From attending an intensive course, we discussed Dooyeweerd's philosophy from his book Roots of Western Culture.

BACKGROUND: SPHERE SOVEREIGNTY

First, we discussed Dooyeweerd's predecessor, that is, Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper studied in the University of Leiden and there he met the Liberal Christians. He himself became a liberal, however, in his ministry, he went to a very conservative group of Christians. In there, he turned away from his liberal Christianity and formulated the third way option to determine Christianity's position in a pluralist context. However, it did take him more than 10 years to develop this. This is today known as the sphere sovereignty.

Practical Impacts of Sphere Sovereignty

Sphere sovereignty is useful in quite a number of ways. First of all, it determines the place of the State. In the lecture, we were shown the picture of a civil society, in which the State has full authority of the individuals. Today, there is also a movement against this sort of structure and went instead for communitarianism. Sphere sovereignty theory is not this intermediary structure, as a buffer between the State and the individuals. Instead, it places the State amongst all the rest of the societies in equal, that is, for instance, the Church, the school, the trade union, the labor union, family, etc.

It's not surprising that the Dutch queen in Kuyper's time really didn't like this because of how much her power became limited. This then establishes that each sphere (the State, the church, etc.) has its own sovereignty, has its own norms in which other spheres cannot and should not interfere. However, the State is indeed the first amongst all spheres because it is the res publica (the guardian of the public, the polis, the people). The practical outcome is such that the Church may refuse to place national flags in the church, sing national anthems, nobody rises for the queen in the church setting, and the queen has to ask for forgiveness for her sin in order to partake in the Communion again. Also, this means that the State has no right to settle cases judicially in the Church unless the Church has failed to settle the case. However, the State is indeed the sphere that has the right to interfere with the carrying out of the functions that each sphere fails to do because it is the guardian of all people.

Alternatives to Sphere Sovereignty: Pluralism

This is to be distinguished from what my professor called full pluralism and weak pluralism. The full pluralist society stance is usually taken by the Liberal Christians who assume that each worldview is true or has its own truth. This was seen in the position of William James. Kuyper would definitely be against this as he saw that a Christian worldview is ultimately incompatible (antithetical) to any other worldviews. The only way for Christianity to be fully consistent was to be in a worldview of its own.

The next pluralism is the weak pluralism and my professor related this with the Obama administration. Here, we also assume that there are many truths and everybody is allowed to believe everything they want to privately, but their private convictions can be expressed in the public square only after they have been translated into something that can be universally accepted. Therefore, a relevant question here would be what would become of this private conviction if the only expression in the public realm can be expressed in universal terms, would the private conviction remain the same? This is evident in the fact that the Bush administration encouraged faith-based initiatives, but Obama shut these down.

Reactions to Traditional Pluralist Structure

Either of these approaches will result in two reactions: 1. Non-acceptance (such as the one shown by Rick Santorium) and 2. withdrawal from the public sphere (exemplified in traditional conservative Christians; keyword: politicophobia). Whereas in a State that uses the sphere sovereignty concept will allow someone with a particular worldview to present his/her worldview all-out, but it must be able to demonstrate the worldview to be consistent.

Additional Comments

It is interesting to see that the basic difference is the nation that uses the sphere sovereignty concept is able to honor the most rational and common-sensical notion that there is only one truth (one that is held by even the Greeks from the classical period, such as Aristotle, evident in his law of non-contradiction). Whereas any other models fail to honor this basic presupposition that everybody should and does practically hold. The nation that uses sphere sovereignty is the nation that allows anything to stand for as long as it's true, regardless of personal conviction. The flipside is a nation that allows anything to stand for as long as it is within the agreeable terms of the public square, whilst supposedly saying that there are many truths. In fact, however, the only truth that is accepted is the truth within the law of the public square. It honors neither full convictions nor any truths to the fullest extent, except the "truth" of the public square.

As a side note, can anyone see that it seems that Kuyper was influenced by the French revolution ideal that everyone should be allowed to express themselves freely? However, Kuyper was completely against the spirit of the revolution that was highly anti-Christian.

This sphere sovereignty idea is indeed rather revolutionary, and it was amazing that Kuyper managed to turn this into reality, although not necessarily in its fullest fruition yet. I am hoping that more pluralist nations will adopt this idea.

WELTANSCHAUUNG

From sphere sovereignty, we also talked about worldview (Weltanschauung). Supposedly, worldview has four characteristics: direction, assent, integration and public recognition. This term worldview originated from Immanuel Kant, but Kuyper took it and positioned it in the Christian context. Direction determines whether this worldview is a Christian one, an atheistic one, etc. Assent is the conviction part or the amen. Integration then assumes that a worldview seeks integration. The public recognition aspect is the recognition that there are other competing worldviews around. This allowed Kuyper to have a public arena for all worldviews to contest their truth. It was noted that Kuyper was highly impressed with Darwin who managed to biotically make a great system, even though he didn't subscribe with the evolutionism.

Interestingly, Weltanschauung is distinguished from Weltbild (world picture). Both of these terms are used in the German language, but only the Weltanschauung term made it into the English language. The difference between Weltanschauung and Weltbild is that Weltbild does not require any personal conviction whatsoever. This was the situation of the people in the 18th century who merely saw the world as the world of order, but that is something that is accepted without any conviction whatsoever. This was also because the term Weltanschauung had not become familiar yet.

For instance, we may understand that we are part of the solar system, that the Earth is one planet amongst many. This is a world picture (Weltbild). However, it's an interesting case when someone takes upon him what is usually considered Weltbild into a Weltanschauung. As such, someone may say, we are God's most dear creation because we are created in the image of God, but someone may rise and voice his opposition quite strongly by noting that the Earth is so insignificant in size within the whole of universe and thus we mustn't see ourselves as the best creation. In that case, what is usually just Weltbild, he took it personally and turned it into a Weltanschauung.

Moreover, the four characteristics of Weltanschauung made it so that Islam is not considered to have any worldview because it does not have the 4th characteristic of public recognition. My professor related to the fact that there have been some collaborative attempt to address the various worldviews that exist, but an Imam wasn't able to come up with any translation for the term. (However, my friend thought that this view was too reductionistic. He thought that there already were Muslim intellectuals who acknowledged other worldviews, but had not become mainstream. The professor simply defended his case from a specific project where the Imam failed to translate the world Weltanschauung into his own language).

FROM WELTANSCHAUUNG TO GROUNDMOTIEVEN

From here, we moved to Dooyeweerd's term that is known as groundmotive (Groundmotieven). For Dooyeweerd, the western history from the classical Greek antiquities all the way to the present day have a very deep religious groundmotive that is expressed in everything, and that everything except the Christian groundmotive results in a dualist tension. The non-Christian groundmotives are Matter-Form (MFGM), Nature-Grace (NGGM) and Nature-Freedom (NFGM). These groundmotives are the religious expression of humanity, which, since it is idolatrous, necessarily results in tension. The only right direction is the direction towards God.

For instance, in the Greek antiquity, this tension was exemplified in the philosophic tension between Plato and Aristotle. Plato insisted that there is the world of the Forms, the world that is eternal, pure and perfect. Plato held that Matter is fleeting, impure and imperfect. Similarly, there was a tension that resulted from the Gnostics who held that spirit is good and matter is evil.

After this, history moved towards the Middle Ages, where Nature was in tension with Grace. Nature here referred to the created world, everything that was considered 'secular'. There was a sharp distinction between the farmers and the clergy. There was the tension between studying and playing, working and worshipping, worldly and heavenly, the State and the Church.

Next is the tension between Nature and Freedom that continued even today. Nature here represents ideas such as determinism, which is in tension with teleology. Science vs art. Obedience vs human freedom. Totalitarianism vs liberalism.

However, what first came to mind was the fact that this tension wasn't always true. In the French revolution, it was quite obvious that the spirit of enlightenment and the spirit of liberalism went hand-in-hand, rather than in tension with each other.

Before bashing up the notion of groundmotive too much, it was supposedly able to survive scholarly criticism likely because it made the overview of the western history very simple and easy to understand. However, it must be emphasized that this view is obviously too simplistic.

Christian Groundmotive: Creation-Fall-Redemption

The Christian groundmotive is the famous Creation-Fall-Redemption model that sees the world as God's creation, but humans fell into sin and God is working historically to redeem His chosen people. This groundmotive allows us to realize that evil comes from sin, instead of from nature or from mankind or from any parts of the creation. In other words, this groundmotive allows us to realize that no creation has ever the need to repent from being a creation. The only repentance that is necessary is to repent directionally, that is we must regain the harmonious relationship with the Creator God rather in a rebellion against Him.

INFLUENCE OF WOLTERS: Creation Regained

Also important in the first day of the lecture was the mentioning of Albert Wolters who wrote the book Creation Regained. It was very influential for Dooyeweerd because we were to see this world progressing forward rather than to go back and to undo history. The illustration was that of a sick child who was cured of his illness. The child's state of health did not return to before the medicine was administered, but was to move forward. This was pivotal in our understanding that we as Christians do not simply wish to return to the garden, but towards the New Jerusalem.

Relationship Between Worldview and Philosophy

Also, we learned that there are 5 relationships between philosophy and worldview.

1. Worldview repels philosophy
2. Worldview crowns philosophy
3. Worldview flanks philosophy
4. Worldview yields philosophy
5. Worldview equals philosophy

The first view was held by people like Kierkergaard and Jaspers. This was also held by Van Der Waals.
The second view was held by Windelband and Wundt.
The third view was held by Wolters, Dooyeweerd, Rickert and Husserl.
The fourth view was held by Kuyper, Mannheim and Dilthey.
The fifth view was held by Karl Marx and Engels.

MODAL ASPECTS

After this, the professor explained to us the most famous philosophical contribution of Dooyeweerd, that is, the modal aspects. Dooyeweerd took Kuyper's sphere sovereignty theory and came up with 15 modal spheres, each irreducible because each has its own sovereignty. These modal aspects are:

Pistic
Judicial
Ethical
Aesthetic
Economic
Social
Lingual
Formative/Historical/Cultural
Analytical
Sensitive/Psychic
Biotic/Organic
Physical
Kinematic
Numeric
Spatial

The modal aspects are very easy to grasp and are very useful, when properly considered, in the clarity of everyday expression. Dooyeweerd said that these 15 aspects cannot be reduced anymore. It is impossible to describe one aspect purely using a different aspect. At the end of the day, it is impossible to describe the spatial property of x in terms of the numeric.

AGAINST REDUCTIONISM
CASE: Historicism

To elaborate further, this is seen as the 15 modes of life, we experience life in the temporal world with these 15 diversified aspects. It is extremely helpful in realizing that none of these aspects therefore should claim an absolutization. It is usually the case that what he called historicists are people who absolutize only the historical aspect. However, this would be absurd. For instance, United States came to be today because of what they did to the native Indians there. That is the historical aspect. However, that would make the legitimacy (judicial aspect) of the United States questionable. Is it right (ethical) that a Nation is legitimately (judicial) founded (historical) through such a force? Historicists would say yes because it is simply the genesis of the Nation.

It was very useful when the professor wrote the necessary distinction between Genesis and Geltung (validity). It was also very important to note that the Liberal Christians pushed this too far in such a way that they said the Geltung of the Bible is not dependent at all on the Genesis. That would in fact do the reverse of absolutization of the historical aspect. However, Dooyeweerd's system demonstrates that all these aspects are present.

CASE: Naive Experience (Influence of Phenomology)

Another example of absolutization mentioned was in regards to the knowledge concentrated in abstraction. I'm talking about the sciences. There used to be a time where people held philosophy to be the real truth. Then, science was taken as what is true. If that is true, however, then people who didn't know science wouldn't be able to grasp anything. In this regard, Dooyeweerd was influenced by the phenomologists to defend the naive experience as also holding truth. That is to say, it's not necessary that we see a flower in its complex chemical components to be considered the truth. This was quite important to Dooyeweerd.

There are arguments against this because in the world today, it seems that we are endowed with so much scientific knowledge that even in the everyday experience, we also to a certain extent see truth with a degree of abstraction.

QUALIFIED ASPECTS

There were also discussions in terms of if we say history, are we talking about everything that has a historical aspect? No, because mundane activities shouldn't be considered history because it's not 'historically qualified' not because it has no historical aspect. One person brushing his teeth shouldn't be seen as history, but rather an event such as when Napoleon codified the laws and spread this codification in the continental Europe.

IDEA OF DEVELOPMENT

Then we looked up my professor's essay of Dooyeweerd's Idea of Development. First of all, what Dooyeweerd wanted to do was also to combine the topology of Order & History. The name Voegelin also came up as someone who wrote Order & History.

Interestingly, as previously mentioned, the 18th century was topologically geared towards order, and the 19th century began to see the world in terms of history. Therefore, Dooyeweerd wanted to explain his view with these two topologies.

First of all, he explained that the universe was created by God (creation order). However, mankind fell into sin and then historically, we are moving towards consummation through God's redemptive acts.

He was very much a product of his own time because of the way he saw everything in terms of progress, very much influenced by Hegel, and also very much influenced by the evolutionists in his social theory to describe the primitive societies in terms of from the undifferentiated to differentiated (from simple to complex).

Norms

Dooyeweerd argued using norms to refute the cultural evolutionists' claim.

The points are that norms are not 1. a construct, 2. iron laws and 3. ideals.

My professor admitted that this was a difficult point to convince to the skeptics because he appealed to intuition (as many philosophers do anyway). He couldn't demonstrate that norms is not a construct, but this was presupposed as he presupposed that God created the universe. Therefore, God is the one that gives norms to man. This point is also related to the Order topology.

The faith aspect of man was pivotal in demonstrating that history (Historical topology) began with culture, rather than as a result of evolution. He argued that there is never once any evidence of a pre-religious society (a reaction against those who claimed that religion came from magic). Therefore, we began as full men with the full capacity of even the faith aspect, rather than as one who matured and eventually had the faith aspect. There was then the norms for humans to worship something, but this was the norms set by God not by humans themselves. However, it's also true that we humans set norms, but that is always in light of the fact that we are partaking in God's creative process in history.

Dooyeweerd also stated that the normative aspects required human initiative and human interactions. This is a strong point because of the evidence of marriage, which wouldn't be possible unless these humans were fully human.

In this first part that norms isn't a construct, Dooyeweerd attacked Levy-Brühl who theorized that there was such a time when men were pre-logical.

How then did Dooyeweerd describe the primitive societies? In this regard, he was close to Levi Strauss who assumed that men were cerebral but were of a savage mind. Dooyeweerd said that these humans had the capacity of transcendental freedom, but lacked the awareness that they had. The natural religion was described as the all-time lowest point of devolution by Dooyeweerd. This then assumes that we began rightly, but fell due to sin. However, Dooyeweerd said that without having in mind men having reduced faculties of thought without any opening-up potentials and capabilities. In this manner, Dooyeweerd was similar to Habermas. However, he went further to say that structurally, the primitive communities had the potential to open up. In the most primitive stage, it was considered undifferentiated, so that all the different societies today like the State, the Church, the school, the labor union, etc. were still combined all in one. He also then went on to say that this was the reason why the communities that do not open up will eventually disappear as they are no longer considered worthy in the historical formation of mankind. At this point, Dooyeweerd seemed to be very close with the cultural evolutionists.

Secondly, norms shouldn't be seen as iron laws. This concept of norms as iron laws is very common in different societies. The personification of justice in the west is often described as cold and blind, sweeping anyone in its path. In the Chinese culture, it's described as the 'Net of Heaven'.

Similarly, Malthus thought that this world had to prevent the growth of humanity in order to prevent the scarcity of resources. Humanity is seen as cancerous and the availability of resources is seen to inevitably disappear if the cancer is not removed. It seems to say that humanity is better off extinct.

Then, there are the theorists such as Tönnies and Maine who propose that communities will eventually dissolve and disappear into pure societies due to individualization. However, Dooyeweerd argued that communities by its nature is lifelong in membership, thus it is impossible that communities will ever disappear completely, despite the fact that we see more and more people interacting in societies than in communities (People interact in school and church more than they do interact with their neighbors). It was here also that we were taught that Tönnies' terms were in German that is Gemeinschaft (Communities) and Gesellschaft (Societies).

These are not iron laws. We are humans who can set norms, but also must remember that the norms are set by God, so that we cannot just ignore the order and set the norms whichever way we like. In New York Times journal, it shows that psychologically people who co-habit have a direct relationship to the disintegration of marriage. This is because those people who co-habit lack the rite of passage into a completely different phase of life and that they lack the commitment necessary to sustain the relationship due to the breaking away of such barriers. The people who marry after co-habitation usually marry after the relationship is "tested" to be smooth, and so when they marry and something wrong starts to come up, the marriage is soon abandoned.

Thirdly, Ton Lemaire theorized that norms should be seen as ideals. If that is true, however, then we will only place these norms in an ideal world. However, the ideal is also always outside of history. That is because no point in history can ever be seen as not coming short of these ideals. Then, these norms can only finally land in a fictitious post-historic world.

However, it was an important to be stressed that unlike constructivists, we claim that the possibility for humans to see flower beautifully is already inherent in the flower itself. Even though it is humans who say that the flower is beautiful, nevertheless the flower has inherent properties that make it beautiful.

Also we discussed on how Dooyeweerd proposed that we see history diachronically as well as synchronically. Diachronic means we see something over a course of time. For instance, the growth of person x in various years. Synchronic means that we see something in its relations with other things at only a particular time. For instance, when we see how different nations relate politically to other nations in one year.

Then, there was a mention of the terms 'Autogenetic' and 'Phylogenetic'. These are terms that are borrowed from the evolutionists. In evolutionist terms, autogenetic refers the growth of that particular animal. However, phylogenetic refers to the growth of species. In Dooyeweerd's term, autogenetic refers to the growth of the physical and phylogenetic refers to the development of the cultural. Therefore, a man growing from baby to adulthood is autogenetic. However, growth from drawing paintings in caves all the way to oil painting is seen as phylogenetic.

FAITH-RELIGION DISTINCTIONS

Another important discussion was the fact that the word religion is related to the heart and a person's direction, described by Dooyeweerd as being in the supratemporal realm. That is differentiated from faith, which is merely one of the modal aspects. Religion was related to the heart, which is then related to the orientation/direction of an individual, whether it's worshipping towards or against God. This is different from faith-acts. Very easily illustrated is the difference between regenerate and unregenerate Christians who attend a worship service. Both are doing faith-acts, but their directions are completely different.

The last discussions were mostly on how Dooyeweerd tried to synthesize his theories with historical figures such as Augustine, Rousseau, Locke, etc.

CONCLUSIONS

If I learned anything, it would be these points:

Cultural evolutionists presuppose:
Pre-logic humanity
Nature to nature (naturalism)
Culture is the product of evolution
Closed process (determinism)

Dooyeweerd's points:
Began as fully human (no pre-religious societies, complete with faith aspect, only lacking in awareness)
Creation order
History starts with culture
Opening-up potentials

The similarity of Dooyeweerd with these evolutionists:
History is seen as progress
History began from simple to complex (undifferentiated to differentiated)

We should avoid reductionism, to see the world from just a single aspect and absolutizing it.

We should not be discouraged with the evolutionists' sometimes seemingly strong claims.

Faith and religion are distinct. We ought to redirect everything because that is the problem of evil caused by sin, but not necessarily dismiss everything that is accepted by non-believers (a denial of common grace). This means that just because quantum physics is originated from a non-Christian thinker or that it is embraced by non-Christians, it is not necessary for Christians to dismiss it simply because it is accepted in a non-Christian worldview.

Dooyeweerd said that structurally, we ought to embrace the creation, because the creation is God's work and that it is good, but the problem is our direction.

We must take note that Dooyeweerd was trying to develop philosophy and in philosophy, there is a universal intent. As such, he didn't wish to present his philosophy as merely Calvinistic or Reformed or Christian. He tried to present his worldview in the philosophical system. Nevertheless, he was thoroughly a Calvinist and had a Calvinist worldview.

I am not convinced with the groundmotive yet, and it is very similar with the term Zeitgeist. Both of the terms have similar problems.

I am not sure I agree that there is nothing wrong with the structure because I think the effect of sin is pervasive in everything. In fact, the reason why we work on structures is because the structures themselves require progress, improvement or redemption. As far as humans are concerned, I agree that the PRIMARY concern is directional. However, when Dooyeweerd described the primitive societies as having the lower modal aspects so strong that they block up the normative aspects, I think this in fact demonstrates how sin affects our structures. Not necessarily destroying some capacities of aspects altogether, such as that humans lost the ability to behave ethically or had no longer any sense of what is right or wrong, but surely sin affected our structures too in such a way that the lower modalities in the primitive societies were too strong. In any case, I think this is a valid point of further discussions.

Also, whilst the modal aspects help us clarify what questions we can ask, it does not help us in determining which question we should ask. As in, this was a difficulty that Dooyeweerd faced with the subject of sociology because he couldn't say that it was qualified from just one aspect (social? historical? biotic?). It was concluded that it was inter-aspectual. Anyhow, then, for instance, when we are faced with the crisis of nuclear warfare, we may see the problem from a lot of these aspects, but it is never made clear which aspect should take priority over the other aspects. Whilst anti-reductionism is good, we come to the next problem of weight.

I learned lots of stuffs about social theories because I had never explored this area even one bit. I've heard of Habermas, and perhaps that's about it.

Here I am again, standing between religion and impiety. Every single beat of strong emotion, usually despair, anxiety, sadness, desperation, wrath, dissatisfaction, distaste, boredom, depression, lethargy may bring about a strong sense of determination. The heart is burned, the eyes are teary, and the exhaustion is heavy.

Surely, now, I feel that there is nothing more welcomed than torrents of pleasure coming from good companies. Good companies that provide me with merriment, if every single community bears some kind of darkness that I grieve about. Surely, these people know that I am very well not adequate in many things, yet these people are very well content. Are they that adequately living? Do they not want more? How much more do they want? How little more do they want?

Is it a good sign that I thirst so badly for change? Is it healthy for a man to be so sick of his conditions?

Many years I have felt a constant loneliness. First, it was when I was impressed by a group of theologians, who revealed to me what truth is. There were series of chauvinistic competitions battling against philosophies of ages past, which seemd to claim to have an answer to everything. They do have answers to some things. They do give me stronger roots of faith, of Christianity, which is otherwise readily mocked and raped in the large part of Europe.

I am sure that tradition is as much an inhibition as a preserver of progress. If something had worked in the past, it might as well be preserved until it was readily changed. However, having been considered a highly regarded treasure, men are living in a certain morbid morality of self-righteousness.

Eventually, we all need to believe in something to be good, and being of a good character, as we may like to see ourselves as, live according to that which we believe is good and true. That is all good and well, individually. Yet, communally, it is utterly frustrating.

For then, we ought to praise someone's moral character, if out of something that they believe is good, even if we think that that person is unlikely to be right.

Who then in America or in Europe do praise the Muslim extremists who believe in their hearts that they are doing something good? Simply, out of instinct, we will first react at how wrong it is to harm others. An individual religious faith, backed by strong constitutions and community.

Or swerve to the other side and say that it is indeed wrong by arguing in terms of natural common human rights, or to laws, or whatever. Surely, at the end of the day, it is the matter of that it is inadequate for a religious belief to be repressed by a series of reasons, which, if profound, were only taken as authoritative because no one had been more profound. Which is, also, a good reason to take those reasons, because otherwise we will no longer listen to the best reasons we've had so far.

Yet, as the romantics have strongly argued, the heart which was full of sensations, knew certain things. If a Christian would lose a debate to an atheist, it wasn't easy for him to go and abandon Christianity for a mere intellectual exchanges. Perhaps, he wasn't ready to change for so many reasons. Perhaps, it was against his historical upbringing, culture, society, whatever. Similarly, it wasn't easy for an atheist to believe in Christianity either. Christians believe (and I still hold this dearly, mind you) that it is because the Holy Spirit will not work. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit rarely decides to work in such occassions, if ever. There seems to be a somewhat very Christian method to work the Holy Spirit in some ways. Are they still pondering upon tricks, such as displays of kindness? Ah, how small our minds are.

Some people at this point may go, what is his point? Where will all these lead to? They probably have never read letters of reflection, or they are strict followers of systematic writing, as if the heart should always be coherent and cohesive.

When I was younger, my obsession was directed at seeking after the truth.

Sometimes, the quest has been somewhat diminished by the madness of this world, or the meaning of the truth itself. What is it for me?

Well, for the large part, truth has given me life, a hope for an eternal salvation, but descriptive truths as they are, are nothing more than information upon which you may want to spit upon or throw in a pool of acid fire.

I was also obsessed with success, acknowledgement, fame, power, but never money, because I wasn't a master of it or neither was I well endowed. It seemed that I had wanted everything I thought I could aspire to achieve.

Sin is deep within us. We are all savages, creatures hungry of pleasure, vanity and hypocrisy as a constant side dish.

A large broken man I am that I have very few instances of reflections of love of nurturing others, of nourishing others, of helping others. It's as if I am never happy that others are getting better because of me, because I feel that I should be getting better, not them.

There is a large distress of social and cultural differences. I am a mixture of a rogue and education. I am a mixture of the west and the east. I desire for a friend, but have found many people wanting, especially those who first come up to me and say, "Have you been a good friend yourself?"

I tried to gather round with those whose world I had discovered a long time ago, and felt that sort of darkness that wasn't felt anywhere else.

However, there was forever distress elsewhere.

To those of us who are familiar of the usual Christian events in the calendar, such as Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, the Ascension and Pentecost, and if we are going to be honest, I think it's sometimes intimidating that we don't have some kind of surge as we sometimes have felt in our lives during these events.

We have listened to the Passion once, and how it was very moving, we have listened to the Resurrection, and how it was very glorious. We have heard about Christmas, about the humility of Christ, and we have heard of the Ascension, about how it was the day Christ had taught us that if He wouldn't ascend, then the Holy Spirit will not be given to all who had believed and followed Christ. Then the day of Pentecost came, and believers up till today receive the Holy Spirit unto their hearts.

Everything is so familiar, and yet we are intimidated, and probably rightly feeling slightly guilty that we could ever treat the death of Christ in a similar fashion as a story told too often. If, for instance, the point of all these events is so that we must strive to be extremely grievous or teary, then let us consider an example of a church that preaches only of these events week by week. Isn't the Word of God always so new and inspiring? Do we dare say that only because Bible contains at least 66 books? Do we not say that every single book in the Bible brings refreshment every day? Therefore, it is not necessary that we read different parts of the Bible, because one part of the Bible brings to us many different applications. For instance, there are preachers who spend many many weeks just to speak one verse from the New Testament writing. If we say that every statement has the same weight, then imagine a church that from week to week preach about the division of priests in 1 Chronicles 24. Won't it be boring? No? No Christian dares to admit what he feels, maybe, because it's absurd that the Word of God does not bring refreshment, and every single word in the Bible is the Word of God, isn't it?

I confess freely then, I don't often feel very spirited during these occasions, and have often found it a bad joke that people are so desperate in giving refreshments to these events that they become ever so creative in giving Biblical interpretations, which are probably very fun and pleasing to the ears of the lay people, but whose substances are rather questionable.

And if you are like me, then you can sympathize with me. We have heard and we have known about how much we should rejoice in the Lord, but that the society seems to have this expectation for us to always rejoice during Christmas, to always grieve during the Passion, even though the worst thing has just happened in our lives during Christmas, and the best thing of our life just happened during the Passion week.

Yet this time, out of probably guilt, but also because a greater honesty and sincerity, I decide to ruminate about how I might benefit better during these significant events in the Christian calendar.

For instance, to those who are weary in spirit, during the day of Resurrection (Easter) or Christmas, we know that it seems to us, life is bleak and dreary and not that much to look forward to. Therefore, when the preacher tells us that Christ has died so that we could live, we can think, well, death is not all that bad. Christ's victory to secure our eternal lives seem to us rather meaningless if being alive is not exciting at all. It's a bad joke, really.

Perhaps you've just been dumped by the person that you love, perhaps you've just been fired from your work. Easter then probably becomes some kind of escapism for us, if we who are so down are so scorned to be so gloom during Christmas or during Easter. We can pretend to be happy in the hope that pretending makes us happier and finally become genuinely happy. At least we try, even though we know how much it sickens us if it never got to become a genuine state of happiness.

We are not, however, always so sorrowful, are we? And even amidst our big sorrows, there are sometimes laughter here and there. Of course, it's never immediate. Our problem when we have been dumped by our lovers is not the fact that we are dead so that the promise of life is the most exciting promise, rather, we are more interested with the kind of promise that will allow us to be happy once more: the acceptance of that person whom we love with all our hearts. And though this eternal life promise will eventually bring us to heaven, where that happiness is also promised, the problem that is now isn't solved.

So as the fellow sufferer of this sinful world, I say to you, through these events, do not make it worse by having deceit in your hearts. If you cannot find joy in Christmas, and cannot even have the heart to try because your mind is preoccupied by the great tragedy that has just occurred in your life, it's okay. No, really? How can it be okay? I am supposed to at least try to be happy, am I not? I am supposed to beg the Spirit to change the way I feel and the way I perceive life to be.

Okay, is this all a psychological trick? Have I been so 'sincere' all these while to get you to think this way? To make you at least willing to try to be happy even though it is hard? We know it in our hearts that we should try, but it becomes harder because of unreasonable pressure. If it's truly a joyful moment, why then there are few who will share my sorrow that I can be brought into a joyous state?

It isn't a trick, though. If it's made you think that way, which I think we all know is the right way to think but is often very difficult, I am grateful. If it doesn't end up that way, I'm not taking my words back.

Though let us, if we are sorrowful, are envious of the happy, remember that we also have not always been so sorrowful, that we have felt happiness now and then. If it isn't possible to be happy now, then at least know that Christ's victory over death is the hope that we will once more be happy. I think this should give at least a glimmer of happiness to those who are sorrowful, for everything is made worse by the lack of hope, and everything is made better by its existence.

For let us not deny in our hearts about the truth of this hope. Let us not deny that this hope is the reason why we still cling on to a life that is not in its most desperate state. For if there is no more hope, then we will be quick to end our lives, despite all the fears of death.

Remember this, my brothers and sisters, that if we can at least look back at the times when we are happiest, times we wish that time will stand still: Christ's victory is the guarantor of that happiness that is to come, the kind that will make the gloomiest days of your life fade like when a child has been delivered after the pain of childbirth.

If there are those who would make an effort to end the dreariness of life, we know that this kind of reflection can do us more good than we thought it would. For God's grace is real, and we will see the evidence of it if we will open our eyes to it. Only, be honest, and I welcome your honesty, for no one will go anywhere without it.

This is how I can be thankful and grateful at least a little this year, in an event that is too familiar to me. I am not desperate to be as happy as I can be, but I am at least quite desperate to get out of a bleak feeling that I have, and it is good for me that I can at least sing bits of praises today, much more than if I hadn't been at least honest.

Happy More-Than-1950th Easter today

The topic of abortion today mostly revolves around the issue on agreeing or disagreeing whether the fetus can be considered as a human being or not.

I think everybody agrees that taking the life of an innocent being is morally wrong and unlawful and unethical. Only, people have argued that the fetus cannot be considered as a person yet, and therefore we have all the rights to do away with it.

Of course I will not disagree, if the fetus cannot be considered as a human being, to do away with it, if you see that it's profitable to you. So I do not say to men that when there are sperms that have come out of the genital, you are killing innocent children's lives because they POTENTIALLY can become children. It's just not the same.

However, I will put forth these Biblical passages into the table as evidence from the Bible, so that theologically-speaking (and therefore, if you're a Christian, you ought to agree with this and exercise this faith) we can confirm that even though the fetus is yet unborn, it is still considered a human being with all the humanity intact:

1. Psalm 139:13-14 (NASB):


2. Jeremiah 1:5 (NASB):




3. Psalm 51:5 (NASB):




4. Luke 1:41, 44 (NASB):




Compare these passages with Luke 2:16. The word 'baby' that refers to the unborn baby of John is used again to refer the baby Jesus which was already laying in the manger.

These verses show that the unborn fetus is treated to have the same rights to life as much as a person that is born.

There is still one more passage in the Bible that is very controversial, but it's mostly due to lexical problems. I refer to the passage Exodus 21:22 (NASB):




I will not discuss in detail because first of all, I do not have the skills, and secondly, I know another site that has done a great job in doing that. I shall summarize, however.

Basically, there have been translations that have done injustice to this Biblical passage, sometimes translating this passage immediately with the word 'miscarriage', so that it will definitely lexically mislead the reader into thinking that even if there is a miscarriage, the man shall only be fined, instead of the usual punishment of life for life.

However, this verse basically says that if someone had only struck a pregnant woman, and both the mother and the baby are unharmed, he shall only be fined.

It's understandable that people have misinterpreted the Bible and have taken false stances before, but let the knowledge that have come to you bring you closer to Christ and have the courage and humility to take the right stance, for surely it will please the Lord.

With this established, however, there are still questions of whether abortion is ever justifiable?

Well, yes. There are 2 cases:
1. When the life of the mother is endangered
2. When the baby is definitely going to be sub-human

Case 1: When the life of the mother is endangered.

The reasoning behind this very simple. According to a friend of mine whose background is in nursing, she said that the survival chance of the baby is generally lower than the mother's. If we want to save both, we usually end up with none. Therefore, the doctor's natural reaction would be to save one who has a higher chance of survival, that is the mother.

There is another line of thought that seemed to me plausible to invoke: the mother's right to self-defense and self-preservation. Even though we do not deny the humanity of the fetus, we do however admit that the adult has a self-determinism that the baby doesn't have, and the baby is the one who is dependent on the mother, not the other way round. Therefore, it is a sacrificial act to let the baby live instead of the mother (if there is a chance for this).

Legally, a sacrificial act should be considered a charitable act, something that is voluntary, something that cannot be imposed on anyone, otherwise it loses the meaning of charity.

Case 2: When the baby is definitely going to be sub-human or seriously deformed.

To be contrasted with babies who are simply slightly deformed or retarded, which are considered physically and mentally handicapped. We do acknowledge that this is part of the curse from the sinful world (because God also considers a man without physical handicap to be more perfect than the one with one, Leviticus 21:17-23) and that being handicapped is a horrible state. However, there are many handicapped people who would still rather live than die. They are grateful still for this chance to live. There are many handicapped people who give glories to God. There is not enough justification for us to kill anyone who is handicapped simply because it will be horrible for them to live on Earth.

There is, however, a third case which is worth mentioning.

Case 3: Rape or incest

Many Christians argue that this is actually justifiable because of the evil that is forced against those women. It is unthinkable to force these women to bear and raise children as a result of a traumatic incident in their lives. That child will forever be a reminder of an extremely unpleasant episode of her life.

HOWEVER, we must also carefully recognize that the child is still an innocent person, despite all that's happened. Should we then murder (not punish) the child due to the crime of the father? Two wrongs don't make a right.

In this case, in order to relieve the woman out of this horrible episode of her life, whilst also not doing any harm to the life of an innocent person, we suggest the child to be sent to an adoption center instead.

Moreover, there are many people who have decided for an abortion and in the later days are haunted by the fact that she had murdered, after all, her own child.

The quickest to put the Bible forward, often the quickest to demean it.

Let us therefore learn to hold our tongues, that we do not become stumbling blocks against others.

In this post, we will study Philippians 2:7 and make philosophical musings and inferences. Although the main study is of Jesus Christ, it will also have soteriological impacts, so I will lightly tread on that as well.

For the benefits of the reader, I will copy the whole passage of Philippians 2:1-11 from New American Standard Bible (NASB) with the cross-references and footnotes removed for the ease of reading.


And here's the Greek text of Philippians 2:7 (taken from blueletterbible.org):




A quick word on the two natures of Christ: Christ must have both natures in the person of Christ, both as a deity and as a human, and the two natures are not confused or fused into one (refer to WCF.VIII.II).

It is important to realize that the two natures are distinct, otherwise, if Christ only possesses one nature, His nature would be a godly man, maybe a superman, or a manly god, maybe a demi-god. This is problematic for many different reasons.

For instance, if Christ is a super-man or a demi-god, it makes His standing unequal with either God or man. Therefore, He is unable to represent God or man. The only kind of people Christ could represent would be other supermen or demi-gods.

Soteriologically, we establish that salvation comes from God alone (Psalm 62:2; Acts 2:47) for no sinner could save himself from the eternal wrath of God (Romans 3; Luke 15) save the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (Hebrews 9:11-12). Jesus Christ, who was born sinless as He was born out of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit through the virgin womb of Mary (Luke 1:26-38, 2:1-7), died as a sinner though He had committed no sin (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:22, 24). He became our representative as the last Adam (1 Cor 15:20-22), and so unless we could be represented by Christ, His death on the cross is meaningless.

(Also there are lexical hints that show that salvation is from God, such as the fact that in Greek, Christ's act in emptying Himself is an ACTIVE verb, therefore it is God's initiative action that makes salvation possible).

Having that established, now, I think, we can focus on Philippians 2:7.

We know that there are certain traits of God which are uniquely His, which shows the qualitative difference of God and mankind. Some of these qualities we speak of that will be discussed today are: omnipotence and omniscience (refer to WCFII.I,II).

Therefore, it is very controversial and very loosely touched whenever someone talks about Philippians 2:7. It states that Christ emptied Himself. This emptying refers to Christ giving up all His glories and powers, not eliminating His divine nature altogether.

If Christ was not emptied, then this verse speaks falsely, for any kinds of reasons. If Christ isn't emptied, then Christ didn't really empty Himself or maybe He tried but didn't succeed. Either way, the dignity and the reliability of the Scripture is broken. Then God is no longer trustworthy and there is no longer anything accountable in the medium that God chose to reveal Himself, especially in regards to our salvation and the future.

However, the immediate challenge to this statement is of course, if Christ is emptied, then what happens to His divine nature? God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, and so if Christ is God, He's supposed to have all these characteristics intact. Is that possible?

Let us ponder more deeply before we come into rash conclusions, however. I learned most of these thought processes from Bible.org, so feel free to browse that website and use your own judgment and understanding with the help of the Lord's guidance. I have added one marginal analogy to help us further. I will say which analogy is mine later on. So, it's safe to assume that other than that, the materials are derived from Bible.org.

Think about omnipotence. Think about the omnipotent God. If God is omnipotent, is it necessary that God displays His omnipotence as much as possible every second of the time? For instance, if God could create and crush the universe, surely a great display of power, or to raise the dead, is it necessary that He applies that omnipotence every second of the day in order to fulfill His character as an omnipotent being? Surely not. Just because God can raise all the dead, it doesn't mean that if He doesn't, He is no longer capable, or that this inaction compromises His character as an omnipotent entity. Therefore, God, without showing His omnipotence, remains an omnipotent being.

Parallel that to Christ. If Christ is divine, then He surely is able to do everything that God is able to do. However, RESTRICTING (emptying) Himself from that power doesn't compromise His omnipotence attribute. Simply, Christ didn't have to display His omnipotence to retain the characteristic of an omnipotent entity.

Let us take that approach with omniscience. Especially, we use the passage from Matthew 24:36 (NASB) even though Mark 13:32 is valid as well:




Here, we are faced with ONLY two possibilities:

1. Christ lied, He actually knew because He was omniscient.
2. Christ didn't lie, He really didn't know.

Someone might offer a THIRD possibility: Christ knew but didn't know also. His divine nature knew, but His human nature didn't. Let me say that if you're a human, you can only know or not know. If Christ was truly human, He had to only know or not know. This argument is usually backed up with the statement that Christ is unique, and it's impossible for us to really know what it's like to have a divine nature as well, but since Christ is divine, and God is omniscient, this is the only explanation, even though we don't know how.

It could be very tempting to accept the third possibility at the first glance. But let me offer you another perspective, which, if it's reasonable, you will hopefully realize and accept that there are only two possibilities, not three, and the third possibility is not really a possibility but a contradiction backed up with a certain mystery that is difficult to either prove or disprove based on the statements alone.

(Compare that to a situation when someone claims that this life is planted in this planet by aliens. It is very hard to verify that statement, but if there is a more certain reality, for instance, Christianity, backed by the fact that Christ fulfilled the laws, was born out of the virgin Mary, did miracles, died and resurrected, this reality should strongly testify about the truth of Christ's Words, the Scripture, and we should then not consider other "gospels" anymore.)

If you read what was in the parenthesis, then let me present to you my explanation that should help you realize that the alien story is very likely to be false. Since I have already offered an approach to explain Christ as an omnipotent creature without the need of displaying His omnipotence at all, let us consider that it's possible that Christ could be omniscient without the need of displaying His omniscience.

In Bible.org, the verb used is 'taps into'. Christ COULD have tapped into His divine attributes, such as omnipotence and omniscience. However, not tapping into either characteristics does not compromise His characteristics at all.

This is my own analogy for the omniscience attribute: Consider a physicist who masters all the formulae of physics. This way, if he is being given a bomb with all the specs ready before him, if he's also given a target, and he has all the information of the wind speed and direction which will affect the course of the bomb's flight, he could measure the distance between the launcher and the target, and estimate the time it would take for the bomb to reach the target. HOWEVER, if he decided not to calculate all these information, that is, he doesn't use his knowledge of physics formulae, he will never know how long it will take for the bomb to reach the destination, even though he COULD have.

Therefore, if Christ COULD have known something, but He DECIDED not to know, it's possible that He really didn't know, and it didn't compromise His omniscient nature one bit.

And besides, if Christ HAD tapped into His divine nature, actually, there are critical repercussions to the salvation of mankind. That is, if Christ, who has access to His divine attributes, had accessed any of His divine attributes, He would FAIL to represent humanity, because humans do not have and cannot access any divine attributes. Whereas if Christ had restricted Himself from accessing His divine attributes, it didn't compromise the fact that He is a deity.

Therefore, when Christ was tempted, such as when He was challenged to turn the stone into bread, if Christ had succumbed and tapped into His divine attribute, the consequence would be He couldn't be our savior anymore (with the more obvious reason being that He couldn't be an unblemished sacrifice anymore).

So, someone may ask, what about the times that He did seem to know better than most people, or about the times He did display miraculous powers? That is simply through the revelation and power of the Holy Spirit. Similar to how it was possible for Daniel or Isaiah to prophesy, and similar to how Elijah, Elisha, Peter and Paul could raise the dead.

However, Christ is still unique in some respects due to His essence and position as the Son of God. For instance, He did not need to pray before He'd perform any miracles, or to the fact that He didn't stop anyone from worshipping Him, unlike what Peter had done.

Otherwise, the spectacular deeds are actually accessible to all the prophets before Him, the apostles after Him, and all followers of Christ, really. Since everything that Christ could have done that was not due to His unique nature and condition (such as the only one who was still born sinless after sin has entered into the world), we COULD also do with the power of the Holy Spirit (note: COULD, not must be able. God remains sovereign. And, many people have different gifts, as empirically we see that Elijah and David had a very different ministry, and also this is mentioned by Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians. As a side note, which could be rebuking or encouraging, let us remember that John the Baptist didn't perform any miracles, but it wasn't necessary for his ministry).

Thusly, we can realize and affirm the statements Christ made in regards to His ministry whilst on Earth in John 5:19 and 14:10 (NASB): 




We can therefore possibly understand the people's perspectives of Jesus Christ back then, understanding better why it was so difficult to believe that Christ also has the nature of a deity. I do think that it's because it's been established for many centuries that Jesus Christ is also God that we might be tempted to ridicule the people in the life of Jesus Christ for being so blind, not seeing that Jesus Christ was also God.

We can also appreciate what Christ had done for us better, seeing His sacrifice in the greater light, and realizing just how close we are to Christ much more than we thought before.

To glory be to God,
Amen.

 Funny.

Given the choice of fire or water,
he or she may just choose both.

Either the water would eventually evaporate,
or the fire doused. Excellent, isn't it?

Is love so weak that nothing short of Venus
shall suffice? Where then the account of love's might
If she shall only court with the mighty Zeus?
To what horizons will this love find her flight?
Perhaps, to the gallows, or to the harlots
Succoring upon their bosoms like the dogs.
Shy away in the face of doom in closets.
Pity whose eyes and ears slumber in bogs,
For if this very love shall be true love called,
Then truth also that circles be known as squares.
Yet hear, o hear, how an insect felled and crawled,
The same manner of fate this heart and soul shares.
Believe me thus that thou shalt know truth from lies.
For love, the highest virtue, to wisdom guides.

No matter how wicked a man I am,
No matter how unclean my lips are...

This tense pair of shoulders
Will eventually be light once more.

With such crude manners,
This heart rages for righteousness

God, have mercy on me
Have mercy on me.

He loves me, and expresses that very clearly.
I am not paranoid.

How can I not be touched
By such an act of kindness
Grace and mercy,
Love, and oh such great love!

The one who stands by me,
Should get jealous I don't love her as much He loves me.
Thank the Lord my God,
Glory be to Him forever and ever!

Dear heavenly Father,

I beg and beg of mercy.
Should vanity crush me and overtake me
As deserved out of the man who robs Thy glory,
It is all just and fair.

Yet show kindness and love unto me,
lest I cannot speak of mercy, much less Thy mercy.
 
For when can any man speak
I have enough humility in me,
that he should not pray against pride,
which may lead into a fancy?

Should I, whose ties cannot be severed with you,
walk in this falsehood?
Should I, whose Father is the Father of truth,
receive mockery from the world that hates you?

Will not love show its victory?
Will not love give me a state of humility?
Will not love prove to be the greater force?
Will not love remain desirable?

Therefore, entreat me, Lord...
Wash this vain soul with sensibility.
Enlighten this man that he knows wisdom.
And no one is wise without truth:
Truth that You are my glorious Father,
and that I am Thy humble child.

In the name of Jesus Christ,
Amen.

The wise anticipates opposition. The passionate grieves. The righteous perseveres. The courageous fights.

Luke 2:1-7 (New American Standard Bible)

Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem

 ²This was the first census taken while ^[b]Quirinius was governor of ^(C)Syria.

 ³And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

 ⁴Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because ^(D)he was of the house and family of David,

 ⁵in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

 ⁶While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.

 ⁷And she ^(E)gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
 

Augustus' purpose of taking a census was to check the growth of his empire, as well as to properly administrate taxation. The Bible did not write anything against taking a census. In the case of David (2 Samuel 24), the Lord was displeased because David did it to indulge in his own conceit, about the greatness of the kingdom given by God unto his hands. A ridiculous state of mind, but one that we are all prone of.

Here, Luke was not interested in discussing whether Caesar August had the right or wrong motivation, whether taking a census was good or bad. Rather, he was more interested in showing the fact that Joseph, in following the command of his present sovereign, was unknowingly being guided by the God who is always in charge of history of mankind. As well as those involved in the taxation process, such as Augustus and Quirinus, who did not realize that their actions caused the fulfillment of God's prophecies.

Ideally, as Christians, we all seek to know God's plans and move according to what He wants us to do. This does not mean that we can always know what exactly God wants us to do, and sometimes we worry too much in whether we will be fulfilling God's plans or not. What we should remember is that God is in charge of the history, and that He will always ensure that His plans are fulfilled whether we are aware or ignorant. Augustus and Quirinius were not aware of this divine plan, and neither did Joseph nor Mary know of it. Our ignorance does not have enough power to prevent God's plans from being fulfilled.

For instance, Joseph, when he took Mary to Bethlehem because of the census, it wasn't because he was aware of the prophecies that necessitated Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. Like I've mentioned in the context, even though the prophecy existed, it was quite rare for Bethlehem to be associated with the city of David. If Joseph REASONABLY thought that the Messiah HAD to be born in Jerusalem, when the time was ripe for Mary to bear Jesus Christ, he probably would've forced everything to go "God's" way because "the Messiah had to be born in the city of David" and that "must be" Jerusalem. He'd be carrying a screaming pregnant woman, and would've been completely beat up into a pulp by the time he had successfully taken her into Jerusalem to bear the Christ there.

Especially, with passages like in Matthew 2:16-23. The fulfillment is a compiled concept from multiple prophets, instead of a copied passage. The fact that the angel had to direct Joseph is pretty much reasonably because most likely Joseph wouldn't have done that if he hadn't been told. Which is exactly my point: knowledge is revealed sufficiently, and generously at crucial times. Even if Joseph wasn't aware of the prophecies that needed to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Lord directed him in order to fulfill these prophecies.

God will definitely be pleased with the hearts of those who long to know of God's plans, and are likely to receive more revelations the closer the relationship is (as evidenced in the psalmist in Psalm 49:3, who received greater understanding through the diligent meditation on the Word of God). Surely, however, God wants us to love Him more than the knowledge of God and the plans God has with the world. Therefore, if you hold a close relationship with God in order to know the secrets of His plan for the world's history, I think you love the fate of the world more than God. Let us remember this. Let us remember the fact that it is not those who know of God's plans most who are necessarily closest to God or more devoted to Him.

Saying that, do not interpret this wrongly in thinking that I am proposing that idleness or ignorance are admirable virtues in life. Only, do not regard knowledge as everything. Surely, we are to follow the advice of Joshua to meditate the Word of God day and night (Joshua 1:8). Paul also had advised Timothy to meditate on the Word of God in 1 Timothy 4:15. My points were never meant to support and justify laziness, and woe to you who twist goodness into evil!

My brethren, let us take comfort in realizing that God, who is bigger than us, is the wisest of all. Therefore, in our struggle in wanting to know more of God and His plans, we are also to remember and believe that if it's best that we know and that He wants us to know, He will make it known to us, whether through reasons or all means He deems appropriate. And if we do not know, it's also for our good. Are you so sure that if God reveals His plans for you, you will do all your best to fulfill it, or yet find ways to be "in control of your own life"? Also, the more you know, the more your responsibility will be. Surely, it is best to reveal knowledge to those who can handle the burden of knowledge. In a way, it is to the benefit of the fool that he should know so little, that he is judged less severely in the Last Judgment.

Jesus Christ came into this world in such a humble setting. It is an example that should be followed by all who are given great power and riches not to forget that should the time come when God demands us to empty ourselves, we are to submit to the will of God, who in His love for us, deems that appropriate. Let us not forget that God is love and that He loves us, and everything He plans for us are all out of love. Let us not commit into the atrocity of suspecting God's goodness and be condemned as the man who was given one talent (Luke 19:11-27).

If we are indeed followers of Christ, we will not fear to lose all that we have for the sake of God, who is the sovereign of all that exist. Did not Jesus Christ live to fulfill all that was required of Him, coming from such a humble background? What more evidence do we need that God will see everything through, and give all the power and wisdom and knowledge to us at the time that we need it?

Though Jesus Christ died seen as a man who did not accomplish His mission with political or military powers, by no means He lived a powerless life. Many times, He was able to silence the Pharisees. He resurrected the dead, He gave water to the thirsty whilst possessing supposedly 'none' Himself, He fed thousands with what little was available to Him. Let us believe in God who will take care of everyone He loves, and realize that having nothing in this world is enough if we have the favor and support of God who owns the whole world, for when we are in need of power, surely the omniscient God will generously provide us with what we need. Or do we forget, or worse, not have faith in God's Word? Remember the passage from Matthew 6:25-34 (NASB):
 

Therefore, my brethren, do not be timid, and those who are under constant fear, take relief, for hope in God is not in vain (Romans 5:5). Realize that none of our failings will cause God's plans to fail, nor will our successes take over the ultimate writer of history. Do not think it vain to meditate and find no answer, as those who think it vain to pray if our prayers are not granted.

God bless us all.

Give me compassion when it's due me.
Give me wrath when it's due me.

Above all, give me love,
For love is always due me.

In seeking after the less important first, it amounts to at least one of these three, or all of them: ignorance, foolishness, hypocrisy. 

They say, "I don't fear destruction." They just properly lock their houses every night. 

Luke 2:1-7 (New American Standard Bible)

Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem

 ²This was the first census taken while ^[b]Quirinius was governor of ^(C)Syria.

 ³And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

 ⁴Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because ^(D)he was of the house and family of David,

 ⁵in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

 ⁶While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.

 ⁷And she ^(E)gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
 

Let me first elaborate on the context where Jesus' birth took place. Therefore, for much of the discussions on the context, it'll inevitably discuss the historical setting. Many people today prematurely reject the accuracy of Luke's historicity especially based on Luke 2:2, in regards to the census. Based on what I know, I will discuss a rejection is considered premature, and is definitely erroneous. First of all, no one is to deny that in order for the Bible to be trustworthy, it must first and foremost be true, and if it's true, it must be accurate. Therefore, indeed, it is of utmost importance to discuss the historicity of the Bible. But where historical information is inadequate, it is foolish to consider the Bible to be false, unless the heart already wishes to reject the Bible. For in the state of unknown, then the only judgment that is possible is a suspended judgment. Then, it's a matter of faith in believing whether the Bible is God's Word or not. With faith, we know that whatever we do not know yet is true because it must be true. Thus, from faith to faith.

Caesar Augustus is really Octavius, or Octavian, or Augustus, or Sebastos. Born Gaius Octavius Thurinus in 63 BC and died in AD 14. He was succeeded by Tiberius, the reigning Caesar during Jesus' ministry. He was part of the Second Triumvirate with Lepidus and Mark Anthony. When the Triumvirate broke apart, Octavian secured his position as the sole autocratic ruler of the Roman empire. He managed to develop and improve the Roman empire, creating a relatively peaceful period known as the Pax Romana.

The decree called by Augustus was empire-wide, and would have taken a long time to complete. The Romans recorded that Augustus held three censuses in his life. Here are the sources for such information:

Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars 2.27:
 

Tribuniciam potestatem perpetuam recepit, in qua semel atque iterum per singula lustra collegam sibi cooptavit. Recepit et morum legumque regimen aeque perpetuum, quo iure, quamquam sine censurae honore, censum tamen populi ter egit, primum ac tertium cum collega, medium solus.

 

And this is the English translation¹:
 

He received the tribunician power for life, and once or twice chose a colleague in the office for periods of five years each. He was also given the supervision of morals and of the laws for all time, and by the virtue of this position, although without the title of censor, he nevertheless took the census thrice, the first and last time with a colleague, the second time alone.
 

Then from Tacitus, Annals 1.11, also translated into English²:
 

It contained a statement of the national resources — the strength of the burghers and allies under arms; the number of the fleets, protectorates, and provinces; the taxes direct and indirect; the needful disbursements and customary bounties catalogued by Augustus in his own hand, with a final clause (due to fear or jealousy?) advising the restriction of the empire within its present frontiers.

 

Some would ask, if it was a Roman census, why did Joseph have to go back to his ancestral home? That didn't seem to match the Roman law or custom. However, the Romans allowed their subjects to follow their own customs, so local customs were practiced in different regions. The visit to the ancestral home would fit the Jewish culture. According to Bock³, "Other Jewish customs that were permitted include the tax exemption every seventh year (Josephus, Antiquities 14.10.6 §§202-10) and Sabbath observance (Antiquities 14.10.20 §§241-43)."

Another may question why Mary would tag along with Joseph, since most likely she would have nothing to do with the census. Well, Mary may or may not be required to participate in the census. If Mary was simply betrothed to Joseph, it would've been less likely that they took the trip together. The word ἐμνηστευμένῃ (emnēsteumenē) then was written to indicate that the couple had not consummated their marriage yet, so Jesus came from a virgin birth.
 

Now, in conjunction to the census of Quirinius, the one that was written by the Roman historian Josephus (Antiquities 17.9.3 §355; 18.1.1 §§1-2) referred to an event in 6 AD. If the census mentioned by Luke referred to this one, it would've seriously undermined Luke's credibility as a historian, because the date would be significantly different from the other sources referring to the birth of Jesus (including Luke's own writing in the previous sections). But the fact that both Luke in chapter 1, verse 5 and Matthew in chapter 2 verse 1 blatantly showed that it was during the reign of Herod the Great, and the fact that Herod the Great's death could not be any later than 11 April 4 BC (since it was noted by Josephus that the death of Herod preceded the Passover in Antiquities 17.9.3 §213), the census mentioned here cannot be the one in 6 AD. Was there another census? If there was, why wasn't it recorded?



From a historian's perspective, a census might've been something quite ordinary, considering that it was practiced in other areas such as Syria, Gaul, Spain and Egypt. In fact, the reason Luke mentioned the census was not so much that it was an extraordinary census, rather only the fact that this census brought Joseph into the land of David, crucial for the identity of the Messiah according to the earlier prophecies in the Old Testament. Luke noted the sense of divine history, and how the census, not otherwise planned to fulfill a prophecy, came to fulfill it.
 The divine prophecy of Bethlehem as the city where the ruler would be born is found in Micah 5:1-2 (On a side note, it's also uncommon to associate Bethlehem as the city of David, where it's normally used for Zion, which is Jerusalem).

Then about the census that took place in 6 AD, it was noted to be a census that had caused an open rebellion by the Jewish community. It was likely because Quirinius was viewed as a Roman head who was trying to infuse his Roman culture into an otherwise strong Jewish community. Therefore, simply because Josephus didn't write any other censuses, it doesn't mean that no census could have taken place at all. Luke also was not unaware of the later census causing a havoc, as he had noted in Acts 5:37.



Also, there is the lack of material in regards to the governance of a certain Quirinius, who only became a governor much later. So, probably, Quirinius didn't hold any title de jure, but in fact held a more significant position despite the lack of office, which might involve an administrative skill required for such a large project. This reminds me a lot of Luke 3:2 when it mentions the period of a priesthood of Annas AND Caiaphas. Annas was deposed and replaced by Caiaphas, his son-in-law. However, this might imply that Annas still had a large influence behind the scene, even without the formal title of a high priest anymore.

Bock mentioned that if the census in Luke was referring to the one in 6 AD, then Joseph would have traveled from Herod Antipas' territory (Nazareth) into Archelaus' territory (Bethlehem). He said that such a mixing in jurisdiction is unlikely. I'm tempted to say that this sounds very plausible, but yet I'm wondering if there was no single Jewish that was from outside the land of Herod the Great during the earlier consensus that would've been allowed to return to Herod's territory due to the Jewish culture of visiting the ancestral homeland. If there were such records, I think this argument has lost its strength.

Luke 2:1 mentions the 'whole world', but this is referring to the whole of Roman empire, to differentiate other smaller censuses called by Augustus, such as in Egypt and Gaul. The NASB has given a right footnote about how to interpret the phrase 'whole world', similar in effect of John 3:16 (which means that Christianity isn't the proponent of universalism) and another example from the same author would be in Acts 11:28.

Matthew 2:11 shows that Joseph found a residence in Bethlehem when the Magi had arrived. Some might then say that Joseph owned a property in Bethlehem and that Matthew regarded Bethlehem as Joseph's home at the time of His birth and until he was forced to flee back into Nazareth. However, if Joseph indeed owned a property in Bethlehem, why did he have to reside in an inn when the census was taking place? It is more likely that Nazareth is Joseph's homeland, as is agreed later in Matthew 2:23, and Luke 1:26, 2:39, 51 and 4:16. Simply because Joseph managed to find residence in Bethlehem to live temporarily doesn't necessarily mean that Bethlehem was Joseph's home.

The account of Jesus' birth in a stable did not necessarily mean that all the inns were full, or because they couldn't afford a room. Simply, when the time had come, they approached a καταλύματι (katalymati), meaning 'public shelter', that did not have anymore room for them. In lieu of the word, it's also likely that a formal inn was not the place that Joseph had sought after. The Greek word may also refer to a guest room in a house as in Luke 22:11. The word for formal inn is πανδοχεῖον (pandocheion) used by Luke later in 10:34.

There was no room left for Joseph and Mary, and so they had to use the animal room, as was indicated by the feed trough where Jesus was placed. This animal room could have been a stable next to the house, or a cave, since caves were frequently used as a stable. Apparently, ancient tradition points to a cave for the locale of Jesus' birth, such as Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 78.4 and Origen, Against Celsus 1.51. The present Church of Nativity has a basilica that was erected in the time of Constantine in a cave site. We cannot be sure, but there's nothing strong so far to indicate that this was not where Jesus was born.

The term 'first-born' here, even with the implication that could indicate that Mary was to have other children, would not be the case. Luke, however, did mention that Mary gave birth to more children in Luke 8:19. However, in Luke 2:7, the term 'first-born' would be ridiculous if it was written with the priority of Jesus' family size in mind.

There are two points to keep in mind. First, this prepares us for Luke 2:23-24. Secondly, the first-born here would be more significantly written to relate to the rights exclusive of a firstborn, including the regal rights.
 

---

¹Thayer, Bill, comp. "Suetonius. The Life of Augustus." Bill Thayer's Web Site. N.p., 16 July 2008.
     Web. 15 Apr. 2010.

²Thayer, Bill, comp. "Lacus Curtius. Tacitus, Annals — Book I Chapters 1-15." Bill Thayer's Web Site. N.p., 8 May 2009.
     Web. 15 Apr. 2010.

³Bock, Darrell L. Luke. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994. Print.

Luke 1:80 (New American Standard Bible)

 ^80(A)And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

 

As all human beings, even including Jesus Christ were He to justify humanity, everybody needs the process to grow. As humans are made of two aspects: the visible (physical) and the invisible (spiritual), both of these need growth, otherwise we become limp or premature. It's like a case of a man who has two hands, but the other one didn't grow as equally as the other. Horrible, isn't it? (It is however, a common problem of the world today. For whomsoever hasn't received the Word of God, indeed, they must be limp, for they are spiritually dead and need the Holy Spirit to be born again. For references, read up Jude 19; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1, 5; Jn 3:6. Do not therefore, be alarmed, that those who have grown in spirit to find that many of their peers who are of the same age to be spiritually undiscerning). Likewise, once we have realized that we have two aspects in our being, let us seek to nurture both of what God has given us. Eat and drink, yes, but also grow in faith and knowledge, which are extremely essential to the growth of one's character, albeit not solely for the sake of one's character only.

John the Baptist and Christ both ministered only once they had reached the age of 30. Both underwent training for all their lives preparing themselves for the day they would minister. I'm not saying that there's an absolute rule today where we all must reach the age of 30 before we begin our ministry, but here we can learn that we should take care of our training in order to equip ourselves before we are to serve anyone. A lot of young people often are rushed by their burning passions, but need to take care that they do not do everything too quickly, or they may just be cut off from their good desires to serve. It must be a great process that everyone must undertake in that first step to be shaped and corrected after a moment of rush, unless one is so full of wisdom that he need not be corrected, which I find altogether too rare to exist, if at all. Therefore, to all those who have been corrected, be not afraid of all hard corrections or even be so afraid of making errors anymore, for it must more erroneous to do nothing in order to make no mistakes. This action alone is a mistake.

The desert is often the place of testing and tempting, causing a great deal of suffering physically and mentally. This motif is found in Exodus, when the Israelites were tested in the desert for 40 years, now in John the Baptist, and later before Jesus would begin His ministry (Matthew 4:1-11). Even though the desert can be treated as a symbol of suffering, it doesn't mean that John the Baptist was only allegorically in the desert.

All teachers must imbue in them a passion for learning, which they must never forsake their whole life if they were to teach. Accursed to them who wish to teach but not learn. For a teacher must embody the exemplary conduct as a role model for the students to look up to. Imagine having a teacher that requires you to learn, but he himself despises what he requires of his students. All teachers take care that they must have the attitude as a perpetual learner, if that is to be the trademark par excellence of a learned person.

Better to have never taught than to have taught wrongly, people say. It sounds like a great statement. It is a great statement. But when and where is the room to teach in this world, if one is required to never teach everything inaccurately? Are we all only allowed to teach basic math and law of non-contradiction? I think the important lesson we must absorb from this statement is the attitude of care and fear of the Lord, that we are to be lovers of truth. In the end, all of our ministries are mere ministries of broken vessels (2 Cor 4:7), who must rely on God alone to perfect our ministry with His perfect hands. It is an inevitable tension that we must face living in this world.

One who wishes not to learn need not serve. I beseech you, my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who are from denominations that do not place a great emphasis on learning proper doctrines and theology to do so. I beseech you all who follow pietism to not frown too much on the scholastics who might appear to be exclusive to realize the necessity of their care of the demand in the intellectual world. I pray also that those who lean more towards scholasticism that you do not lose the compassion of Christ. Do not your learning turn you into a studied doll which are as good as a mute and dumb person in our communication to the rest of the world.

And as for those who have undergone all kinds of training, when the time is ripe, you must be bold in taking a step forward to serve the Lord. I know that the more learned one is, the more careful one will be in making decisions. There are too many imperfections when you go into the details of each action that you take, but never be afraid to take the best one that you are justified in thinking, and then face the cruel realities of errors and evil in this world. There is a time to learn, there is a time to teach.

I pray that we Christians all become proper blessings of this world. To be the salt of the Earth, and to be the light of the world. For as Christ has pointed it out very clearly in Matthew 5:14-16 (NASB):
Blessings of the Lord be upon you.
Amen.

Nature is not and cannot be a moral agent.

To elaborate on this a little bit more: The nature determines how a being will behave, but the nature cannot actualize any action, for the one with moral consciousness is not the morality itself, but the being. Therefore, all actions will be held into account to the beings, not to the nature of the beings, which cannot actualize any morality.

The supposedly kind people are often a bit unkind in demanding the same level of kindness.

He who loves His children,
will not forsake them.

He gives us knowledge of Him and His ways,
that we may follow Him and thank Him and enjoy Him and glorify Him.

Whether when the good news is spread to the Gentiles,
or reminded to the believers,
for as long as two or three people gather in His name,
He will be there.

His Spirit shall guide us,
And we shall be reminded of our wretchedness,
And we say, God forgive us for our transgressions,
And this, too, is by His grace,
That our eyes be made holy that we may see evil,
And a heart holy enough to confess our sins and strive for righteousness.

Praise the Lord who gives us friends,
That we may have a company with one another.
As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.
Indeed, true what is written in the book of Proverbs.

Lord, be the guiding presence in our lives,
Make us surrender to Thy will,
Help us commit ourselves to the right course,
For all we like sheep, often go astray, blinded as we are.

May the eternal blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon us all,
I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ,
Our one and only savior,
Amen.

The Scripture says love one another, including your enemies. It didn't say befriend everyone, did it? That's your problem for being able only to love those who are friends to you, even then with great difficulties.

Being blameless and hurt naturally causes an individual to want to hurt the guilty more than the amount of loss he has suffered... due to his blamelessness. Lex talionis was meant to suppress this, and reduces to just an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth... for we are so hard to practice mercy and grace that we are to be relieved of wrath at the measure of fairness.

Of course learning wisdom doesn't automatically make you wise. Yet, wiser still is he who will not forsake the pursuit of wisdom simply based on the possibility of human failings.

Absolve me from the sins of my fathers,
That my offsprings shall suffer less of my flaws.

Make me the worst of enemy of the guilty,
For Thy justice is within my heart.
Make me the best friend of the righteous,
For Thy justice is within my heart.

Show me Thy mercy,
That I may be merciful.
May the hands that do weigh the scales,
Is laid on a heart of infinite compassion.

Let my heart be at peace,
That I may have peace with others.
Bring me the wisdom to act
Upon the peace that I must serve.

And let the world declare me more than right,
But also the marvel in the humility,
That Thou hadst shown me,
having emptied Thyself for us all.

May all these things sanctify all of my aspects
My heart, my will, my mind...
For Thou who art holy
Must find Thy children to be holy.

Amen.

As the birds do fly, and the sun brightens,
We fall in love, as the heaven destines.
As inescapable as the night darkens,
We seek after an eternal license.
Though it is just superficiality,
When our hearts truly just before the Lord.
A mere trifle beside our love's beauty.
Necessity by they who would've abhorred.
Thus holy, sweet and pure we shan't tarnish:
Be blameless before men, women and God.
Our holy matrimony we won't miss.
The worst of them cannot call us for fraud.
Thus secured in all manners that we could,
Though most secured by always love we would.

As the birds do fly and the sun brightens,
We fall in love.

Unbelief contributes to the absence of knowledge.
Neither your reason nor your senses can sufficiently grant you the passage of belief of all that is true.
Your next step is apathy or despair:
with apathy for knowledge comes foolishness;
despair alone will not save you, but this is the first step towards the possibility:
for without this stands the arrogance of man, the hardness of the heart.

I know that beyond th'clouds, the sun doth forthly shine;
I know that beyond my doubts, thy love is still mine.

With all the knowledge of all the great men that ever lived,
The more we see how small they seem to be...
The smaller they become,
The more we realize how great God is.

They say the ends don't justify the means.

Here's an example to support this statement:

A wants condition C
to achieve C, A commits to X
X is wrong
Therefore C, which isn't necessarily wrong,
because it could've been method Y which is right,
becomes wrong due to method X.

In less abstract terms,
Say, boy A is Adam.
Condition C is good grades.
Method X is cheating.
Method Y is studying hard.
So Adam who wants to have good grades (considered good)
cannot cheat, because cheating is wrong/evil,
whereas studying hard is good.

Let me revise the system. From now on, there are only two ends: good or evil.
Therefore, all the rest are simply means.
If Adam wants to have good grades by cheating... having good grades is not the final ambition,
rather it is actually to pursue evil, because he wishes to cheat in 'pursuing' good grades.

The pursuit of good grades must be seen as a whole with the method to achieve it,
But in the overall scheme, everything is seen as only means towards the greater ends:
Only either goodness or evil.

Therefore, by virtue, we pursue goodness.
By method, we must abide in goodness.
By consequence, it must result in goodness.

This way, all means are judged against the ends.
And because there are only two ends: good or evil,
All means are judged against goodness or evil.
Therefore, the whole means will be judged as a whole first.

Goodness will become the governing idea.
But believe this,
The perfect goodness must come from God.
Therefore God is the subjectivity of morality.
God decides what is good and what is evil.

Therefore, those who are for God is good,
those who are against God is evil.

To synthesize this system with Christianity,
it is assumed that to be for God is in itself virtuous,
and will agree with all things considered virtue.

Therefore, the ends will be two things:
In harmony for God,
Or in rebellion against God.

All things good will be in the former,
all things evil will be in the latter.

As all our actions must be judged according to goodness or evil,
So goodness and evil are judged according to God's standards.

Additionally, then, pursuing goodness instead of evil,
Must remain as NOT telos.
It is to glorify God, live for Him, love Him, enjoy Him... all these things must be dedicated to God, who is a personal entity.
When you seek God, it will encompass all of pursuing goodness.
However, pursuing goodness as telos will actually be considered evil,
For it has placed goodness as the highest object of life,
The object of worship,
Instead of God, the only proper object of worship in eternity.

Look at the system again.
With this in mind,
Pursuing goodness or evil actually falls under the system of means, rather than ends.
All ends must have a final end, and all ends must carry with it an element of worship.

To conclude:

All ends other than the final end are means to the final end. All means are only justified by the ends, and there are only two final ends. Only one of the two is justified.

Eternal laws must exist not from Creation but from the Creator. That these laws, were they only in the Creator's realm, must penetrate the realm of Creation undisturbed and unchanged. The laws neither reduce the quality of the Creator's realm nor uplift the quality of the Creation's realm.

In learning more and more about Jacobus Arminius, I came across a term I've never heard before: middle knowledge. This is known in Latin as media scientia. From the lecture that I heard, Jacobus Arminius categorized middle knowledge as outside God's absolute knowledge. I haven't read the first source of Jacobus Arminius' philosophical system that argued in this manner, so I do not know personally the certainty of this claim. Therefore, I am in no position to affirm or dispute this claim. What's worse is if I may have wrongly interpreted the lecture that described Arminius to be in such a position.

In any case, I have also heard that William Lane Craig and Alvin Platinga advocate this philosophical system. Of course, I have my biases, but I've only come to be more interested in this concept after I read some explanations.

Accordingly, proponents of this concept argue that there are three kinds of knowledge of truth:
Knowledge of necessary truth
Knowledge of contingent truth
Knowledge of actual truth

Necessary truths would be statements such as "all bachelors are unmarried", "1 + 1 = 2", law of non-contradiction, etc.
Contingent truths are truths of probable scenarios. If X hadn't taken the train, X would've been late. X took the train; X was not late. The former statement is a statement of contingent truth. Whereas the latter is the knowledge of actual truth. Truth of that which actually happens.

The problem is of course, the concept of middle knowledge was used by Arminius. Calvinists who feel that Arminians are so wrong in their soteriological issues and think that they would have to disagree with everything Arminian so as to be unwilling to consider the plausibility of middle knowledge naturally disagree, even though most Arminians today are not even familiar with this concept of middle knowledge.

I think the problem with Molinism is that they actually categorize the knowledge of contingent and actual truth as separate from what's known as God's absolute truth (unless the absolute truth here refers to the knowledge of necessary truths, and therefore requires a distinction from the other two types of knowledge). But if by absolute truth, they refer to God's complete truth, then it's problematic, as I feel that God has an absolute knowledge of truth, and is in fact, truth itself. No truth is new to God even after the creation. God's knowledge of actual truth does not rely on the actualization of the reality. By God's decree, God has the knowledge of actual truth because He will ordain the reality to be such.

Against Arminianism, I would say, God does not choose an individual to be saved after God knows that the individual would choose God, for it is impossible for an individual to choose God without God's working on them. God chooses individual A, and individual A will choose God. Therefore, God knows that individual A will choose God because God has chosen individual A.

Therefore, this is my model:
God has a complete knowledge
That knowledge comprises of three kinds of truth:
Necessary truth, contingent truth, actual truth

God's knowledge is not progressive... I can't say that it is. God knew everything before and after He created (this has a lot of implications, isn't it? Like what's the value and purpose of communication for the triune God who all already knew everything? And as humans who try to understand how God sees the reality, may sometimes forget that our ethics are necessarily different and distinct from God... that perfection for humanity doesn't lie in the essence of God, rather in Christ... whose divinity/deity I don't deny. I'm aware that Christ's nature is unique in that He has two distinct natures, both human and God, so that His ethic will be different from both God and humans... yet humans may see the perfection that is in Christ and we can realize where His deity make His situations unique... with that in mind, there's still infinitely much we can learn from Christ).

Is this philosophical system without any Biblical ground? No, rather I'll argue using the two classic Biblical texts: 1 Samuel 23:7-14 and Matthew 11:23.

Please recognize fully my view before making any judgments against it or otherwise. My view may or may not be the same as those who advocate the concept of middle knowledge, or Molinism, if Molinism is a bigger system of thought than the concept of middle knowledge. There may be some ideas overlapped, or maybe in a complete unity with someone else who advocate the concept of middle knowledge.

The pride is that all truth is God's truth. But they didn't discover these things that they pride, only when someone else did discover, it was "theirs all along" as if theirs is the credit.

Q: Does 'one day' equal to 24 hour in the Genesis account?

Obj 1. The process of the formation of the Earth cannot occur naturally within just a 24-hour period. Therefore it's not 24-hour.
Obj 2. The word 'day' does not always refer to a 24-hour period. There are many verses to support this: Genesis 2:4, 35:3; Isaiah 2:12-21, 13:6,9, 49:8; 1 Samuel 8:8, 1 Chronicles 17:5, 2 Chronicles 6:5; Psalm 8:18; Jeremiah 17:18; Amos 3:14, 5:18-20; Obadiah 11-15; Micah 2:5; 7:12; Zephaniah 1. Therefore, saying that one day must be 24-hour is wrong.
Obj 3. Is not God's time different from man's? Read 2 Pet 3:8 and Psalm 90:4.

A 1. The process of healing from a sickness cannot instantly occur either. There are verses clearly indicating that Jesus healed the sick instantly. I don't intend to be exhaustive, so I'll give just one example found in Luke 18:43 to illustrate the immediacy of God's act. Denying that there was any miracles performed is a problem of worldview. In fact, denial of anything supernatural should not even accept an intelligent design or a creation account that involved God as the creator.

How long does it take for a baby to grow into a 30-year old adult? 30 years. And 1 year consists of 365.25 days. 1 day consists of 24 hours. So it'll take 30 x 365.25 x 24 hours. That's the natural process. Then tell me, when Adam was created, was he created as a baby or as an adult? Given his abilities to think, communicate, govern the earth, he must've been created as an adult, was he not? Therefore, what would've normally taken a number of years, God could create within a shorter period of time, as quick as instantly, couldn't He?

Taking the same approach, even though the Earth might naturally require millions of years to form, according to the Big Bang theory, does it necessarily mean that the Earth must take that long for God to create? This is simply describing God using natural laws, which presupposes that God is below, rather than above the natural law, and that is such a poor definition of God, and especially not the kind that is defined by the Bible. If such a god exists, that's not a Christian god.

Does it mean that God cannot work in a natural manner? When we use medicine to treat our sicknesses, that's natural, and that's according to God's purpose because it leads to health, and health to sustain life, and life is sacred. The main problem is therefore not whether God can or cannot, but to find out what exactly did God do because that's what He chose to do and that's what He told us that He did. The most important clue lies in the book of Genesis. So what's crucial now is the hermeneutics and the exegesis of the creation account.

A 2. The word 'day' does not always refer to a 24-hour period, but that does not mean that the word 'day' in the Genesis account does not contextually naturally refer to a 24-hour period. Genesis is a historical document. Though there could be literary elements to it, such as the chiasmus device, it does not mean that the book is full of symbolic elements. The genealogies were not symbolic. The flood was not symbolic. God told Abraham that Israel was to be in a captivity for 400 years, and for 400 years they were in captivity. This was in continuity with the book of Exodus, and since the author of these books were Moses, the fact that the Israelites did not dispute the years is a strong evidence that it was an accurate dating. If the word 'day' here is inconsistently interpreted as metaphorical, then one can never be sure that the genealogies in later chapters have any definitive dating system.

To check if the dating system during Moses' time is the same as the present time, check all the way to Jesus' time, who still had to adhere to the tradition that was preserved in His time, for He had to perfectly obey the commandments. Check the Jewish customs during Jesus' time which were mostly elaborated in the book of Leviticus, and see if one day did not refer to a 24-hour period.

A 3. Two points:

1. The word 'day' here is already defined by God in Genesis 1:5. The human term of 'day' is consistent with how the day is described here. Therefore, the human term of the word 'day' is God-given. You can either say that it is actually God's meaning of day and that humans 'borrow' what was already defined by God, or you can say that the human term and the term given by God is the same.

Another approach is to realize that God gave the book of Genesis to the Israelites who already lived by a system of time and date, and God communicated to them using that system so that they can understand God. That is, if God had created with one day = 24 hours, but the Israelites used a different system of time, say, one that goes by one day = 48 hours, then God would have called the first stage of creation only as half a day. But seeing how God created the world in the first place, so that human system would follow the way God created the universe, so the 24-hour/day system is not a coincidence, rather a design by God, so that it would've come as wisdom for humans to go by a 24-hour/day system, according to the way God had created the universe and divided the days.

This is the history: God created the universe orderly dividing the days. Humans divide the days of the week according to the design of universe by God. God uses human system that is derived from God's design to describe His act of creation.

And if humans would fail to use a system that's appropriate, abnormally dividing the days, then God would have described His act of creation using the human system so that humans may understand how long God decided to take to create the universe. So unfailingly, if the Israelites already established that one day = 24 hours, the book of Genesis was written in this context.

2. God's time and human's time is the same. Peter wrote 2 Pet 3:8 with Psalm 90:4 is mind. Psalm 90:4 is a literary metaphorical passage. For God one day passes like a thousand years for a human because God goes on living whereas humans live a very short life. The way time passes for humans is infinitely fast compared to God who cannot die.

It is very strange if God's time is not synchronous with humans. When God declared Jesus to be His only Son, did this declaration happen over just 5 seconds for God, but for what, 50 years for Jesus? When Jesus felt that He was being left alone by God, did God leave Him alone for only that period of time, or did God leave Him alone for a shorter period of time, or a longer period of time? I'm not breaking the creator-creature distinction here, but I am very much convinced that if one second passes for humans, one second passes for God too. What that one second means for us who don't have immortality yet can't mean the same way to God who is always immortal. So it doesn't matter whether it's God's time or human's.

Conc. Based on this interpretation, yes, one day refers to 24 hours. If I'm proven wrong in the future, I think I'm justified in believing this for now.

Your subscription to the statement 'it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong' is your own enemy.

Luke 1:76-79 (New American Standard Bible)

    ⁷⁶"And you, child, will be called the ^(A)prophet of ^(B)the Most High;
         For you will go on ^(C)BEFORE THE LORD TO ^(D)PREPARE HIS WAYS;
    ⁷⁷To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
         By ^(E)the forgiveness of their sins,
    ⁷⁸Because of the tender mercy of our God,
         With which ^(F)the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
    ^79(G)TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
         To guide our feet into the ^(H)way of peace."


John the Baptist's main purpose in life is already revealed and predestined as he was born. He was to be the prophet of God to prepare God's ways in the coming of the Messiah through the knowledge of salvation and forgiveness of sin.

Who is man that he can say it is unfair that God decreed anything without the person's own choice? Indeed, God has never been in the position to need human's agreement and recognition before He may do according to His pleasure. For since everything is His, it is up to His decree. But rejoice you that love God and those whom God love, for everything is garnered for goodness, and it is not an impersonal idea of goodness we're talking about.

Are you complaining for the harsh life that you lead, blinding yourself to the great task God has set before you? Do you wish to serve Him greatly but complain about how God has set before you the necessity to eat insects and drink honey? Will you be given 5 talents and then complain that God has not given you enough? Why should God give you one at all in the first place? What will you do with those 5, if not acknowledge that it is your opportunity and chance to serve Him with all your might and heart? When will you stop being a child and cry about God's ordination for your life that must've been predestined for the greatest good? ENOUGH!

The necessity ordination for John the Baptist to be the last prophet to herald the new age of the Messiah would include a strict lifestyle. Those amongst you who wish to be great have not the mentality of great people must have, that is to accept the strict and necessary discipline. Then your dream is nothing but something vain. For if anyone is to be great, he must desire the completeness of being great: self-sacrifice, total devotion, high self-discipline, all with a total reliance on God. For he who relies on himself will surely face a great failure and doom. For He is the living water, and no matter how wonderfully created you are, you will rot to death if you do not tap into God and rely on Him.

It is only right for one to think it nothing but an honor to serve the Lord with the most crucial task: the pointing to who the Messiah is. Why is this necessary? Because the Jews have no such information, even though salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). Without John the Baptist, who will then acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah? What did they say about Him? People have accused Him to be possessed by Satan, have proclaimed the impossibility of anything great to come out of Nazareth, have only been concerned by His social background... all this, despite the fact that He had received John the Baptist's confirmation that He is the coming Messiah. How much worse if without?

How many desire to serve the Lord with all his heart, if the price to pay is to only wear clothes from the camel's skin, to only drink from honey, and to only eat from insects? You say you envy having been filled by the holy Spirit from conception, but is it truly your desire to serve the Lord, or to simply become great, to be powerful, to be wise, and to be famous? With all those things in mind, you will never truly serve the Lord, for your heart is not for Him, but for yourself. For John the Baptist did not desire anything else but the glorifying of Messiah, as Messiah is the most glorious in the first place. For if anyone wishes to be greater than God, God will surely crush him.

Luke uniquely has a point on salvation from the other gospels, instead of just the forgiveness of sin. This passage is unique because it seems to have a more spiritual implication, rather than physical, even though it came from the mouth of a Jew. This evidences more and more that it is the Holy Spirit working in Zacharias. For salvation will not come without the forgiveness of sins. True peace will never come for as long as one is not at peace with God. For the most important relationship of a person is himself with God. And if peace with God is not first sought after, the person has confused the right priorities in his life.

Obtaining salvation has nothing to do with doing good, or by giving money to God or to the poor. Obtaining salvation has nothing to do with doing good to one another, even though one who is saved is to express his love and righteousness by being good to one another. Salvation has everything to do with forgiveness of sins, and your sins will only be forgiven if you would accept the Messiah as your personal savior, to be justified in Christ. And if you will not, everything you do will be in vain. You think by satisfying your conscience, it will satisfy God's wrath? You are far from right. Listen to the Word of God proclaimed unto you: if not in the person of Messiah, your life of darkness will never receive visitation from the light.

It is not up to you to receive salvation, but it is up to God who decides to display His mercy. If you would forever live in your utter arrogance, thinking there's another way to conjure up salvation, that's so wrong. Because you do not know who the true God is unless you read the Bible. You will not know His will and His terms, and you will not understand how grave you have sinned against the Lord. And without this knowledge, you will not acknowledge the necessity of forgiveness. This is why John the Baptist's task is so crucial. This is in fact a duty of all who have become Christians. You need to let the world first know that they are sinful, then they need to know that they need forgiveness, and that they will need salvation.

This is exactly all there is to do for John the Baptist. He is to proclaim the message of salvation in an era where people do not know who the Messiah is yet. We are to proclaim the message of salvation in an era where people STILL do not know who the Messiah is yet, despite everything that has happened. But we preach not about the Messiah who has not risen, we preach of the Messiah that has risen and has guided His people into the light, who has completed His task necessary for effective calling in the future. We are not the Messiah, and we are to uplift and proclaim who the Messiah is. It is our duty to prepare the way for people to accept the Messiah, and Jesus Christ is the Messiah who has the ability to provide this salvation. If your glory prevents others to see the glory of Christ, beg for forgiveness and for God's mercy towards you and your listeners both. Empty yourself as Christ had emptied Himself, and bring people back into the experience of God's tender mercy unto them, as you have. Or have you?

From a tender age the bodkin's set,
For twice two sixes will tear me apart.
Between the dice of joy and sorrow met,
Stands fate, the seal of nay with twelve of ward.
Each move back and away is a question,
If the latter is not just a construct,
A scourge to faith, reason and emotion,
All forces woven only to destruct.
Lose all thy doubts; my will to love is greater
When loss and sorrow I know is human.
Or should the berry ripe ere I get her,
Else someone else turn her into a woman?
I'll neither be away nor around as flood,
If growth need be, together fight we shalt.

Optimism is all fine, but the first priority goes to the objective data. Expectation is never accurate because error and success seem to have an inconsistent probability. There's no point in having no expectation as the most fatal error is not the mean. If one has thought everything through, know that there will always... be room for both great rejoicing and disappointment.

Wouldst Thou a second star from afar be?
One lifetime for a Venus sparkling bright
For freedom from the bind of memory.
Now twice the light, but thrice the broken might.

How can I stand to look at myself
For I don't think it's avoidable
That I should merely be
a mockery of the future stock

Bound by my own limitations,
Of such limited knowledge.
But that's the kind of world
The treacherous kind that I live in.

Where knowledge is worshiped,
Where power is sought after,
In rebellion against God,
Also in running after God.

Christ emptied Himself,
In the form of a human,
That He would submit to not knowing,
Unless that which the Father would reveal unto Him.

And that is perfect in God's sight.
And that is worthy in God's sight.

Why do I again measure my worth through the scope of this world?
Why do I fear so much against the ridicule of this world?

The perfect, they ridicule and slander
The perfect Christ they reject
Why should I think that if I reach perfection
Rejection or mockery will stop?

Should I measure my own worth
In the eyes of the blind and the mouth of the dumb?

Let them stare in disgust with eyes made of worms
Let them scorn with their rabid mouths.

I think, therefore I am? Nay, thinking CONFIRMS that I am. But I am, therefore I think.

God,
Forgive France.
For the sins of the treacherous few
Recalled today as the St. Bartholomew's Massacre,
Remember those who had died for their faith,
And had fought for the battles,
For the king that they loved,
For the country that they loved,
For the people that they loved,
For the God that they loved.

Do not forsake this nation,
Have mercy upon them.
Do not curse their minds so,
And crush their hearts so.

Remember the days when they cried in Thy name,
For Thy sake,
And how Thou hadst blessed them,
Bless them again.

Amen.

That I may love others,
and that I may love Thee,
Love Thee more,
More than anything,
And love others,
That I may teach them about Thee.

From dust to dust,
Or from dawn to dust,
Hurry not I must,
Nor chance I pass:
Now the winter come,
But the song within,
Receives not some
A pardon for my sin.

'Tis once I fraught,
With scorn I mourn,
Ever more I sought
A cure for my thorn.

Thy sweet mild smile,
Gently swing my thought.
E'vry once in a while,
Your softest voice rings aloud.

Pure breed of bliss,
Renounce not thy kiss!
Further than mere tease,
Pray, do cease to desist.

Upon Hermes' wings,
Flee unto Olympus.
Fear not any kings,
Not even one Horus.

Tormented by a phantom,
All is sure a tantrum.
Even snatch Elysium,
Prepared of mortuorum.

Only promise me thy ring,
What more is there to think?
So in Hades I may sing,
For love is the harder sting.

Thy verdict be a choice,
If life is reek or sweet.
O, but let me rejoice,
So in eternity we meet.

That I may know of hope,
And of life I may cope.
False be the damn of the Pope,
Avoid the neck with a rope.

With might lift this burden,
In a form of gentle sweep.
O, how it feels in Eden!
Life's cradle without weep!

Bind us with an oath,
Impossibly revoked.

Forsake me never,
In joy live forever.

If you have all the knowledge in this world,
All but the value of truth,
What's the worth?

You cannot have matter unless there is time and space.
This is because the mind constructs a space-value and time-value of every matter that exists.

The problem is this:
The logic to say:
Every matter must exist in time and space.
God is beyond matter.
God must be beyond time and space.

This is false.
Matter, which is the subset of time and space,
means, is categorically within (below) time and space.
Simply because God is beyond (above) matter,
It's a leap to say that He is also above the properties which are above matter.

According to logic,
The property of the parts
May or may not share the properties of the sum or the whole.

According to theological truth,
We are created in God's image.
There is creator-creature distinction.
Yes. But quality in what ways?
Like the immortality of the soul.
Do not angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans
Have souls that will exist eternally ever since they were created?
Yes. Are we not then, perpetual, at least spiritually, as God is?
Yes. Is there no creator-creature distinction? No.
Our souls have a beginning, without an end.
God was without beginning, and without an end.
So the "quality" of perpetuity need not mean that we become "less" immortal,
Rather it is an immortality that need a beginning.

What I'm saying is that,
The properties of time and space
If they must be applied to matter,
Do not necessarily confine God to a material existence,
If and when described by time and space.
That is to say, MATTER is the SUBSET of TIME AND SPACE,
Not TIME AND SPACE the SUBSET of MATTER.

No wonder theologians struggle with this.
Philosophers offered this sort of false explanation.
So-called Biblical truth which is still fused with worldly philosophy, isn't it?
They fear to describe the Lord without using the Bible,
But also interpret the Bible "aided" by a worldly microscope.
Well, there's no going around it until the barrier is satisfactorily broken.
So my struggle is first in the field of philosophy,
Then towards theology. Because theology is wearing the coat of philosophy.