Sunday, September 23, 2007

Interlude

I am rather emotionally exhausted due to various issues. Anyway, to all it may concern, I am NOT writing my latest series of blog posts against anyone in particular. I love my Charismatic and New Evangelical brethren, and I am writing this not against anyone in particular, nor any group in particular (those who are astute may notice I criticize the conservatives too). It is precisely because I love you all that I submit this article so that you may turn to God and truly sincerely love the truth and thus be saved. If you cannot take this kind of tough love, then I pity you. I would much rather have you grow and persevere in Christ and demonize me rather than you go to hell while praising how 'loving' and 'kind' I am. Feel free to demonize me; I couldn't care less honestly, as long as you are indeed growing in Christ, I will be pleased. This is all I have to say for now.

18 comments:

jan said...

Hello Daniel

I've decided to violate your rules, ha ha :) As I believe that sharing an encouragement is worth violating your rules.

Anyway, I came to look at your articles which you were concerned whether I thought you had aimed at me (or Hanmin). I didn't actually think so, because I thought they were very well-written thoughts with your balance approach in your examination.

Maybe I don't show it enough, but I guess I just want you to know that I actually enjoyed learning with/from you :)

I genuinely believe you are very gifted and I hope you will persevere in sharing the truth :) So I'm sorry if my perplexing nature contributed to a part of your emotional exhaustion (though you told me not to think the world of myself by assuming I did, but the narcissist in me can't help it, ha ha).

In any case, I just want you to know that I remembered you in my prayers today and I've been prompted to share a word with you in Isaiah 46:4 :)

Be Blessed!

ddd said...

Hello Jan,

thanks for the word of encouragment. However,I am curious as to why you think that you have violated my blog rules...

jan said...

Hmmmm, as far as I was aware of, I had felt your impression of me would warrant my comment-attempt to hover between violating rule 5 or 6.

but thanks, my comment survived! :)

ddd said...

Jan,

eh, sister, as far as I am concerned:

1) What happen in Hanmin's blog stays there; even if you have misbehaved there doesn't warrent any discrimination here

2) Closely related to this, even if you have offended me in real life does not mean that I would somehow bring a grudge over to my blog. Down here, the rules are applied, as much as possible, inpartially.

3) You need to know this: I don't operate emotionally as much as possible. As far as I am able, everything here operates upon objetive truth and standards.

4) I don't bear grudges, unless you prove recalcitrant. I try to be slow to anger and quick to forgive. As such, I do not know what is supposed to be my 'impression' about you. Put it honestly, I don't have much of an impression of you. Just because I was unduly and wrongfully harsh towards you doesn't constitute any viable impression. And I am not going to eat you up, I can assure you.

5) And to allay your possible fears, rules 5 & 6 were not made with you in mind. As I have mentioned before, you are not the center of the world, nor the center of my attention. =P (Take it positively, not that I don't care about you). Rule number 6 was made to counter people who abuse the feature of linking their username to URLs which promote abberant lifestyles and teaching. Rule number 5 was made against people like Jenson, who has violated it in actuality more than 3 times before the rule was written. Since there was no written rule then, I cannot do anything. Now, I can and I will. My patience is not infinite, you know.

So no, you didn't violate any rules.

(I think it would be good for us to get in touch to settle outstanding issues. I haven't gotten your email yet, but if you do read this, email me at my gmail account and then we can continue the conversation)

jan said...

1) I'm yet to ask Hanmin if he felt I misbehaved :P you make me sound like I'm 2, ha ha.

2 & 4) Nope I didn't see it as you held a grudge as it is simply to respect your opinion on me? (Well, I had thought you had an intensely negative one. And I like to think the world revolves around me) In any case, even if you want to eat me, I'm too long to be eaten :P

3) Yes, I'm fully aware of your unemotional status, but equally I have the uncanny habit (and some say ability) of emotionalising people (especially guys ha ha).

5) Didn't think it was aimed at me at all, the rules were set before you were aware of my existence!

On emailing you.. whoa, where got guys ask girls to email them one. I shy la. Ha ha ha. And maybe Hanmin, as our 'mutual' friend, may not encouraged the idea that we keep in touch on our own, ha ha ha.

In any case, I did tell Hanmin that it is not fashionably my thing to discuss/debate on 'spiritual things' over a faceless online medium actually, because of the unusually high possibility of miscommunicating (as proven ha ha).

Moreover, I can be extremely cutting and cold-hearted with my written words in putting forward an opinion (having written too many argumentative essays throughout uni you see) and so I don't want to put myself in a position where I'd be tempted to (flee from temptations you see!) which has hurt people before.

So what happened at Hanmin's blog is an entirely a once-off thing on my part for sure :) Too playful la. Having said that, I welcome you to write about your views on "outstanding issues" be it on your blog or wherever, because I like to listen to people's views and since I'm a notsosecret fan of your blog too, ha ha ha :)

So if I feel compelled to give my opinion, I will do so in your face (oops, ha ha) no la, as in face-to-face over coffee or tea :) Reduce liability and miscommunication to the bare minimum + save time also what, by ironing out all things at one go, ha ha :)

PS. You can actually visit me and Hanmin at RP one day when I start work! :)

ddd said...

Jan,

I would email you, if I have your email account. Getting the info out of Hanmin is a tad bit ddificult, especially since he said he only has your email in his office computer. [I asked him to send it to me but he hasn't done it yet]. And I don't think you want to post your email address on something as public as a blog, right? Tell you what, you send me a blank email with your email address, and we continue from there.

Jenson said...

Since you mentioned my name several times, I thought I should at least say something. I did not violate any "rule no. 5", whatever you may chose to say/believe.

You and I have to "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord". I will leave it at that.

ddd said...

Jenson,

I believe you when you can persuade me of the righteness of your oftentimes erractic actions. This includes the Wenxian episode for example, whom you are intent to protect despite how many heresies he slowly imbibes in, plus all manner of false accusations he make against others. As long as you keep silent on such issues, while taking potshots (not arguments) at my supposedly non-reformed position, you will continue to be regarded as a hypocrite and to violate rule number 5. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this, nevermind other issues. When you stop protecting heretics and criticizing true believers, then at least what you say will have some moral authority. AS it is, your words have just as much weight as the moral teachings of Hitler; totally worthless.

Jenson said...

Very strong words. What can I say? It is your blog.

I did not "take potshots" at you for being "non-reformed". I am just saying that you aren't - at least not in the historic definition of "reformed". Just because one is "non-reformed" doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. My brother, a Plymouth Brethren, is "non-reformed", and he knows it! We had an earlier email discussion about this before.

My contention is that being "reformed" means something, and I cannot find that "something" in your blog. But I might be wrong.

"...righteness of your oftentimes erractic actions"? I do not blog anymore and you hardly know me. Concerning Wenxian, I had email discussions with him. He has been disappointed by your actions in the past, and may be overreacting. But please give him time and space.

Friends from the Met Tab (and your church) have graciously given you time and space as well.

ddd said...

Jenson,

If the only thing you are talking about is I am not entirely reformed as in historic 'reformeed reformed' cf people like Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, then I would not be making an issue out of it. However, is that what you truly are saying, or something else. Let's look:

1) May I ask what the comment written on 20/09/07 15:41 (blog time) with regards to my SCP mission trip was for? What does my mission trip have to do with me stating that I hold on Reformational principles? Strike one, your commment is already a violation of rule number 3. Strike 2, why do you use the same phrasing as I have used in critiquing lamb in attacking my position, if not to score a point? Last I heard, you were the one who made a BIG fuss when I reviewed a book written by a pro-homosexual author. So, why the double standard?

2) This is only the latest in a series of provocations. I have asked and continue to ask why you sharply criticize me whereas there is not even a mild criticism of Wenxian? Care to exaplain your double standard? Or is it because Wenxian does not allow comments on his blog so you 'vent' your comments on me?

3) If you want to strictly define the term 'reformed', then I encourage you to start by stating openly that you are NOT reformed. All historic reformed people are paedobatists, so all baptists are not reformed, period.

As it can be seen, your actions do not match up with your words. Perhaps you can start by rectifying some of your inconsistent behavior.

With regards to Wenxian, let's make this clear, shall we? My problem with Wenxian started when he (first) attacks us paedobaptists and indirectly call us heretics. I called him to repent of His unseemly behavior and straightaway I become his number one enemy. Where were you when that happen? Why, you were the ones who provided him with links to articles promoting the credopatists position, weren't you? After I call him to account, showing his proof-texts in actual fact prove nothing, he responded by banning comments on his blog and by attacking my character on his and my blog etc. So according to you, was that acceptable? Was it acceptable for him to attack my character just because he embraced your position? Where is your outrage? Oh, I forget, he is now a baptist, so you must protect your brother?

And he is NOT disappointed by my actions, as much as I am by his. Who started the name-calling (which is baseless) first? Who called me a heretic because I refuse to compromise with the Neo-Amyraldian position? Or are you going to tell me that is my fault also, when I didn't even interact with him at all?

Speaking of space and time, you sure have found lots of 'space and time' for Wenxian to grow, even to the point where he can embrace any number of unorthodox teachings without being corrected, and call true believers heretics also. But let me just mention that I am reformed, wow, suddenly there is no 'space and time' for me. You dare to say that he 'may be overreacting'? Do you know that he attacked Ingrid Schlueter because she warned against Harry Potter on her now-defunct blog Slice of Laodicea? So was he 'overreacting' against Ingrid? What form of 'overreacting' was Wenxian exercising against Rev. Augus and the British Reformed Journal (http://tanboonhian.blogspot.com/2007/09/does-god.html) when he condemns him to hell ('perish with your foolishness')?

Please Jenson, wake up and smell the mess you have excused. Do you know that Wenxian by so doing is plaing himself in mortal danger? By condemning true Christians to hell, he places himself in the role of the accuser of the brethren, and we know who that is. Even I don't speak lightly and condemn any person to hell (and only of proven heretics if they don't repent), but yet when Wenxian attacks anyone, it is perfectly fine by you? How many people must he attack before you attempt to restrain his madness? Or must he attack people whom you (hopefully) respect like Dr. Peter Masters before you come to your senses?

Again, since when has 'grace and time' gave anyone a license to condemn true believers to hell, or given Wenxian a license to believe in a form of 'hyper-Amyraldism' that only those who follows his form of 'baptistic Amyraldian theology' is saved, and all of us normal Christians who disagree with him isn't?

I'll be awaiting your answers, if you have any. On the positive side, you have started to really interact with my comments, let's see you continue to do so.

Jenson said...

1) Who did I score any points with, or against?

2) There is no double standard. I have had some discussion with him already. There are issues which I trust the Lord will deal with, in due course...

3) That is a completely mistaken idea. I have said to you before, read some church history - Robert Oliver, Kenneth Dix or William Estep.

Well, that all I can say. There are plenty of books written about Reformed Piety (start with Joel Beeke's Puritan Spirituality), which if you peruse, you would know what I have trying to say all along.

ddd said...

Jenson:

1) You are either very dense or devious by making such a statement. The comment is very clear. You attempted to score a point against me while undermining my apology against Lamb. If you deny that was your attempt, and that is indeed true, then the only thing I can say is that you are the densest person I have ever seen so far. If such is the case, then I think you should desist from commenting on others [people] as most probably you will always get yourself misunderstood. First of all, you can stop commenting on me.

2) Oh? I have written 6 paragraphs regarding Wenxian and you respond with 'you had discussion with him' and 'there are issues which the Lord will deal with'? And you deny there being no double standard? I ask you, did you tell Wenxian he is not reformed in the same manner you 'told' me? Did you call on him strongly to truly join a local church like the way you keep on insisting that I do, especially since I doubt he even attends church nowadays? And last and most importantly of all, have you criticized Wenxian as publibly as you have criticized me? For the last section especially, please list down the various URLs where you have done so so that I can check to prove that you are not double-standard in this regard, especially since Wenxian has embraced unorthodox doctrines (beyond the pale of orthodoxy)

3) I will read when I have the time and money to do so. Anyway, I would like to know why should I believe you in this regard as compared to Dr. C. Matthew McMahon who claimed to read more than 1 million pages of Reformed and Purtian materials.

Since you talk about reading Puritan materials etc, why don't you tell me succintly what you think being reformed mean in your system? I don't think I mind not being included in Jenson's reformed category, but I know I definitely am one in the biblical category.

Jenson said...

1) It is not very nice to call a person dense. By the way, who is Lamb?

2) My emails with Wenxian are private. I would like to keep it that way.

3) McMahon is just giving his own opinion. I have said before not to study your theology from the Web (be it blogs or websites).

Since you say that you are in the "biblical category", so be it then. Why do you wish to know what "being reformed" means?

You may have rules to commenting or even block comments, but you are on a public domain. If you receive comments that you dislike, you have to live with that.

Jenson said...

A key word - Piety

ddd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ddd said...

Jenson,

1) I'm sorry, but I don't mince words. Perhaps next time I spare you from reading such remarks from me, by deleting any further comments posted by you like that one.

2) Strange that your criticism of me isn't private. They are very public indeed

3) Suits you. I'll probably be buying one or two of his books to read in the near future. I'm sure those are NOT blogs/ websites according to your definition, right? And by the way, McMahon is an ordained pastor in one of the US denominations, so perhaps you can stop behaving like he's nobody.
(I wonder, in the unlikely event that Dr. Peter Masters blogs, would you say that it is wrong for anyone to learn theology from reading his blog?)

This is all I have to say.

ddd said...

Jenson,

If you are still reading, I have just seen the comment you left more than a month ago at my multiply site. Anyway, just to inform you that I think that there is nothing wrong with having a superficial view and usage of Scripture earlier on in our Christian walk. However, it is downright sinful when you use your simplistic and immature view of Christianity to harshly condemn and pass judgment on those who are more mature than you, especially when Wenxian clearly does not even have an idea what he is talking about. Honestly, he reminds me of the Sadducees, who place huge burdens on others while living a relatively licentious life, and we know Jesus' judgment on them. I have already given Wenxian over to Satan, so that hopefully he would repent and his spirit saved on the day of judgment (1 Cor. 5:5). That's all I have to say regarding him.

Jenson said...

I have not said that McMahon is a "nobody".

Ordination doesn't make a minister - McMahon is just set apart for a work.

And no, I doubt Peter Masters would blog. I hope that he doesn't.