My Journal

His passing reminds me immediately to Pak Tong, who's around the same age.
It is always when some great guy has passed that people talk about them, but not while they're still alive, especially when they known them well.

May this be a lesson for me to learn to walk with my Lord, always. Not just at some emotional climax.

Giving Tuesday? I am being spammed by Redeemer everywhere these last couple of days. Asking for donation. Gift matching, etc. We're talking about $100k+ for each site and the fund raising appears to work, though from fewer than expected, I would say. This means that there are quite a few "rich" individual givings.

On the one hand, I think it's sick. On the other hand, I believe God's at work. God, not being the sick one, of course, applies all means, good or bad, to accomplish His will, that is the spread of the Gospel and His name be honored.

Those who give needs to know, they are liable to God as to why they give, who they give, and the vision of their giving. Would it have been more worth it to give to a different cause, different organizations, churches, etc.

I question the giving because I don't see much effect in the vision. And that it is hard to believe that those who give, especially those who like to give big, setting matching price, do it out of true calling to God. It's more likely that they give to either show off or to comfort themselves of not serving God in the ministries. As if by giving $. Many non-U.S. ministries have been illustrating God's power so well, why should Redeemer be exempted? Is she not of God as well?

So no, I don't buy all these emails about begging for $ has been matched. It's as if whenever these staffs (pastors) are "getting" personal (Dear Timothy...), I'm speaking of not just Redeemer but virtually all U.S. ministries, it's about $$$. Perhaps they should start with actually typing "Dear Timothy" instead of using some mailmerge program to auto fill. So much for preaching about authentic care and love on stage.

Bottom line, I will not be part of their "wow" cheering in the success of fundraising, but I will applaud and praise God when I see God's name being lifted. Vain giving vs. godly giving, the letters appear to have confused the two. A genuine praising and applaud of God's name is worth 1,000,000+ times more than a $1,000,000 monthly pledge of vain giving.

The title comes from Michael Keller's blast email, addressing the sexual harassment cases that's been frequent in news lately, exposing particularly show business moguls like Harvey Weinstein.

I usually ignore these as fad. But since it's becoming the focus of Redeemer, I'll make a stand here as well.

Reading Michael Keller's letter, my only conclusion is...what a sensitive culture Redeemer is becoming? There's not a trace of forgiveness in this "Gospel response".

A Church's response to something like that has to be more than these secular nonsense.

John MacArthur famously used 2 Samuel 12:23 where King David said of his dead infant "I will go to him but he will not return to me" to justify his belief that the unborns and newborns will automatically be saved. Some even willing to use Jesus' remarks of little children as another proof of such, which MacArthur rejected.

I think most reformers do not jump to such conclusions. Because not only it does not affirm biblical inerrancy, it allows emotion to cloud judgment and discernment.

For example, those who are caught in or confused of such emotional belief often respond to critics with the statement "God is always just", "God will not do wrong", etc. This is off topic. And whenever someone reached the limit of their logic without humility, they will steer off topic. Worse, should they not admit better discernment from others nor their jealousy, they would have to shout to others: "Don't be TOO PROUD!" Not surprising, such is the case with what their "Fathers" did to our Lord when he was on Earth: Blasphemy! You are NOT GOD! Don't be too Proud!" But actually, they meant "We are God! So how can you be God?!"

Anyway, the strongest point for instant paedo-salvation is 2 Samuel 12:23. So I will deal with that verse, while I agree with MacArthur, that verses on how Jesus love little children are irrelevant to this issue.

First, David had been wrong before (1 Samuel 25:22) even when he invoked God's name. So, biblical inerrancy does not mean we read without discernment.

Secondly, "I will go to him..." does not mean go to heaven nor share the saving grace. The likes of John Calvin are more careful in dealing with this meaning.

Thirdly, "but he will not return to me" surely David is wrong yet again. What of resurrection of the dead? And I'm not even talking about the granting of eternal life. If David was aware of God's power, it's more likely that he was referring to the experience of death and not heaven and this world.

So therefore, this is not as clear cut as they would like. However, unlike some, I would hold that it is crucial that the only way to eternal life with God, is through the cross of our Lord. It is so for Enoch, Elijah, and every infant. Those who even dare to consider this unnecessary and say "God is God, God is never wrong, God is just" is betraying their own logic. What then, is there one man so fashioned by God that he needs not the cleansing spirit and blood of Christ upon his soul? Is there such soul that is not sinful by default? even before birth? Or is the redemption of Christ so weak that it is constricted by time and space? The only way to walk this path of belief is to follow strange ways. The sinful nature of such ideology is interesting to investigate but this entry does not provide enough room for such treatise. Another time.