Keller, they are still doing great works in the Gospel.
Just spoke on with for with CB of my Grace church. It appears that the only view they have for in church services, against wearing masks, etc. is that one should not FEAR. Do not fear death, do not fear of infecting others (perhaps provided if others do not mind being infected), because somehow this is pleasing to God.
I am not sure why, but to support Joseph Yu of former Redeemer pastor's point, it's not about fear, it has nothing to do with fear at all in fact, but it is a matter of responsibility. It would seem that those Christians have some nonchalant, irresponsible attitude on this. As if they are blinded from seeing it or something.
As for CB's take on that: "just know that those who are coming into church don't mind getting Covid", I would reply: "Well, it is a Christian thing, even reformed, to help save those who doesn't want to be saved". But of course, this is a passive means, not an active for it is not by force nor by imploring something upon others, so ultimately, they will still get what they wanted in the end, after all, though salvation begins prior to human will, Jesus also said that He did not come for those who are "not sick".
At this point, USA has the highest number of Covid-19 death: 500k. The rate per population capita is not good either, raking top 10 in the world:
In this cause, I would say reputation matters. This is one of those very few cases we can say that, when all other countries are laughing at this resultant of ignorance. And the numbers show that America is doing pretty badly for a developed and supposedly Christian nation.
When it comes to knowledge of the Bible or doing obvious Christian things, the fundamentalists are good at them. However, when connecting to other objects of God's creation, to life, they are really bad it it because they fail to see the connection to the Bible. They may acknowledge it, but they pursue it not because it does take effort which they lack seeking.
We also talked about Ravi Zacharias to which CB said that his message is not Gospel related/centered. I find it to be untrue, perhaps he listened too much to Ray Comfort's criticism on Ravi, which I think is about the same thing. I think that's just nitpicking too much. One can easily search for Ravi's take on sin and the Gospel. But perhaps they are referring to the fact that Ravi needs to say the word Gospel or repeat the basic principles of the Gospel like 1 million times in a sermon/lecture, the more the better, like many fundamentalists do. As for me, I referred to my lost of interest in RZIM when Ravi did not stand for the Gospel against the Mormons when he was invited to the Mormon Tabernacles, and even defended what he did there when questioned in public.
Then we also talked about the WTS issue where Lane Tipton was asked to leave regarding the case with Scott Oliphint. Basically, Oliphint's works questioned the immutability of God or the unchangeable properties of God. Tipton wasn't the only one challenging Oliphint on this. CB mentioned that his mentor Henry Krabbendam has written a long work against Oliphint's work, that in short, it pertains to Deu 29:29. However, I am skeptical of this application of the verse, because it smells awfully like a fundamentalist's approach, not to mention that it imposes a serious accusation that is on par with witchcrafts - if cannot fathom the depths of a subject, instead of admit it, call it either not important or be ignorant of it, and if others expounded upon it, if done badly then it's heresy, if done rightly but not palatable, then call it something only for seminary. So I would like to ask, what is it that Oliphint was going for that has been deemed "secret things of God" that we are not to touch on. I won't read either works unless someone can convince me to.
But I must add that at least Chris was kind enough to discuss all these with me, so I see him not as a fundamentalist, perhaps fundamentalist influenced? I don't know.
DeerMeatForDinner's Robert Arrington has 3000 acres property in Florida: @1:50
That's like $3.5M to $7Million at current's property market in Florida. I wonder how the tax must be like.
When Jesus taught, he sat. Everyone reflects; When He preached, He stood. Everyone participates in the declaration.
Foundation, that which not seen, is the most important. One's spirit is determined not by the knowledge, but by the feet where the foundation is. Without the right foundation, everything done will be rejected by Christ.
Those who thinks everything is the same, fools; the wise always discern differences. Christians tell apart human and apes; Evolutionists cannot: Humans are from apes, same family.
v.29: 3 types of preaching: 1. spoke and heard. No effect. (Some preachers don't like to move because got used to it, afraid of change) 2. spoke and bored. Repeated, predictable. Not original. (some preachers love to move around, because his content is so limited he's afraid the same congregant will get bored) 3. v.29, the like of Jesus'
Chinese sermon:
Tong introduced/interviewed the singer LingGang for the prelude song "He Cares". She has the heart to open a school for the retarded. Graduated from Australia in education, knows German, not married. Tong initially ignored working with her but her zealousness convinced him.
Observe the wisdom in Jesus' standing and sitting as he preached. Standing: to proclaim something calling people to believe. Sitting: 教训. As if sitting on the throne.
Authority not the same as power. Power is like the tanks crossing the road ruining the road. Authority is when the captain stood in front of the tanks stopping them with a whistle/call.
Authority comes from God.
At the end Tong mentioned something about the Apostle's Creed being translated into Indonesian but not yet into Chinese because their church is Indonesian culture and hoping for more zealous and unison work among the Chinese translators.
It is just a matter of time for me to write this, now, especially after the revelation/report and announcement from the post-humous investigation done by RZIM (Ravi's ministry) of Ravi Zacharias' sexual scandals. I'll post the report in the comment, just in case it's removed.
I checked out what people are talking about it on Facebook, and this is what I in one of a apparently Malaysian (DUMC affiliated?) thread: I did a search, don't know how I get here. I don't need some long essay reflection on this. The reaction is simple:Jesus said not everyone who said "Lord Lord" shall enter his kingdom.Am I saying that Ravi's not saved? No.I'm saying don't be surprised if he's not saved.What is the whole point of all this? Just because things are legal or you can hide things, doesn't mean it's right with God; Just because it's illegal or the whole world is against you, doesn't mean that it is wrong with God. Watch your walk and life with God. God is not mocked. No buts.
I don't know where I first heard of Zacharias. Perhaps during my exile in the States. I do remember it was a good impression of him. He is popular for doing Q&A with his audience, so I always love those preachers. Unfiltered responses are hard challenges. I had recommended occasionally his Q&A to others, only Q&A. I've always skipped to Q&A, which are the last parts of his talks. He's the one who talked about the sanctity of sex against LGBT. He shared testimonies like a woman (Edith Taylor) who forgave her husband who married someone else in Japan by even raising his bastard child and took care of his Japanese mistress/wife. He even shared his admiration (or rather shock, after this scandal of his) of his brother's view on finding a wife - not by desire but by will. I also followed his podcast for a while, until I got bored of it due to repeated content. He seemed to love poems and quoting them, not my thing, but it is fine arts appreciation, no big deal.
I became worry of his ministry/theology when he was invited to preach at the Mormon Tabernacle. Not because he was invited (why not, it's a great Gospel opportunity) but how he handled it. There's no clear Gospel message in the talk, it seemed that he was trying to give a Mormon friendly Christian talk, titled "The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Jesus Christ".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amun1RBONPw
around @21 minute, Mormon founder Joseph Smith was introduced.
@24 min, someone joked about the mormons as "the goats".
@1:10:00, he did however call sexual immorality wicked. But maybe only for those against 18 month old or younger.
@1:33:22 he managed to find a way to sneak in the word "Trinity" (not Mormon doctrine) and get applauded for it: Wanting to honor your marital commitment yet tempted by lust to be dishonorable, wanting not to be greedy yet tempted by greed on the other side, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, the pride of life, all of these diverse proclivities, how do we find unity and diversity in our existence…and there is no way else that you'll find unity and diversity in the first cause, except when you find it in the unity and the diversity and the community of the trinity.
The first part, is mystifying human sins by confusing right and wrong and then points to the trinity, without much explanation of what the trinity is. I would assume that the audience who applauded were not aware of what he was actually saying about the trinity but they recognize the superficial climax, hence the applause. In other words, nothing he preached there meant to distinguish Mormonism from Christianity. Since he wouldn't clarify the terms he snuck in, such as "Trinity", etc. Now, I do not condone an extreme form of preaching against the Mormons such as pointing out all their faults in doctrines, but what Ravi's doing is just the opposing extreme. There is clearly no responsibility here, merely display of wits in speech and knowledge.
He was questioned about it:
He claimed that he did not compromise the doctrine, but not sneaking terms without explanation is in essence, compromising. When challenged, he would compromise not by right or wrong doctrine, but by comparing whether it is "historical Christianity" or not. He defined "cult": a departure from the historic person and the work of Christ, though still lays claim to the historic work but has departed from it. Not a bad definition. And about using terms like cult only in classroom and not in public arena, per Ravi, is not wise otherwise, there is truth to it. So I give him that, that he has the wisdom and knowledge to deal with semantics. However, I do believe he has a responsibility to not compromise by colorful speech though the intention may not be so.
From this, I came to believe one thing of Ravi. He's not afraid of challenging questions, no doubt. However, he would only criticize when being criticized. So, when being invited warmly by the LDS, he would not criticize as he does elsewhere. And of course, from a business perspective, what better way to reinstate your expelled membership from true Christendom by inviting someone celebrated in Christendom to give a talk.
As a conclusion on this Mormon thing, I wouldn't go so far as to discredit Ravi's whole ministry, if there is a way to connect and build bridge to talk to the Mormons about the Gospel, I've always welcome it. So I thank God for such event by the Mormons. On the most part, I don't have issue with Ravi's speech, it is only what he could have done better (not even a friendly challenge) is what I have issue with and thus, distrust his passion for Q&A from then on. At the same time, I learned to be sharper at distinguishing Mormonism against Christianity, not from Ravi, but from where Ravi failed.
Later I observed and only took interest when special thing like when Ravi visited Stephen Tong, What did he comment about it, etc.
Lastly, the scandal for me is concluded by watching the take by Mike Winger:
Though Winger was too emotional at some points, I would not focus on that nor any minor faulty concepts he presented, like throwing Ravi's books into garbage can, etc. Not my purpose of this entry. Winger brought up lots of details where other online resources failed. Yes, I could read the report myself, but it's 12 page long, I'm not that crazy. Why shouldn't I save time by listening to it while multitasking snow shoveling, which was what I did last night (2/18/21). Winger went as far as calling Ravi a fraud, not just non-Christian. I would reserve my judgment on that. I would say Ravi has trained himself well enough to show that he is a Christian, but whether he is or not, I leave it to God. As for my hope for it, I don't have fellowship with him personally, so I lack such hope. As for loving sinners, that's another matter that is best discussed in how to evangelize sinners.
As far as Ravi's victim goes, mostly massage therapists, whom he tried to seduce into various sexual position and grabbing their breasts, showing them his erection, him keeping photos of women he talked to, including a few nude ones, abusing RZIM ministry funds for his leisure and promoting himself with women in financial need, etc. I can only pray for them. Brad and Lori Anne Thompson were the first couple to try to sue Ravi for I think $5 Million dollars or something, but Ravi was alive at the time and it was obviously his words over theirs, until now. Whether Lori was unstable herself to begin with or not, it doesn't matter in this case, if you want to bring it to court, then you must accept the consequences, win or lose may not justify anything, but you must be prepared for losses as much as you disagree, because you are giving your affairs to be decided by men, you put yourself in the game of reputations, power and influence of men.
As for Ravi's family, also, prayers and reflection. I thought of how if there would be serious scandals revelation of Stephen Tong after his death, it would be shocking to me because my knowledge of him would stand against all those scandals the likes of Ravi or Jimmy Swaggart. With Ravi, not so much as I did not know him well enough and also was disappointed by his handling with Mormons and the after effect. I didn't care how other reflects their opinion about these folks, very rarely I pay attention or be influenced by opinions like these anymore, simply because they are too shallow. And my memorization of the entire Psalms project helps in this case. Particularly Psalm 5, 12.
It's snowing again now as I type, beautifully with big fluffy snow.
Interestingly, Ravi's case is unique because it's as if he got away with it as these scandals are verified only after his death. But so what? Even if nobody finds out any bad things I do, will God turn a blind eye as well? For me, at some point in following Ravi's ministry, though not tightly, I concluded that his message focuses are on the art of speech rather than the care for fellowship, so I gradually stopped.
With regards to seeing who is saved ultimately, it is a fellowship thing. In general, we hope for God's mercy upon sinners, especially those we preached to, regardless of their denial. But at a fellowship level, we have high hope that those whom we fellowship with in Christ, do in fact get saved. If that is why I could so easily not mind about Ravi's unsaved soul, perhaps that is why, that I did not have any fellowship with him at all. With Pak Tong, a little, once or twice. But this could play to my benefit, so that I be more watchful of my walk with God and not have my understanding and relationship with God tainted by human influence. But of course, if I were to have fellowship with Ravi, then I would care about this and that about him, so much that a scandal like this would be hard to miss. And the lesson after that, should I need to confront those whom I fellowship with, what is the wisdom to do so?
Ben Shapiro, told ya you should have interviewed Tong instead of Zacharias!
3000+ Acres land, I wish I would have that. For more than just farming. Hunting, wild games, etc. Looks like these would cost about $7-15 millions to buy, I wonder what the tax's like.
Back to the topic, learned a new thing. All bars (castrated boars) grow to be fat, juicy and delicious.
I wonder what this guy's family business used to be. Very likely farm related:
An Example of Modern Paul vs. Barnabas' mission split
On David Tong: Too quick to judge
at around @33:00 of the video below, the question asked was "Is Me time allowed". Filbert asked to clarify the definition of it first, but David immediately concluded (habitually) that it's wrong without even considering the perspective from others and responded "just answer allowed or not first then give definition (I mean, what?!)", even boldly goes as to say "even if it's a "good" me-time, it's still not allowed. Until the lady Abel interjected an example "What about me time for reading the Bible?" then everyone cheered, and perhaps David also tried to hide his defeat in silence, that is, if he did admit defeat.
Of course, this play of language rather than true meaning is not new. I've criticized others on this before, such as Alex. This is serious, because it' the kind of pride that's slipped through by the authoritarian type in a inconspicuous way. Or lack of certain holiness.
All that aside, I still like this Karawaci culture/fellowship because they do care to talk about it. When I first heard that "me time" question, my immediate response was "Me-time for God, Yes"; "Me-time for myself, No".
Why I watch these? Because I need to know after Stephen Tong, how I could trust to work with the next generation of GRII or STEMI. Unlike the others (i.e. some at CCCNY and more), I don't base my trust on status/connection, viz. oh David is Stephen Tong's son, etc.
One good take from David Tong around @42:00: On equality, Calvin said it's better to have tyranny than anarchy.
There's a point David brought up: If someone said, "If you drink alcohol then you're not Christian." Then I, who doesn't drink, would deliberately order a beer and drink in front of him. I think David supports this, but I thought at first that it sounded rebellious. However, to stand for the truth, we do have to act wisely, if acting so confirms the truth I stand for, good, if not, then maybe it's better to reserve such act for the edification of others before God.
If I were the host, instead of being stunned, I would respond: David, just to clarify, this is not to show that he's rejecting Christianity; but to prove that the statement is wrong and heretical.
