We are too big in ourselves when we do well, and too little in Christ in our failings.

Maintain your liberty in Christ by refusing to look any more to the law for justification, and by refusing to fear its words of condemnation. You are to live, in respect of your practice and obedience, as men who can neither be condemned by the law nor justified by it. It is a hard lesson to live above the law, and yet to walk according to the law. But this is the lesson a Christian has to learn, to walk in the law in respect of duty, but to live above it in respect of comfort, neither expecting favour from the law in respect of his obedience nor fearing harsh treatment from the law in respect of his failings. Let the law come in to remind you of sin if you fall into sin, but you are not to suffer it to arrest you and drag you into the court to be tried and judged for your sins. This would be to make void Christ and grace. Indeed Christians too much live as though they were to expect life by works, and not by grace. We are too big in ourselves when we do well, and too little in Christ in our failings. O that we could learn to be nothing in ourselves in our strength, and to be all in Christ in our weakness! In a word, let us learn to walk in the law as a rule of sanctification, and yet to live upon Christ and the promises in respect of justification.
  - pp219–220, Samuel Bolton (1606–1654) in The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (first published 1645, Puritan Paperback edition by Banner of Truth, 1964)

Alas, we are all too apt to follow this line

It is the concurrent opinion of all Reformed Churches that Christians are subject to the rule, the direction, and the authority of the moral law, as says Chamier: ‘Believers are free from the curses, not from the obligations, of the law.’ We preach obedience to the law, but not as the Papists do. They preach obedience as a means to justification; we preach justification as a means to obedience. We cry down works in opposition to grace in justification, and we cry up obedience as the fruits of grace in sanctification. He that does not walk in obedience is a stranger yet to Christ; and he that rests in his obedience does not know Christ. Indeed, many are too much like the Jews still. God set up a law as a rule of walking, and they look for justification by it. These poor men are like oxen in the yoke; they draw and toil and spend their strength (for who do more than those who think to earn merit thereby?), and when they have performed their labour, they are fatted up for slaughter. So it is with these: when they have endeavoured hard after their own righteousness, they perish in their just condemnation. These men Luther fitly calls ‘the devil’s martyrs’: they suffer much, and take much pains to go to hell. The apostle tells them what they are to expect: ‘For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse’ (Gal. 3.10), that is, those who are under the works of the law for justification; and the apostle gives the reason, ‘for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them’. These men seek life in death, righteousness in sin. And, alas, we are all too apt to follow this line; it is hard to perform all righteousness and rest in none; hard to be in duties in respect of performance, and out of duties in respect of dependence. We are apt to weave a web of righteousness of our own, to spin a thread of our own by which we may climb up to heaven. [[...]]
    Alas, there are multitudes in the world who make a Christ of their own works, and this is their undoing. They look for righteousness and acceptance more in the precept than in the promise, in the law rather than in the Gospel, more in working than in believing; and so they miscarry. There is something of this spirit in us all; otherwise we should not be up and down so much in respect of our comforts and our faith, as is still so often the case. We become cast down with every weakness in ourselves. But we should be all in Christ in weak performance, and nothing in ourselves in strong performances.
  -- p69–70, Samuel Bolton (1606–1654) in The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (first published 1645, Puritan Paperback edition by Banner of Truth, 1964), italics original

You can get a free electronic copy of this book at Monergism.

The problem of antinomianism: separation of God's law from God's person

    At one level the problem is indeed rejection of God's law. But underneath lies a failure to understand grace and ultimately to understand God. True, his love for me is not based on my qualification or my preparation. But it is misleading to say that God accepts us the way we are. Rather he accepts us despite the way we are. He receives us only in Christ and for Christ's sake. Nor does he mean to leave us the way he found us, but to transform us into the likeness of his Son. Without that transformation and new conformity of life we do not have any evidence that we were ever his in the first place.
    At root then antinomianism separates God's law from God's person, and grace from the union with Christ in which the law is written in the heart. In doing so it jeopardizes not simply the Decalogue; it dismantles the truth of the gospel.
        -- Sinclair Ferguson, The Whole Christ, p154 (italics original)

Calvin's Institutes. Book II, Chapter 9

This is the post #28 of the Calvin's Institutes summary series.

It is not that the Law was contrary to the Gospel. The promises of redemption was already in the Law and Israel was meant to look forward to its revelation. In the Gospel, in the appearing of Jesus, we can see so much more clearly how God forgives and saves us through the Mediator. Similarly, we, Christians who believe in the Gospel are to still have hope because the final consummation of things is yet to come, just as under the Law, the Israelites were to have hope, waiting for the Mediator. It is wrong to think that we have already "arrived at the destination" (contra Servetus). All this is to say that we must not pit the Law and the Gospel against each other to the extreme. More will be explained in the next two chapters.

Do you steal?

Commenting of the 8^th commandment, “You shall not steal.” [Ex. 20:15], Calvin says:

We must consider that what every man possesses has not come to him by mere chance but by the distribution of the supreme Lord of all. For this reason, we cannot by evil devices deprive anyone of his possessions without fraudulently setting aside God’s dispensation. Now there are many kinds of thefts. One consists in violence, when another’s goods are stolen by force and unrestrained brigandage. A second kind consists in malicious deceit, when they are carried off through fraud. Another lies in a more concealed craftiness, when a man’s goods are snatched from him by seemingly legal means. Still another lies in flatteries, when one is cheated of his goods under the pretence of a gift.
Let us not stop too long to recount the kinds of theft. Let us remember that all those arts whereby we acquire the possessions and money of our neighbors – when such devices depart from sincere affection to a desire to cheat or in some manner to harm – are to be considered as thefts. Although such possessions may be acquired in a court action, yet God does not judge otherwise. (Calvin, Institutes, II. viii. Section 45.)

A little later:

We will duly obey this commandment, then, if content with our lot, we are zealous to make only honest and lawful gain; if we do not seek to become wealthy through injustice, nor attempt to deprive our neighbour of his goods to increase our own; if we do not strive to heap up riches cruelly wrung from the blood of others; if we do not madly scrape together from everywhere, by fair means or foul, whatever will feed our avarice or satisfy our prodigality. On the other hand, let this be our constant aim: faithfully to help all men by our counsel and aid to keep what is theirs, in so far as we can; but if we have to deal with faithless and deceitful men, let us be prepared to give up something of our own rather than to contend with them. And not this alone: but let us share the necessity of those whom we see pressed by the difficulty of affairs, assisting them in their need with our abundance. (Calvin, Institutes, II. viii. Section 46.)

The School Chaplaincy Programme and the challenge

This morning, SMH reported that the national school chaplaincy programme is constitutionally invalid. It's 10pm and the article seems to have been edited to expand on the details and implications since this morning, and most significantly, its title has been changed to highlight that the school chaplaincy programme will continue to be funded.

From the edited version, which contain the most of the original content, I think there are two take-away points.

1) The court challenge against the school chaplaincy programme was basically on two grounds, religious freedom and the invalid use of executive power of the federal government. The court found that the funding agreement the Commonwealth committed itself was beyond its executive power, hence the scheme is constitutionally invalid. However, quite significantly, the High Court ruled unanimously that the chaplaincy programme did not infringe on the constitutional protection for religious freedom.

2) The father of four, Toowoomba man who challenged the programme reportedly said this:

"If we can't have a playing field within the public school system for our children that has freedom of religion and freedom from religion, I don't think there's anywhere else to go."

I am for the freedom of religion. But what's telling of what many outspoken atheists of our days, as with this man, is that they wish to have not just the freedom of religion but freedom from religion. I think it's common oversight in many people's thinking who are not necessarily atheists. But those who speak out against religion often seem to pursue freedom from religion knowingly. This is problematic because freedom from religion is most emphatically set against the freedom of religion. It is just as tyrannical as forcing everyone to comply with one and only state sanctioned religion, for atheism is not a neutral position you can take when religions are concerned. It is a religious position where you believe there is no God. So, in some sense, ironically, he was right in thinking that there's nowhere else to go. Not because our schools are overtly religious right now, but there's nowhere else to go but a religious place. Religious-ness is inherent in human nature, you cannot escape it.



I am glad that the chaplaincy programme was not unconstitutional on the grounds of religious freedom. I am glad I live in a country where freedom of religion is in fact upheld and rightly understood and applied (at least in most cases it seems) by law. At the same time, I am sad to be reminded of the fact that many people in this society want God banished from it. I am not surprised though. The bible informs me very well on how people, including myself, are set against God. But this in turn, reminds me of how God had mercy on me, a wretched sinner. How God reigns from heaven and in His grace, had turned me to see the wonder and glory of His Son. I can trust in His good plan for the whole world and continue to stand for truth and love those around me regardless of their religious stance.

Against the same sex marriage bills in 250 words or less

There is a government survey about the same sex marriage bills that were recently proposed. It's a very short one. I suggest you take it and let your voice heard. The most difficult part of this one page survey was describing my reasons for not supporting the bills in less than 250 words. After struggling to keep the number of words under it, I managed to complete it in 249.

Firstly, the meaning of marriage is well understood and accepted by the vast marjority of Australians as an exclusive union between a man and a woman. It is not the government's role to re-define marriage.
Secondly, the majority of Australians do not actually want the change.
Thirdly, even if the majority indeed wanted to legalise the same sex marriage, the government must not simply bend to the public wishes and opinions. I should not doubt for a moment that the government officials are concerned with what is right and wrong, what is true and false, what is good and what is not, even if it may cost their next election.
Fourthly, re-defining marriage is not going to promote tolerance. It will only have an adverse effect where, instead of learning to live with those we disagree with, we will be forced to actually agree with them.
Fifthly, keeping the current meaning of marriage is not in any way discrimitive or intolerant action, it is merely stating what is plain.
Finally, the victim of redefinition of marriage will be our children. Upon legalising the same sex marriage, our children will helplessly and voicelessly be forced into accepting a false meaning of marriage. It is also likely to be followed with the countless cases where children will be denied a father or a mother by the same sex parents. Will we, finding ourselves in such situations, attempt to redefine the meaning of the term, father, or mother, too, then?

Against same-sex marraige

Some good arguments against same-sex marriage, written by a homosexual.

P plate fine

Driving back from Canberra last Sunday.

Me: Oooh, ok, there's a police car behind me with lights on. I'm gonna have to slow down and stop.
Wife: Really?
Me: I hope I wasn't speeding, for a moment, I might have gone over the speed limit, I don't know. If I have, this might be my first time getting caught. :-(
Wife: ...
Police Officer: This is a random breath testing, can I see your driver's license, please?
Me: Oh, yep. (feeling confident and relieved that it's not about speeding, handed over my license.)
PO: Please count to 5 here.
Me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (feeling more confident. Of course I didn't drink any alcohol that morning, nor the night before.)
PO: Ok... I also noticed that you didn't have your P plate displayed at the back.
Me: What?!?! No, really? It must've fallen off somewhere.
PO: No, well, you show me where you had it on. Just watch the cars driving past.
Me: Yeah, sure.
Came out of the car, walked around to the back. And, of course, just as PO said, it wasn't there.
Me: Oh, ok... but... but... I normally have them on, just here. (Pointing to the right side of the number plate.)
PO: So, when did you have it on?
Me: Urm... yesterday...? (O how I wish I did not say that...)
PO: See, there's dust here where you are pointing, you didn't have it on for a while.
I started walking around to the front of the car, thinking, "surely, the front one must still be there."
PO: Yeah, the front one, do you have the P plate at the front?
Me: What!?!? (To my shock and horror, the front one was missing too.)
PO: Where do you have it on, usually?
Me: (Somewhat unsure this time, point to the right side of the number plate) Around here...?
PO: There's dust and bugs as well here. See, you didn't have them on for a long time. You lied. I don't like being lied to.
Me: (By this time, I was so shocked and started feeling miserable, had my hands on top of my head.) I.. I have spare P plates in my car, I'll put them on right now.
PO: Yeah? I got lots of them. I can give you some if you want. Do you want them?
Me: No, no, I got some here. I'll just put them on right now...
PO: Well, I'll be right back, this won't take long. (Walks back to his car.)
Me: (getting back into my car and to my wife) Whe... when did we lose our P plates?
Wife: ... I don't know...?
Me: It must've fallen off somewhere and we didn't realise it for a while.
PO: (returning to us) You have driven without your P plates, and there was dust and bugs on the spot where you said you had your P plates on, obviously you did not have the P plates for a while. You are receiving the penalty and the instructions are on this paper. Do you have any questions?
Me: .... no.
PO: Ok, sorry to keep you waiting, have a nice day. (Walks away.)
Me: ... (sigh) ...
Me: (drive away)
... silence in the car for several minutes ...
Me: Sorry, Sulahya. I should've checked.
Wife: That's ok. (smiles)
Me: (sigh)
... more silence in the car for many more minutes ...
Me: Sorry, Sulahya, but... Arrghhh, I'm so upset!
Wife: It's okay. (more smiles)
Me: I mean, sure, I didn't have the P plates on. I'll pay the fine and take the demerit points, but why did he accuse me of lying?
Wife: ...
Me: I feel like writing a letter to the police department for an apology. I don't care about the fine, but why accuse me of lying?
Wife: huh. (small laughter)
... some time later ...
Me: Ok, ok. I have to confess that when I said, "yesterday...?" I was kind of lying. I didn't know whether the plate was on the car yesterday or not.... I just assumed it was on, and I was hoping that he would let me off with just a warning if I told him I had them on yesterday. I should forgive the policeman for accusing me of lying.
Wife: Ok.
Me: Yes, I forgive him. I decided to forgive him, and I forgive him.
Wife: Ok.
... some hours later ...
Me: Oh, I realise that I had been breaking the road rules many times, and I take this as God's gracious warning. I'm not even going to bother appealing for leniency. I'll just pay the fine and I will thank God for reminding me of His grace in my life.
Wife: Yeah... Ok.
... the next day ...
Me: (after paying for the fine online) Oh, God. I'm still upset. What is going on? Why, why am I so upset still?

[The dialogue with the police officer is as accurate as I can remember it. I wish I had the recorded conversation available to me.]


.
.
.

Deep down, I am upset more because of the moral accusation of lying from the policeman than the fine I received. But there is also a sense of being trapped by him (when he asked me when I had the P plate on, since I just assumed I always had them on and didn't pay much attention to it) and also a sense of lost opportunity of appeal for leniency because I didn't say the right words at the time (the policeman informed me well that the conversation is being recorded). But, ultimately, I now realise that I am so upset and unable to let go because I am not satisfied with God's forgiveness and Jesus's righteousness imputed on me. I am hurting from PO's moral accusation because my heart was saying that God's promise is not enough! It is good time to remind myself of Romans 8:1, There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. O, that my heart be satisfied with Him!

I am not a fan of turning any of unfavourable life's events into some kind of lessons. There are cases where such approach may not be appropriate. But in this incident, I need to learn some valuable lessons, and they are:
1) Believe in Jesus who have paid for my sins completely. I no longer need to defend myself. No need to seek my own justification. Jesus is my justification. God declared I am forgiven. True, I am a liar, deserving eternal hell. Also true, that I am blameless in God's eyes, accepted into the blissful heaven where He reigns.
2) Resolved to be satisfied with what God says about me, rather than what people say about me. How long shall I go on fearing men, rather than God?
3) Resolved to speak truth only, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, all the time. Even in a situation where I *might* be able to escape a penalty by telling a half-truth, I must speak the truth. (In my recent experience, when the PO asked me when I had the P plates on, I should have said: "I do not know. I just assumed they were on, because I don't recall taking them off.", instead of squirming out, "... yesterday...?")
4) Resolved to keep to the law of the land to my best ability. It does not honour Jesus to break the law of this land.
5) Resolved to apply the gospel again and again to my own heart, knowing that it is both the sharpest sword to pierce my dull conscience as well as the most soothing balm to my hurting soul.

Also, from The Critical Question for Our Generation:

Ray Ortlund: “The worst this life can shove down our throats, but with the nearness of Jesus, is heaven on earth. The best this life can give, but without Jesus, is a living hell.”

I agree. And this whole event for the past few days, as much as my heart is still sore and grieving, has forced me to rely on Jesus more and for that I am grateful to God. It is His grace that I received this fine. It is His grace in my life that the PO stated the obvious that I am a liar. It is His grace that I continued to seek comfort from God. It is His grace that I can now say that it is His grace. It is all Him. I can boast in none but Jesus.

For those close to me, I ask for your prayers that I may be restored to peace and joy in Jesus.

Should the parents be held responsible for their child's crime?

I'm sorry to talk about this sad and terrible rape/paedophilia incident, so, if you are easily offended, please move on. Also, I am not a parent, so you might think I'm not qualified to comment on this kind of issues at all, but I am certainly a child of my parents, so I think I have at least some say in this.

In South Korea, an 18 year old with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) raped a 7 year old girl in 2006. He now is serving in prison his 10 year sentence. But then, the court also ruled that his parents were liable for his crime as well, not that they were involved in his crime directly, but by not bringing up their child properly.

The court said the boy had grown up watching pornography and had imitated a film he had seen during the attack.
It said his parents could have prevented the crime with appropriate education, but neglected their duty.
[...]
A court statement said: "The parents could have prevented the crime with appropriate education but failed to show enough attention to their child.

At first, I thought it was so bizarre to fine the parents for their son's crime. I still find it very strange. I am not sure if it is ever right to penalise the parents directly for their child's crime, especially the child is reasonably old, say, 16 years old or older. But at the same time, I can't help but agree that the parents should be held responsible or accountable for their child's behaviour to some extent, somehow. Or, if not for the behaviour of the child, then at least for the way they are taught and brought up in that household. No?

On a side note, I gasped when I read that the victim was a 7 year old girl. But I also found myself appalled at the fact that a monetary value was put to the "damage".

The girl's parents were seeking 225m won ($165,000; £111,000) in damages.

I am not so naive to assume that this kind of economic valuation does not happen, in fact, I know full well that these happen all the time. But, it is still quite upsetting to think that it does happen.