As stated earlier, I will be going for a mission trip to Japan, from the 24th May evening to the 16th June 2006. Therefore, I will be taking a break from blogging for this period, to do the work of an evangelist and preach the Gospel to the Japanese people in Tokyo. Do pray for me.
Shitsureeshimasu,
Daniel Chew.
This is a response to the comment by livebygrace who posted on the Da Vinci disgrace post, regarding the nature and tone of my post.
livebygrace's comment:
We are called to be "Salt and Light" as believers in Christ. However we should not be offensive. More grace...more humility.... more prayers...more love... is needed. Change the World by our conduct...not by mere words and baggering of the permissiveness in this world. We cannot insist on a RIGHT THEOLOGY without A RIGHT BEHAVIOUR. My brother. Let Christ's divine love mellow you and melt your heart - to love the sinner even though you hate the sins. Love one to another- John 13:34,35
This comment is a typical comment which people like to make regarding the perceived 'unloving' tone in others. For those and possibly others in the future, here is my response:
Hello livebygrace,
I agree with you that we are to be loving to others and we need to love the sinner and hate the sin. However, I strongly disagree with you over your interpretation of what loving means and your description of my post as offensive in nature. We should not conform to the world's definition of what being 'loving' is, but we are to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (Rom. 12:2) When Scripture tells us to be loving, it means to be loving in like-manner as how being loving is being described in the Bible, and that is where I think your description fails.
If you were to just look at the actions and words of Jesus, who being God incarnate is perfectly loving, would you be able to say truthfully that he is indeed loving, accoring to your unbiblical definition of 'being loving'? Consider this, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees using very strong and seemingly offensive words (Luke 11:39-52), and He likewise proclaim severe judgment and woe unto the unrepentant cities (Luke 10:13-15). According to your definition of loving, is Jesus being loving here? Or how about the Apostles? Since what they say in Scripture is inspired by God, they do reflect what does it mean to be loving in the words used in the epistles. Consider then the words of the Apostle Paul in Ga. 1:8 where he just condemned a certain group of professed believers in the visible Church to eternal hellfire and damnation because of their teaching of salvation by faith + observation of the Jewish ceremonial law. Was the Apostle Paul being loving here? Or how about the Apostle John, the 'apostle of love', who 'attacks' Diotrephes and saying that this guy is talking wicked nonsense against the Apostles (3 John 10 — ESV)?
If you were just to examine these passages and then look at my post, you can see that the use of strong words of denunciation (NOT vulgarities or crude language) is approved for the Christian. The only thing to look out for is our attitude. By God's grace, I pray that God will continue to give me the right motives in serving Him and doing what I do, for the gloy of God alone.
Here is an article which describes in part my feelings towards the Da Vinci blasphemy and the attitude of the world's governments towards it. Three words for these world governments like the US government, including my own: You are Hypocrites! Liars! Wimps! So much for respecting religious sensibilities. You will answer to God for your despicable behavior during this preiod, by allowing the DVC movie to be shown in your land. You will be judged by your own law and found wanting, never mind God's Law.
An interesting article here by my friend Dr. Vincent Chia, on the group of professing Christians who are not true followers of Christ (the Almost Christians). It is a sad case that in general, the Evangelical churches are creating such counterfeits with an alarming rate, no thanks to their doctrine and teaching, or rather the lack of them.
As the countdown to the Da Vinci Code blasphemous movie screening is happening, here is a interesting satirical take on the events unfolding within mainstream Christianity.
Also, for those who haven't seen it yet, here is an article which shows us why we shouldn't see the blasphemous movie, even for noble purposes such as evangelism. And I'm still boycotting the movie.
From my previous Bible study lesson using the article from the 19th century Bishop JC Ryle entitled The Church Effeminate, I have gathered quite a lot of quotable quotes which I would be able to use. I have meditated on this particular passage of Gal. 2:11-16 before reading this, and have then learned approximately the same as that covered by the late Bishop in this article of his. However, the exposition of the Galatians 2 passage has helped me to codify and deepen my thoughts and lessons learned from this very pertinent passage, especially in light of my present contention with the Glodal Day of Prayer (GDOP) Singapore committee.
First, this passage in Gal. 2:11-16 clearly shows that no ministers are infallible, and strength in numbers do not make ministers any less infallible. Any Christian, therefore, has the right and even the duty to call a minister to account for any unbiblical conduct on his part. Of course, the minister must be wrong biblically, and this means that the person who calls any minister(s) to account for their action(s) must be well-versed in the Scriptures and full of the Holy Spirit in order to make a right judgment. Therefore, in the GDOP episode, I am right in reproving the GDOP committee for their unbiblical conduct.
Secondly, as Bishop JC Ryle has rightly pointed out, 'unity without the Gospel is a worthless unity; it is the very unity of hell'. The GDOP committee in Singapore, and also throughout the world, has placed an undue emphasis in the expression of visible unity in the visible Body of Christ, forgetting that unity is not the be all and end all of the Christian faith. By blatent compromise with the United Pentecostal heretics like Bishop TD Jakes who deny the Trinity, they are showing forth that the unity that they are working for is the 'very unity of hell'! If they are not happy with the words, they are most welcome to take the issue up with Bishop JC Ryle when they see him in heaven, assuming that they will not apostasize in the future, of course.
Which brings us to our third point, the GDOP committes of the world have shown themselves to be effeminate to the point whereby they are not willing to stand firm for the Gospel. As revealed in a letter from the Executive Director of the GDOP in North America Dr. Robert Bakke, this desire for the unity of hell have caused at least some Christians in Ghana to jettison the Gospel altogether — well at least the most important part of it — as the apostate Roman Catholics are welcomed to pray together with their Protestants counterparts in the GDOP event in Ghana. Never mind that these Romanists may be praying to Mary or the dead 'Saints', or that they believe in a false Gospel and a false Christ and thus are under the very anathema of Christ (Gal. 1:8). Oh well, at least they are being consistent. How can they not embrace these heretics when they have already embrace a worser heretic in Bshop TD Jakes, who as a Sabellian is also condemmed by the Roman Catholic church?
Here is a good article on evangelism from the Slice of Laodicea blog, with a good quote from the late Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, which I will replicate here:
The whole purpose of evangelism is primarily to tell men what sin has done to them, to tell them why they are what they are, namely, separated from God. It is to tell them that what they need above everything else is not to be made to feel happy, but to be brought back into a right relationship with the God who is 'light and in him is no darkness at all'. But that means preaching holiness. To separate these two things, it seems to me, is to deny essential biblical teaching.
— Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Exposition to Ephesians
I will be going for a mission trip to Tokyo, Japan in Hitosubashi University, from the 24th May to the 16th June 2006. As such, I will most probably won't be blogging much there. For those who do not know about it yet, here is my mission trip newsletter here (UPDATE: the link is hereby removed effective from 5th June 2006) and my team blog is here.
In the next chapter in the book The Church Efeminate, the late Anglican bishop JC Ryle speaks to the Church with his article entitled 'The fallability of ministers', based on the passage Gal. 2:11-16, whereby Paul rebuked Peter in the face due to his compromise:
There are three great lessons from Antioch which I think we ought to learn from this passage:
1) The first lesson is that great ministers may make great mistakes.
2) The second is that to keep the truth of Christ in his church is even more important than to keep peace.
3) The third is that here is no doctrine about which we ought to be so jealous as justification by faith without the deeds of the law. (p. 131)1. (b) ... let us not learn not to put implicit confidence in any man's opinion, merely because of his office as a minister. Peter was one of the chief apostles, and yet he could err.
This is a point on which men have continually gone astray. It is the rock on which the early church struck. Men soon took up the saying, "Do nothing contrary to the mind of the Bishop." But what are bishops, priests, and deacons? What are the best of ministers but men — dust, ashes, and clay — men of like passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable to weaknesses and infirmities? What says the Scripture, "Who is Paul and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" (1 Cor. 3:5). Bishops have often driven the truth into the wolderness, and decreed that to be true which was false. The greatest errors have been begun by ministers. Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of the high priest, made religion to be abhored by the children of Israel. Annas and Caiaphas, though in the direct line of descent from Aaron, cruicified the Lord. Arius, that great heresiarch, was a minister. It is absurd to suppose that ordained men cannot go wrong. We should follow them so far as they teach according to the Bible, but no further. ... Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men, but in the Bible.
(c) For another thing, let us not learn not to place implicit confidence in any man's opinion, merely because of his learning. Peter was a man who had miraculous gifts and could speak in tongues, and yet he could err. (p. 135-136)
(d) For another thing, let us take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own minister's opinion, however godly he may be. Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err.
Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his preaching and practice; but do not make a pope of him. (p. 36)
2. I now pass on to the second lesson that we learn from Antioch. That lesson is that to keep Gospel truth in the church is of even greater importance than to keep peace.
I suppose that no man knew better the value of peace and unity than the Apostle Paul. He was the apostle who wrote to the Corinthains about charity. .. Yet see how he acts here! He withstands Peter to the face. He publicly rebukes him. He runs the risk of all the consequences that might follow. He takes the chance of everything that might be said by the enemies ofthe Church of Antioch. (p. 137-138)
... Many people will put up with anything in religion, if they may only have a quiet life. They have a morbid dread of what they call "controversy." ... They are possessed with a morbid desire to keep the peace and make all things smooth and pleasant, even though it be at the expense of truth. I believe they would have thought with Ahab that Elijah was a troubler of Israel and would have helped the princes of Judah when they put Jeremiah in prison to stop his mouth. ...
... I believe that to maintain this pure truth [Gospel] in the church men should be ready to make any sacrifices, to hazard peace, to risk dissension, to run the chance of division. They should no more tolerate false doctrine than they should tolerate sin. ...
For the truth's sake Paul withstood and blamed Peter, though a brother. What was the use of unity when pure doctrine was gone? And who shall dare to say he was wrong? (p. 138)
Yes! peace without truth is a false peace; it is the very peace of the devil. Unity without the Gospel is a worthless unity; it is the very unity of Hell. ... (p. 139)
Divisions and seperations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity. They give occasion to the enemies of all godliness to blaspheme. But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people seperate themselves from teaching which is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases, seperation is a virtue and not a sin. ... The old saying must never be forgotten, "He is the schismatic who causes the schism." (p. 141)
... Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not the unity which pleases God. ... There is quiet and stillness enough in the grave, but it is not a quiet of health, but of death. It was the false prophets who cried, "Peace," when there was no peace.
Controversy in religion is a hateful thing. ... But there is one thing which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation. ... There are times when controversy is a not only a duty but also a benefit. Give me the mighty thunderstorm rather than the pestilential malaria. The one [the latter] walks in darkness and poisons us in silence, and we are never safe. The other [the former] frightens and alarms for a little season. But it is soon over, and it clears the air. It is a plain Scriptural duty to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
.... Three things there are which men never ought to trifle with — a little poison, a little false doctrine, and a little sin. (p. 142-143)
3. But I pass on to the third lesson from Antioch. That lesson is that there is no doctrine about which we ought to be so jealous as justification by faith without the deeds of the law. (p. 143)
I invite special attention to this point. I ask men to observe the remarkable jealousy which the Apostle Paul shows about this doctrine, and to consider the point about which such a stir was made. Let us mark in this passage of Scriptre the immense importance of justification without the deeds of the law. ...
This is the doctrine which is essentially neccessary to our own personal comfort. No man on Earth is a real child of God and a saved soul till he sees and received salvation by faith in Christ Jesus. (p. 144)
This is the doctrine, the absence of which accounts for half the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. (p. 145)
(Italics original, Bold added)
Here are some articles regarding the decline of the modern Contemporary Christian Music Industry (CCMI) and modern Christian music in general:
Christ as commodity by Nathanael Blake
Recently, I have started reading approximately a chapter a day of the book entitled The Church Effeminate, a collection of essays edited by John W. Robbins of the Trinity Foundation, of course in light of Scripture, for my daily Bible study. Here are some excerpts from an essay entitled Preaching to the Heart by Dr. Jay E. Adams:
... Spirit empowered, Biblical preaching strikes squarely at the heart. It elicits a response. No hearer can remain apathetic. He must respond. To speak of preaching to the heart, then, is to speak of preaching that brings a definite response; it is preaching that evokes words and action from the listener. (p. 123)
It may also be said that preaching that penetrates or cuts through to the heart is preaching that elicits a genuine response — whether is be faith or fury. Preaching that goes to the heart does not leave the listener apathetic.
In contrast, preaching that does not go to the heart of a man is preaching without any geniune effect. While the listener may express gratitude for the help he has received, the words on his lips do not flow from heartfelt conviction. In time, his speech and actions will reflect the true condition of his heart. "By their fruits shall you know them." When the inner man is truly affected by the Word of God for good, that will lead to a positive, lasting change in his outward behavior. The outer and inner man wil come into closer sync through discernable patterns of growth.
So you can see how desirable it is to preach to the heart. Indeed, a strong Biblical case could be made that unless preaching penetrates deeply enough to affect the inner life, it is not preaching at all. True Biblical preaching changes people. It did in Bible times, and there is no reason why it will not do so today. (p.124-125)
If there is one characteristic that typifies modern preaching, it is its insipid, obsequious approach to speaking the truth. So unlike the early preachers, the Reformers, and the great preachers of all time, many modern Bible-believing preachers seem afraid to tell it like it is. ... It [Modern day preaching] is basically a willingness to compromise — even God's truth — which stems from a lack of boldness. (p. 125)
But there is nothing rude or crude about the preaching in the bok of Acts. The preaching found there is straightforward, clear, explicit, hard-hitting, and in short — bold. In fact, the only feature of apostolic preaching described in Acts is its boldness.
It was said that when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, they recognized that "they has been with Jesus". The way some prissy Christians today look aghast at any boldness in preaching, you would think instead that a bold preacher has been with the devil! (p. 125)
A bold preacher is one who has no fear of speaking the truth — even when it hurts. Many ministries are hampered today simply because of the fear of men. ...
In some circles, the fear of controversy is so great that preachers and congregations following after them will settle for peace at any cost even at the cost of truth, God's truth. .. But why do we think that we can get along in this world — or for that matter, even in the church — without conflict and controversy? Jesus didn't. Paul didn't. None of the preachers of the apostolic age who faithfully served their Lord were spared controversy. (p. 126)
Boldness characterized the preaching of the spotles and other early preachers. (p. 127)
Indeed, there is only one way to preach to hearts: to preach from God's heart; but God has revealed his heart only in his written Word.
How tragic, therefore, that men in the pulpit prattle on about the ideas of other men, share their own opinions, and feed God's sheep on diets of everything else. All the while, food provided by God — available, nourishing, life-giving — is almost totally neglected. Preacher, you will preach to the heart only when you preach from God's heart. You will preach from God's heart only when you know what is in his heart. And you will know what is in his heart only when you know His Word. You must dedicate yourself, therefore, to a thorough study of that Word so that you will truly become a workman in the Word who does not need to be ashamed, because you have accurately handled the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15) in your preaching. (p. 128-129)
Here is a fine satirical article regarding the modernist church movement as examplified by the Megachurches, as shown in an imaginary letter written by the 'Megachurch Association of America' to the departed saints and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Interesting piece from the Founders Ministries blog of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) here. Poor John Owen must be rolling in his grave, to be insulted by comparing him with Rick Warren. I would definitely too; comparison to Rick Warren is an insult to me.
This is an update regarding the Global Day of Prayer (hereafter GDOP) for Singapore. I have warned against and showed the errors present in the movement so far (both in the Singapore movement and that in the global movement) in my two prevous missives here and here, with the most serious being the participation of the heretic Bishop T.D. Jakes, who denies the Trinity, in this event. I have thus far entered into a correspondence with people in the GDOP Singapore movement regarding the issue.
Recently, I have received a reply from my GDOP Singapore contact who has sent an email query to the GDOP office in the USA, regarding the matter. This is what has been revealed so far about this movement:
It is decentralized, without any overarching governing body, thus anyone can join the movement as long as they agree with the Apostle's Creed
Therefore, no one can stop T.D. Jakes or any person from joining the GDOP as long as they subscribe to the Apostle's Creed
It is being used to bring Protestants and Roman Catholics together in prayer in Ghana.
Since such is the case, bearing in mind that I am only contending with GDOP Singapore and that the organizers are all orthodox Evangelical Trinitarians, I have thus suggested to them to either edit out T.D. Jakes from the movie clip or remove the clip altogether to avoid yoking with that heretic, so that the event would be reduced to just another compromising neo-Evangelical event with the remaining errors which I have shown in the last two missives, which is still serious though. Of course, it would be good if they would preach against T.D. Jakes and his heresies, but I sincerely doubt that would happen anytime soon.
And I [God] will make of you [Abram] a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.(Gen. 12:2 — ESV)
This verse is used as the theme verse of the mission trip project organized by Singapore Campus Crusade for Christ Student ministry that I am going from the 24th May to the 18th June. From this verse, the slogan 'Blessed to be a blesing' is derived, which is used to tell us that we are blessed so that we can bless others through this Gen12ii mission project.
In this missive, I would just like to exegete the verse in its context, and to see how exactly is this verse to be applied in missions, and of course specifically in the mission trip which I am about to embark on.
Let's look at the context of this verse first:
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3 — ESV)
We can see that the verse Gen. 12:2 is found in the context of the calling of Abraham out of the pagan city of Haran (Gen. 11:32) into the promised land of Canaan. The context is the Abrahamic Covenant where God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (v. 1), and that he would be blessed so that he would be a blessing (v. 2), and that whosoever blesses him would be blessed, and whosoever dishonors him would be cursed (v. 3), and that the world (all families of the earth) shall be blessed through him.
In the immediate context, of course, the Abrahamic Covenant applies to Abraham and his physical descendents, the Jews. It is limited to the descendents of Jacob only, because the Lord restricted it to Isaac (Gen. 17:19, 21), though the Lord seperately promises great blessings to the descendents of Ishmael (Gen. 17:20), and restricted it further to Jacob, through Esau forsooking his birthright (Gen. 25:29-34) and the tricking of Isaac into passing the Covenant blesing to Jacob (Gen. 27). Though Jacob seems to obtained it via deceitfulness, God is in sovereignly in control and it could be seen that God was the one who orchestrated the whole thing, so that His purposes according to election might continue (Rom. 9:11), as He shows that he intended the Covenant to be passed on to Jacob and not Esau by restablishing it with Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 35:9-12).
This Abrahamic Covenant is thus fulfiled in a sense with the establishment of Israel as a country under the Jews during the time of Joshua, the judges and the kings after them.
Under the unveiling of the new dispensation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Abrahamic Covenant is expanded to include Christians who are the spiritual heirs of the promises of God in Christ. Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant includes us Christians, though since we are the spiritual heirs of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:13-25), we thus inherit the spiritual aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant whereas Christian Jews (aka Messianic Jews) would inherit both aspects of the Covenant. By this, I mean that we Christians do not inherit the land promise that is included in the Abrahamic Covenant and thus do not have a special physical promised land nor expect that we are to physically sire kings and nations. This physical aspect of the promise is only given to the Jews, the physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The Abrahamic Covenant is therefore for us Christians a spiritual mandate to be a blessing to others. However, what does this mean and who does it apply to?
First of all, let us go through the passage again and sees how it should be applied for us Christians:
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3 — ESV)
Thus, for us Christians, being the spiritual heirs of Abraham by faith, we inherit the blessings of Christ which is the Gospel of Christ. We have been blessed by the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross as a substitutionary atonement for our sins (2 Cor. 5:21), so that by grace alone we are saved by faith alone apart from works (Eph. 2:8-9). Thus, we are to be a blessing in the same manner as we are blessed; we are to bless others with the Gospel of Jesus Christ which leads to this precious salvation, which is a blessing to the entire earth among those who are saved by it.
Now, to the usage of the slogan 'Blessed to be a blessing', as we have seen from the exegete of Gen. 12:2 from its context in the Abrahamic Covenant in the Scriptures, we can see that it can only be legitimately applied for us in the sense of sharing and preaching of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the blessing we are to impart. To use it for any other purposes other than this (i.e. Properity 'gospel' with its materialistic emphasis of blessing by wealth) is wrong exegetically. It cannot even be used in the case of spiritual gifts and talents, at least not while using the verse Gen. 12:2 as a proof-text, though it is true that we are blessed with spiritual gifts and talents to edify the Body of Christ. Therefore, in the context of missions, the slogan and the verse is to be used to emphasize the primary important duty of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is a blessing to those who will believe.
Something which I would like to caution against is our somewhat skewed view on blessings which we may bring to this passage. From what I have seen so far in modern-day pseudo-Evangelicalism, blessing is commonly seen as a positive thing in which people would not suffer hardship and God would not pronounced judgement on infividuals and nations. However, this notion of blessing is flawed and unbiblical. In fact, one just needs to read the prophets in th Old Testament to see what blessings could possibly mean to individuals and nations. Granted, blessing refer to a positive thing for the people of God, but it could also mean severe judgment on the unregenerate sinners and wicked nations. In the upcoming Global Day of Prayer which I have exposed to be compromised in my previous two missives here and here, my friend Chen Wenxian and I have shown how the verses Is. 66:18 and Hab. 2:14 have been misquoted and misapplied. These two verses are classic examples of how blessing and the glory of God is being misunderstood, as they show forth the fact that blessing can also mean the righteous judgment of God on the unbelievers. Even for the people of God, blessing can mean being disciplined by God (Ps. 94:12, Prov. 3:12, Heb. 12:6,10 , Rev. 3:19) for judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). In fact, to demolish the ridiculous, unbiblical idea that blessing means material propsperity, peace and/or good will of others, one just have to look at the Beautitudes in Mt. 5:2-11 to see what blessing possibly entails, as spoken from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ himself.
