Things New and Old

Ancient truths revealed in the Scriptures are often forgotten, disbelieved or distorted, and therefore lost in the passage of time. Such ancient truths when rediscovered and relearned are 'new' additions to the treasury of ancient truths. Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.

There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things"
2Ti 2:7.

Monday, October 16, 2017

The law of non-contradiction

Neither six nor nine; it's a "g"!

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC)... states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B " and "A is not B " are mutually exclusive.

The popular "sola fidei" is, at best, illogical and nonsensical, at worst, a doctrine of the devil because it contradicts all these Scriptures.

A and non-A cannot be true in the same sense at the same time.
Let God be true but every sola fideist a liar!

Scriptures declare:

Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
(The manner: freely by God's grace; the basis: the redemption that is in Christ.)

Titus 3:7
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
(The manner: by his grace, NOT by man's faith; the effect: made heirs.)

Gal 2:16,17
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ... but if, while we seek to be justified by Christ
(The basis: not by the righteousness of obeying the laws, but by the righteousness of Christ's faithful obedience to the law. Justification requires righteousness; this righteousness is either by a man's own obedience to the law or by Christ's obedience to the law, i.e. Christ's faithfulness.)

Rom 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.
(The basis: of faith, that is, the faith of Jesus Christ; when it is by the faith of Christ, only then it is by grace. Christ's faithfulness alone in securing the righteousness necessary for justification and that righteousness legally imputed and personally applied freely by God's grace ALONE guarantees that the promise might be sure to ALL the seed.

Jas 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(NOT by faith only; sola fideists are slapped right in the face. BOTH works of righteousness and faith in Jesus Christ justify evidentially; both manifest and demonstrate the justified state by the free grace of God based on the faith of Jesus Christ.)

How did the popular lie of "faith alone" ever get foisted upon the church?
How did it ever happen?

2Co 11:14

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

What do you see?



What do you see?
The Calvinists, from the rightist view, see a perfect square in the blue sky; their cousins Arminians, from the leftist view, a bright halo of a total eclipse!
Whether grace is viewed from the right ditch or the left ditch beside the gospel path, it is distorted ditchy grace; grace is rightly viewed only from the middle of the narrow gospel road alone that runs between those two broad ditches.
Others, viewing from the centre, who rightly divide the word of truth, see a regular cylinder whose length equals its diameter.

Even Pastor Timothy needed this apostolic injunction:
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

May our gracious Lord grant His children understanding, that they may stop OPPOSING THEMSELVES, give up their cherished sacred cows, and acknowledge the truth of God's grace in Christ Jesus.
Have mercy, O Lord. Amen.

2Ti 2:25
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


Monday, October 9, 2017

The Accusers and the Accused are Bedfellows - how weird!

The e-flyer 

The ACCUSER (a RB) 
and the accused (PRC and associates)
are bed-fellows!

The sound of "grace" may be ubiquitous
but grace itself remains a mystery!

Weird when elders denounce the doctrine of their own denomination 

and make bedfellows with their accusers. 
Whatever has happened?  
=======

Brother CS of the Sungai Dua Church received the above invitation and told me about it; I requested him to forward the e-flyer to me. This is an unusual flyer in several ways, which explains why I am giving it some attention.

1. I am personally acquainted with the three men mentioned in the flyer.
- Both Paul and Leow, together with Brother CS and I, were among the 9 founding members of a reformed baptist church (SDC) constituted on 1 May 1993. Leow left the church a few years later, followed by Paul and family a few years later. They were nice people. Later, they were among the founding members of the Covenant Grace Church, under the auspices of the Evangelical Reformed Churches (Singapore), which are affiliated with the Protestant Reformed Churches (USA).
- Peter was once a pastor of a Community Church in Johor Bahru; later he became associated with the Reformed Baptist churches in Malaysia. That's when I became acquainted with him. Then he left JB church and began pastoring the Puchong Grace Church, a supposedly reformed baptist church. (I had preached in both churches.)

2. Later, in a doctrinal controversy during 2003-4, Peter, together with a group of RB churches, demonstrated themselves, theologically, to be no significantly different from typical Arminianism in their doctrine of salvation, despite claiming to be reformed and wearing the RB label.
- One particular doctrine of salvation debated was the relationship between the preaching of the gospel and the divine work of regeneration. They insisted on the necessity of the gospel preaching in the divine work of regeneration.
- As a result, they denounced the pastor of SDC for heretical doctrine.

3. Apparently, the people from the Covenant Grace Church also consider the doctrine "regeneration-is-independent-of-gospel-preaching" as heresy; they whispered it into the ears of Brother CS a few years ago, murmuring and insinuating that SDC is hypercalvinistic.
- Now, this is very odd. The founder and great theologian of the PRC, Dr Herman Hoeksema, in his magnum opus Reformed Dogmatics, stated and demonstrated that regeneration, in its strict sense, is indeed independent of gospel preaching or any other such thing. It is directly and immediately by the divine activity of God alone, not mediately through the preaching of the gospel.
- Let me refer you to the chapter from Herman Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics on Regeneration - https://www.prca.org/articles/regeneration.html
If you are too busy, just read the last three paragraphs.
- I'm not sure if the present day PRCs have moved from the position espoused by their founder. Years ago, it was common for the PRCs to be denounced as hyper by other so-called reformed people. Have they compromised in order to be more popular? I don't know. Judging from what is gloing around here, it is not a good sign.

Think for a moment:
- If the regeneration of an elect, dead in trespasses and sins, is conditioned upon the preaching of the gospel, then it is necessarily conditioned upon that elect to hear and believe on the same.
- Now work out slowly the necessary implications of this fable which REPUDIATE grace alone in salvation.

What strange bedfellows the soundbyte of grace can make!

Disclaimer: this is purely dealing with doctrinal matters, with no interest in personalities. So, if our friends do happen to read this, don't take any offence because none is intended.

==========================

From: Sing Lau
Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Herman Hoeksema, PRC and Immediate Regeneration
To: Brother CS
Cc: Sungai Dua Church


Dear Brother,

I refer to the chapter from Herman Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics on Regeneration. Here is the link: https://www.prca.org/articles/regeneration.html


The 3rd and 2nd last paragraphs of the chapter are pasted here, with my comment in yellow.

[Third last paragraph]
"From all this, it is evident that regeneration is exclusively a work of God, wherein man is strictly passive in the sense that he does not and cannot cooperate in his own rebirth. In that deepest sense regeneration is not even as such a matter of his own experience, seeing that it does not take place within, but below the threshold of his consciousness. It is therefore independent of age and can take place in the smallest infants. We may even take for granted that in the sphere of the covenant of God He usually regenerates His elect children from infancy."

[sing: since regeneration is exclusively a work of God, preaching is excluded. Folks fall in error because they can't distinguish regeneration from conversion.

Since a man does not and cannot cooperate, it means the redundancy and irrelevance of the preaching in regeneration. Preaching is much needed in conversion, and preaching requires the cooperation of the hearers, this is something ONLY a regenerated man is CAPABLE OF, as well as MUST do. A child of God must cooperate to hear the truth, understand the truth, and believe the truth, with which there is no conversion.

Regeneration is independent of age, or mental capacity to understand, thus declaring the redundancy and irrelevance of the instrumentality of preaching in regeneration.]

[second last paragraph] 
The question now is: what is the relation between the calling and regeneration? In a certain sense it may be said indeed that even this regeneration, in the narrowest sense of the word, conceived as the implanting of the new life, is the fruit of the calling of God. But then it is necessary that we carefully define this calling. There is, of course, an immediate calling of God, which precedes all the being of the creature, and through which the creature comes into existence. Thus it is in creation. When God says, "Let there be light," the light comes into existence through that efficacious and almighty calling. He calls the things that are not as if they were.34 And thus it is also in recreation, or in the work of salvation and of regeneration. And when reference is made to this almighty calling of God in the work of regeneration, we have no objection to say that the calling precedes regeneration. However, usually, the reference is to another calling, to the calling through the preaching of the Word. And when one refers to this calling of the preaching, which is usually distinguished as inward and outward calling, it cannot be applied to regeneration in the narrowest sense of the word. And therefore, when we speak of regeneration in this sense, as the work of God through which the very first principle of life is wrought in the heart of the sinner through the Spirit of Christ, it precedes every work of salvation, also that of the calling."
=======

"There is, of course, an immediate calling of God, which precedes all the being of the creature, and through which the creature comes into existence."

Before regeneration, there is NO EXISTENCE of the new man. Preaching, a spiritual activity is intended for those possessing spiritual existence, i.e. those already regenerated, to bring them to the truth of their salvation.

"… it precedes every work of salvation, also that of the calling."

It (i.e. regeneration) precedes every work of temporal salvation, ALSO THAT of the calling - (GOSPEL CALLING). God’s activities have to do with our eternal salvation; man’s activities of preaching has to do with our temporal salvation; God’s activities deal our BEINGS as His children, preachers’ activities deal with the WELLBEING; God’s activities bring His children into BEING, preachers’ activities maintain the WELLBEING of God’s children

That's the neighing from the horse's mouth.

Paul Tan and Leow Sian Beng ought to know better and move beyond reformed shibboleth. May our blessed Lord have mercy on them, Amen.

Just a few thoughts.
sing

 =============

From: Sing Lau
Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:28 AM
Subject: Fwd: PRC and regeneration
To: Jonathan

Dear Brother Jonathan,
What is the PRC (protestant reformed churches - the Herman Hoeksema group) belief on regeneration - immediate or gospel means?
We are called heretic for holding to the former, by folks associated with the PRCs.

Any help would be much appreciated. Some unpleasant things brewing in Penang.

THANKS.
sing
=========

From: Jonathan 
Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: PRC and regeneration
To: Sing Lau

Dear brother Sing,
My first response would be that the PRC holds immediate/monergistic regeneration, and they hold it strongly and explain it well.

I have in my library, Herman Hoeksema’s systematic theology, Reformed Dogmatics.

It clearly states regeneration, conversion, and faith as we believe them in his chapters about regeneration, calling, and saving faith.

Are you familiar with this book and its author:


Search for monergism and monergistic and immediate in this document:


Search for regeneration in this book:


My response here is that any PRC person stating that immediate/monergistic regeneration is heresy is ignorant of their own denomination.

Jonathan

p/s 
The PRC also holds eternal justification.
Use this link to search their theological journal with the search box at the top:

Friday, October 6, 2017

Bad news paraded as good news

... giving the hope of salvation

Bad news paraded as good news and spreads like fire - nearly 200 shares.
Saw this, and left a comment, then was censored.
===============

Sing F Lau
"... giving the hope of salvation who would turn from their sin and believe on him."
This is NO gospel at all! It is another gospel! What use the is the hope of salvation to those spiritually dead in trespasses and sins? What use is a truckload of McD, iced coke and french fries to dead men?
How could men spiritually dead in trespasses and sins turn from their sin and believe on Jesus Christ?
Christ Himself said, "EXCEPT a man be born again, he CANNOT see..." - cannot perceive spiritual truth... cannot believe... for spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
No, Jesus did NOT give the hope of salvation; Jesus secured the eternal salvation for His people, those given to Him by the Father, and freely applies that salvation to each one of them personally by His Spirit, quickens them from their native state of spiritual death to eternal life.
Having quickened them and bestowed eternal salvation to them, He calls them to believe the truth of their salvation by God's free grace, i.e. salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ freely applied to them when they were dead in trespasses and sins.
The gospel preaching calls God's children - those whom God has regenerated and in whom the indwelling Spirit of God works faith, thus enabling them to believe - to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.
To such alone, the gospel is the message of God's power in saving them.

Cath Holland
'Whosoever calls on the name of The Lord shall be saved,'

Sing F Lau
Who can call on the name of the Lord - those still dead in trespasses and sins or those already born of God?
How does calling on the name of the Lord save a man? Is it the same way the Lord saves?

John Bessie
That's Called Calvinism And Its Heresy/False Doctrine/False "Gospel".

Sing F Lau
Christ, and not Calvin (who is he?) said this:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3
Christ, and not Calvin, said this:
"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand....My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." John 10:28-29.
Jesus said He gives to the dead eternal life; this is the gospel, GOOD NEWS. He did not offer the dead life nor the hope of life; the best and greatest offer of the hope of salvation or salvation to spiritually dead sinners is, at best, no good news, at worst, a mockery and insult to the dead.
It is a SHAME you resort to name calling!
It was Calvin who said God offers salvation. Take a look here.
=========

The last comment was marked as SPAM by the Administrator!
Is "Answers in Genesis" Arminian? Just asking.

Bad news paraded as good news! Worse, it spread like fire.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Mathematicians and Theologians in Interpretation

BODMAS, when Misapplied, Makes BadMess

A case of a village lad against the Mathematicians, even as a bible student against the Theologians.



What's the answer? Thanks.
I picked 1, but the Mathematicians insist 9. 
Here is the link: https://youtu.be/URcUvFIUIhQ

Let us phrase the question in this simple manner:
Six dollars are divided by two families of three people each, how much does each one get?
(Is this accurately illustrating the question?)
That is, 6 is divided by 2 times of the sum in the parenthesis.

I'm interested in this chiefly because it is so closely related to interpretation, that of rightly dividing the word of truth!

Sing
Let us phrase the question in this simple manner:
Six dollars are divided by two families of three people each, how much does each get?
I really don't mind getting $9! In which case, the other 5 owe me $3 (since there was only $6 to begin with),  if equally borne, each owes me 60 cents. ;-)
I would love WEALTH CREATION through this ingenious algebraic rule, MISAPPLIED!
Just thinking!

Bonnie
Do you have to do the division first because of the rules of algebra?
If so then the answer is 9

Sing
Then 6/2 and (1+2) become unrelated, therefore meaningless and unrelated algebraically.
It is 6÷2(1+2) = 6÷6 = 1
Six is DIVIDED BY 2(1+2)
Six is DIVIDED BY 6 = 1
The answer is 1, but I don't mind getting $9 instead of $1. ;-)

I would love to be paid $9 instead of $1!  ;-)

Bonnie
Parenthesis first 1+2 =3, 6÷2 is 3. Then 3(3) do the multiplication that equals 9. I thought you had to do division and multiplication from left to right. Haha I need to learn more apparently
My calculator also gave me 9. You have to follow the order of operations

Sing
Parenthesis first, so (1 + 2) = (3)
What nearest to that (3)?
It is 2, therefore 2(3) = 6.
6 is divided by 2 times of what is in the parenthesis.
Therefore 6 is divided by 6.

Bonnie
Pemdas is the correct order of things, however, multiplication and division have the same importance, and should still be done left to right.
Please watch the video link I posted on this. He explains it better than I can.

What is 6÷2(1+2) = ? The Correct Answer Explained - YouTube
What is 6÷2(1+2) = ? This problem went viral and…

Sing
Thanks. I'm slow and non-progressive! Still an old schoolboy - historical school ;-).
To get 9, it must be written like this (6÷2)(1+2) = 9
(Casio fx-570MS)


Peter
It becomes clearer when written formulaically as 6(1+2) in numerator line and 2 in denominator line. Then it has to be 9. Excel agrees.

Sing
6 is divided by 2 times of 1+2 or
6 is divided by 2 and then multiplied by 3?

Written formulaically it is 6 in the numerator and 2(1+2) in the denominator.
It is 6 is divided by 2 times of (1+2)! Like this:


Joe
The correct answer is 1 when you write out the mathematical expression.

Sun
Remember the aged old rule of thumb taught in primary school decades ago?
BODMAS
6/2*(1+2) = 3*(1+2) = 3*3 = 9
Arithmetic rule. Work down according to the spelt letters. First apply B or bracket;
Then O or of
Then D for division (÷)
Then M or multiplication (x)
Then A for addition (+)
Finally S for subtraction (-)
Note: a(b) also means a x b
6/2 = 3
(1+2) = 3
Thence 6/2 x 3 = 3 x 3 = 9 Q.E.D!

O'gwen
1

Jean
9

Sing
We know 2(1+2) = (1+2)2 = 6
Please tell, is 6÷2(1+2) the same as 6÷(1+2)2?
Thanks.

Sun
Different Sir! The second equation is 4. The first equation equals 9. 
Nevertheless, life still moves on, God willing.

Sing
Let 2(1+2) = (1+2)2 = a.
How can one 6/a = 9 and another 6/a = 4. Now, I'm more confused.
Never mind, I take the $9 and buy some €.
Thanks for the fun!

Joe
We are taught to evaluate anything within or connected with parenthesis first.

Sing
That was the way I was taught too.
So to yank 2, an integral part of the parenthesis, away from (1+2) and have 6 divided by 2 is improper.
It is 6 divided by the whole component of 2(1+2).
It is 6 divided by 2 times the sum of the parenthesis.

It reminds me of the old school theology and the new school theology!
Ordinarily, I don't mind having $9 over $1.

Sing
What is (2+1)2 divided by 6 then, i.e. (2+1)2÷6?

Sun
Let your 6 divides by 2 first. Then multiply the total 2+1 in the bracket. You will have 3 x 3 = 9

Sing
That's "gostang"!! (i.e. reverse, right to left!)

Sun
bodmas - Google Search
GOOGLE.COM.PH
Unless my primary teacher bluffed me then, that was what I was taught. On second thought I might already be a mathematician if I had not been taught wrongly. Too late sigh.....

Adam
Isn’t the rule to solve from left to right?

Sing
That’s the rule. It seems that's not the problem here.
The issue is whether 2(1+2) is to be understood as an entity by which 6 is divided. Or 2(1+2) can be broken down into parts and only a part of it is used in an algebraic operation?

Adam
6 must be divided by 2 before you come to the parenthesis

Sing
That's how it is understood.
But I believe it is wrong. 2 is an integral part of the parenthesis component.
6 is divided by 2 times of what constitutes the parenthesis.

Let me try to demonstrate.

Let 6 = x, and 2(1+2) = y
Then we have x divided by y = 9.
Let's now divide y by x. Logically the answer is 1/9.

2(1+2) divided by 6 = ???
The answer is not 1/9 but 1.
This indicates that 6÷2(1+2) = 1.
The reverse, that 2(1+2)÷6 = 1 also.

It is suggested that 2(1+2) ought to be written as (1+2)2, and then 6 must be divided by 2 first (just ignore the Bodmas left-to-right rule); that will give us 3.
That is, 
(1+2)2÷6 = (3)3 = 9; it is not 1/9

Applying BODMAS correctly, we have,
(1+2)2
÷6 = (3)2÷6 = (3 x 2)÷6 = 6÷6 = 1
This shows that if a÷b = 1, then b÷a = 1 too. 

$9 is definitely better than $1 at the current dismay exchange rate for ringgit.
Today €1 = RM5.068.  It was RM4.71 in May.   :-(

Sing
I dug out my OLD scientific calculator - a Casio fx-350MS (the previous one is fx-570MS)
It says 6÷ 2(1+2) = 1
I just thought it is SO OBVIOUS - 6 is divided by 2 times of (1+2).
Maybe it is an OLD SCHOOL calculator used by an old school boy!
If it shows 9, I probably will throw out that calculator! ;-)
Sing
Let’s consider these…
1(1+5) = 2(1+2) = 3(1+1) = 4(1+0.5) = 5(1+0.2) = 6(1+0) = 6

But applying the BODMAS rule the wrong way, we get these results even though 6 is divided by the exact same value.

6 ÷ 1(1+5) = 36
6 ÷ 2(1+2) = 9
6 ÷ 3(1+1) = 4
6 ÷ 4(1+0.5) = 2.25
6 ÷ 5(1+0.2) = 1.44
6 ÷ 6(1+0) = 1

Now I appreciate why the same Scriptures is divided in so many diverse ways!

Sing
Let's make it VERY SIMPLE...
I will settle for $1 and have the truth, instead of $9 and sacrifice it!