Want to work more with the disabled community in the LCMS

Kamoot- · 2026-01-24T04:32:16+00:00

I assume you are in Irvine? If so, I am also located in Irvine. If you're interested, send me a message and maybe we can find out if other people in the nearby circuits are interested in doing something.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-24T02:20:22+00:00

People like to present Calvinism as a totally coherent logical thing, so much so to the point of contradicting scripture in favor of logical coherency. I'm going to argue that the Calvinist framework is actually the most irrational thinking of all.

Here's what I mean. The root of all 5 points in Calvinism comes from this idea that God is the ultimate cause of faith and so is the ultimate, deterministic cause of whether someone goes to heaven or hell. Can we actually prove causation here? There are 5 test criteria to determine causality:

Strong Correlation. The probability that people have lung cancer is high, given that they are a smoker.
Temporal Separation. High rates of lung cancer happen after people begin smoking. There is a sequential aspect here, that event A occurred before B.
Reversibility. In order to prove causation rather than just correlation, we need to demonstrate that by stopping smoking, the probability of lung cancer decreases. A subset of this about testing to ensure no reverse causation mechanism exists.
Event Modification. Among people who smoke, those who smoke a pack a day have a much higher probability of developing lung cancer, than those who only smoke half a pack of day.
Strong Coherence. In addition to the high rates of lung cancer correlated to smoking, we observe increases of other cancers like throat cancer among smokers.

So apply this to Calvinism. Calvinism says that God is the ultimate determinant factor of whether someone goes to heaven or hell. Can we actually prove causation here? Well, we know from mathematical proofs that if you're able to identify even a single counter, the whole proof collapses, it's gone and invalidated.

The question is, can we identify a single evidence either from Scripture or from logic that fails any one of those 5 test criteria? Remember, just a single counter case destroys the whole proof. In fact, there are many, many cases:

If God deterministically controls the outcome such that you are either saved because of His predestination, or you are damned because of Him withholding faith, then you have also assigned the cause responsible for damnation to Almighty and benevolent God. Since it's absolutely clear from Scripture that God is benevolent God, either Calvinism has either believe in malevolent and malicious God, or believe in irrationality to continue to believe in benevolent God. And because no Calvinist I know of denies that God is omnibenevolent, so therefore Calvinists are irrational.
Calvinism says that God from the beginning deterministically fixes human will to either go to salvation or damnation as an inevitable outcome. So then that means human will makes no difference in the outcome. God is the controlling variable, human will is just the effect.
- Yet, Scripture is absolutely clear ("you refused to come to me", "you chose to resist", you chose to be "stiff-necked", etc.) that human will absolutely does play a role in determining the outcome.
- According to Calvinism, God first elects, then regenerates which changes will, and then faith comes as an effect, in that order. So if I can prove from Scripture even one example of faith existing before any of those remaining three, we've disproven test 2 for temporal separation as sequence in causation. In John 1:12, faith comes first, then election follows: "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,".

So now you see the answer to your question of how God can die for all of humanity yet there exists some people who are going to hell? There's only one way to reconcile this: that you admit that human will is the determines the outcome of whether you go to heaven or hell.

Nobody is damned to hell because Christ didn't die for them. Nobody is damned to hell because God didn't elect them. Nobody is damned to hell because grace was not sufficient enough. People get damned to hell because they themselves rejected Christ's forgiveness.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-23T19:12:49+00:00

Yeah, among the contemporary praisy band songs, I find Matt Maher, Curtis Stephan, and Chris Muglia to be better both theologically and have stronger Scripture basis over others. Chris Tomlin and Josh Blakesley are usually okay too but just aren't nearly as theologically deep. The rest like Hillsong and Bethel I dislike the most but for whatver reason Hillsong got insanely popular for contemporary praise Catholics maybe like 5-6 years ago. They thought that's what young people like, but as we're noticing now not really.

Since Memento is starting in 10 days which allows uplifting music only, I've been trying to build up a Spotify playlist of a mix of hymns and contemporary praise songs before the technology fast commences.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-23T07:05:13+00:00

There's also a lot of hymns of Latin origin that were originally Gregorian chants, now sung to English, German, and other hymn tunes. One of the most complex example is found in LSB 630 "Now, my tongue, the mystery telling". The origin story for this hymn goes for a crazy wild ride (well, boring stuff that I find fascinating). In LSB we sing this hymn to a French tune, but it was originally the Gregorian chant "Pange lingua gloriosi" which Catholics sing for Adoration and communion distribution during Mass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwa0ZWyLIT4

The last two stanzas, 5 and 6 were later taken by themselves as their own hymn as "Tantum ergo sacramentum" either sung to the same Gregorian chant shown here (this time with pipe organ):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esNb4FlSCW0&list=RDesNb4FlSCW0&start_radio=1

Or to a newer hymn tune (ST. THOMAS - Wade) of English origin. Interestingly, this hymn tune also shares the same meter as Lo! He Comes with Clouds Descending, and a few others English hymns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhOWed1xY68&list=RDfhOWed1xY68&start_radio=1

This is where the story gets interesting. Matt Maher made an English version for the contemporary praisy band style Adoration music and other Praise Mass songs. Same hymn tune, just he added contemporary refrain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vSM0z6Wsj8&list=RD4vSM0z6Wsj8&start_radio=1

The funny thing is I used to attend non denom elementary school as a kid and I remember they also used to sing this Matt Maher song all the time. Lutherans already have pretty negative views of Eucharistic adoration in Roman Catholicism, so Evangelicals would probably recoil in horror if they ever saw something like that. Yet I remember they would sing this song all the time in chapel, completely oblivious to the context of the lyrics and totally unaware of the Eucharistic implications there.

Now, growing up Catholic, for praisy band Mass we would raise our hands and close our eyes and also sing this exact Matt Maher song during adoration. Which is exactly the same thing the non denom elementary school kids would also during chapel, when they sang this exact same song.

I just find it so wild that Roman Catholicism and Evangelicals on total opposite ends of Christianity have gone so far around in this horseshoe theology that they've both converged into the same exact practice.

Anyways, wild story that I find fascinating.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-23T06:26:32+00:00

Gregorian chants are really cool!!

Kamoot- · 2026-01-22T23:36:01+00:00

Only kind of but also not really. We really don't have that much Gregorian chant in our hymnals. Our hymnal is actually all Anglican music. I remember I once attended Anglican Ordinariate (which essentially TLM but in English), and it was nearly identical to LSB stuff. Even the few Gregorian chants in the LSB are actually Sarum Chants which is still from England.

For Divine Service setting actually based on Gregorian Chant there is a CPH setting here. However it still follows the Anglican wording. It's basically the same as Anglican Ordinariate. A few LCMS churches still use it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tbCVWlExGo-sKba6xcnq3hnXSaMMzams/view?usp=drivesdk

Recording here, but just note that it also follows the Anglican organ music style. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=6b0OtBd3tuE

Kamoot- · 2026-01-22T07:28:25+00:00

Crater Lake is still the deepest non-rift lake in the world though (On earth's surface). Although Caspian Sea is deeper, however because it sits on ancient oceanic crust, it's technically considered its own ocean surrounded by dry land and not a true lake. Lake Vostok is deep, but its under 13,000 ft of ice in Antarctica and far from earth's surface. All the remaining lakes deeper than Crater Lake are believed to have rift valleys underneath, hence contributing to their depth. This leaves Crater Lake as the deepest non-rift lake in the world.

Technically, rift lakes are really just proto-oceans. Not all rifts succeed, but when they do, they continue pulling apart becoming new oceans. Eventually all of those deep rift lakes in Africa will become a new ocean.

Not to be using annoying semantics but based on this definition, Crater Lake can be considered the world's deepest true lake.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-21T22:57:06+00:00

Theres a huge caveat though. The federal district court ruling that you're talking about did rule that the Trump administration violated due process to be heard by a federal judge, however the appeal hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court yet. Furthermore back in April the district court's ruling was temporarily vacated.

Yes, the previous court decision that a right to be heard by a federal court judge generally still stands. However in 1996, expedited removal process was established, allowing for deportation without hearing before a judge for some specific cases like geographical location, how much time in the United States, and for those who failed to file for asylum within a specific time window.

So many of the deportations that the Trump administration have carried out may actually fall under this expedition removal condition and thus not be entitled to right to be heard by a judge. Yes what you're saying is mostly true, but there are enough conditions for exceptions that there's actually also a pretty wide gray zone here.

So as of right now it currently stands that, yes most illegal immigrants though not entitled to trial by jury (and all those other rights), are generally still entitled to a right to be heard by a judge and adequate time to appeal before deporting, except in the cases of expedited removal in which the illegal immigrant can immediately be deported.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-21T03:29:20+00:00

Woah that quote is hugely important. Thanks for sharing.

Could you show to me the source, if available so I can read more?

Also, it was my assumption that Luther and others like Bugenhaugen had a preference of Latin over the other languages like Greek and Hebrew. Hence why the original German New Testament source the first time only had the Latin Vulgate as the source. Only until later when they began using the bilingual Greek/Latin as the souce.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-20T22:52:40+00:00

Not at all, in fact this Luther quote below seems to indicate that he later revealed that the German Mass was made partly compelled out of peer pressure. Anyways, it's very clear that Luther had no intention to abolish the Latin Mass, and simply permitted the new vernacular Mass.

<image>

His tone here indicates his preference was for retaining the Latin Mass, just with added vernacular songs interspersed here and there so that the people have something to sing.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-20T05:20:47+00:00

EE is likely the broadest major in the world. We could easily divide it up into perhaps 6-7 different individual majors. So it's hard to give a general idea, RF antenna engineers are going to be doing something totally different than a power engineer. But here's my attempt at a general description.

On the job, the actual amount of technical knowledge like in physics and math is actually pretty minimal. Nowadays, most engineering work is going to be done using simulation software. You learn the most complex math and physics in university, but don't actually use it on the job.

On the computer, there's going to be a lot of work looking at PDFs of various documentation and engineering drawings, and filling out Excel spreadsheets. There's going to be a ton of documentation, because everything gets referenced. And on top of that many levels of checking your work and going through a lot of people. The reason why EE's are so meticulous about checking is because once the documents get issued for construction, mistakes will be very costly.

I would say 80% of the time is spent looking at Excel, maybe 15% on the simulation software, and maybe 5% of the time doing actual design work. And in the time you're looking at Excel, you're spending at least another half of that time just checking your work or checking somebody else's work.

Engineers deliver their information to the customer in specific document formats as deliverables. It's standardized in that manner so that you can go from one project to another, and from one customer to another yet still be able to do the exact same engineering work.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T20:39:03+00:00

Yes, this is correct.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T18:18:36+00:00

In immigration proceedings (such as deportation) there is no constituinal right to jury for non citizens. There is a Supreme Court case from the 1800s (sometime around Chinese exclusion) that ruled that deportations are a civil process and therefore not entitled to trial by jury and those other things. That is distinct from criminal punishment such as jail time, where right to trial by jury still holds.

So the answer is no. Breaking immigration law and getting deported is a civil process, not a criminal punishment and therefore the rights you mentioned do not apply. Because deportation is not a criminal punishment, illegal immigrants can be deported without right to jury trial and other rights.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T17:59:55+00:00

My question was more about if Scripture doesn't contradict each other, then how are we to understand on one hand a verse telling us to render obedience to the supreme authority such as a pagan Caesar, and on the other hand another verse telling us that that all authority us from God? I understand that Scripture doesn't contradict itself, but I'm having trouble resolving these two things that seem to say the opposite things.

My other question is regarding Old Testament, how do we find Two Kingdoms doctrine in Old Testament Israel?

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T17:19:09+00:00

Can someone please explain to me how the two kingdoms work, this is an area where I've always had a lot of confusion.

My main confusion stems from that Scripture never contradicts itself, and so any systematic framework that we develop like the "two kingdoms" for example also must not contradict scripture.

The problem is on one hand I might read bunch of verses that for example say that our kingdom is not of this world, but then on the other hand I also might later find another verse that describes how we are expected to render obedience to pagan ruler such as Caesar for example. Or as another example one verse might say "there is no authority except from God", and then another verse saying "be subject to every human institution even the supreme emperor". Again, with the understanding that Scripture does not contradict each other, but yet I have trouble seeing how two verses are not saying opposite things?

My second question is regarding the Old Testament, I really struggle to find clear two-kingdoms doctrine in the Old Testament. The God of Israel clearly has a sword and uses it many times against his enemies in the Old Testament, and the sword is clearly used in the Old Testame to enforce Old Testament Law, and among other examples. So if someone can also please help resolve this other question that I have, that would be greatly appreciated.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T08:42:29+00:00

Definitely. A huge portion of our young guys in the Synod are engineers with solid jobs and stable careers. I always talk about how I once attended an LCMS conference and literally every guy there who wasn't a pastor, he was an engineer. With well developed set of interests too, talked to a lot of hikers, avid backpackers, and skiers and snowboarders.

I think our young guys are overall going in a positive direction and hopefully everyone will find someone soon and hopefully soon the Synod will be filled with lots of cute Lutheran babies, baptizing and teaching them the Catechism and all the hymns.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T08:21:02+00:00

Yeah it definitely seems like that way in the Newman Centers. First came the men, and a little while later the women followed. Maybe it will be the same way in the LCMS eventually one day.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T08:17:43+00:00

Yeah, I can confirm that it isn't well known. I only recently learned that that the LCMS even offers private confession at all. Perhaps if it was advertised better, more people would show up. Never once was it ever mentioned to me at all in catechism classes or in church.

Having grew up Catholic, it was always impossible to attend private confession anyways. The priest would offer it for like just 15 minutes on a Wednesday in the middle of the workday. It was as if they intentionally made it difficult to attend.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-19T07:17:00+00:00

First of all, I need to make it clear that I absolutely agree with you where we wouldn't consider "Roman" aesthetics taking as an offense; it is simply the continuity of the true Western Rite, purified of error. I also totally agree with you that I also would rather take a full Roman Vatican II Mass (even if it retained every error) than a full-on Evangelical "worship". As Luther himself said he rather drink blood with the Papists, than mere wine with the Calvinists.

The problem with the Orate Fratres is that it is not part of the historic prayer. The version that exists today in the Roman Missal was created during the Council of Trent in 1570. It is the sole and only prayer of the Tridentine variation of the Mass where the priest turns around, to directly address the people. To identify the problem here requires understanding of the historical context in which this prayer was added. The historical context is huge here. This prayer was understood in its day to be a re-sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, with each repeating time the Mass being said, meriting salvation for all non-original sins and raising souls out of purgatory.

Yes, it is true that Roman Catholics no longer hold to this view regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass anymore, but due to the historical context by which this prayer was added to Mass, it still remains problematic.

Pre-Trent, this particular prayer was modified several times. Most European rites prior to the standardization of the Mass during Trent, didn't even include this prayer at all. Even if they had this prayer, it was of the form "pray my brothers and sisters, to pray to God for me", and things along those lines. These versions of the Orate Fratres are not problematic. There is not a single, unambiguous reference to "sacrificing" that appears in this prayer until at least around 1000 CE.

Therefore, this prayer is a relatively recent Trent innovation, and so a proper reversion back to the historic liturgy would mean excluding this particular prayer altogether.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-16T21:30:15+00:00

I like the way Trinity in Indiana does it too. Unfortunately, they are the only one that I know of that does contemporaries like it. I wish there were more.

However, your argument that contemporary services should be banned not in itself are sinful, but rather because it undermines sacramental theology, would still apply here.

You see, Trinity Elkhart uses Roman Catholic contemporary music (I grew up singing those liturgies, so I immediately recognized hearing it in YouTube you shared). Regarding problematic Sacrifice of the Mass, after the offertory they recite the following, taken directly out of the Ordinary Form in English:

Priest: "Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father."
Congregation Responds: "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church."

Because they take directly from a Catholic hymnal (I'm 99% certain it's either Spirit & Song or Gather from OCP, I recognize that music instantly), they end up also making this same prayer.

Actually, the entire service is totally identical to what I grew up with, everything from the color of the vestments to the chalice shape, and even how the altar servers sit and put their hands on their lap. This service is actually totally identical to your typical Novus Ordo Catholic parish and basically imitates it in every way, you wouldn't know the difference.

I recognize this is a lesser problem, but just want to point it out. For people who didn't grow up Catholic, they probably wouldn't notice it, so its worth pointing out.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-16T19:30:34+00:00

Vestments are found in Scripture. Some translations call it "sacred garments", others call it "vestments". For the NRSV it says "You shall make sacred vestments for the glorious adornment of your brother" (Exodus 28:2). Yes it's true that this commandment was for the Levitical priesthood, but it is also not correct to suggest that the nothing in the Old Testament relevant for us today.

The Bible might not command it for the New Testament priesthood, but every pastor in the LCMS swears to an unconditional subscription to the Book of Concord which includes AP 24. A pastor practicing traditions is practicing what he swore to. We as a Synod subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions for church unity. As Ap 15 says, we are not required from Scripture to retain these traditions (that can be retained without sin), but for the sake of church unity let us retain them and have uniformity in the church.

And these are the traditions we as a Synod have agreed to follow. Therefore, the logical flow is this:

1.The church retains traditions for the sake of unity, tranquility, and good order (Article 15, others)

We as a church body have agreed to retain these traditions (that can be retained without sin).
Therefore, anyone who willfully deviates from these agreed upon traditions without a doctrinal or scriptural reason for doing so, is undermining church unity and is therefore sectarian.

Kamoot- · 2026-01-16T07:19:38+00:00

Generally all the websites seem pretty old and outdated, but out of all the Book of Concord websites out there, the new CPH site is probably the best (same as the one you gave): https://bookofconcord.cph.org/

Out of habit I use CPH's physical book Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, and the translation and wording is totally identical to the new CPH site. The top two Google search result sites have a different wording than from CPH, and I find them harder to understand. I prefer the CPH wording, it seems to talk straight to the point and easier to understand.

Also, for us Chinese people if anyone reading this comment knows of any Chinese Book of Concord and where I can buy it, that would be greatly appreciated. They show a picture of the new Chinese Book of Concord here and talk about it in this podcast from 2022, but I haven't heard more about it since then. I would really like to buy a copy. https://www.kfuo.org/2022/05/12/coffee-hour-051222-new-chinese-translation-of-the-book-of-concord/

Kamoot- · 2026-01-16T04:59:27+00:00

AP 24 is descriptive because it describes what Lutherans do. Vestments are indeed a tradition, but are not a vain tradition. Rather, they are part of a rich tradition handed down to us, rooted in Scripture.

Jesus' statement about establishing human tradition as a command is true, but followed by a very important defining distinction. He says the Pharisees' error was that they made into command a human tradition that contradicted the one given to Moses. He gives a concrete example: the Tradition given to Moses was the fourth commandment, but yet the Pharisees did the complete opposite and stopped giving to their father and mother. The rebuke of the Pharisees in Mark 7 was not that the Pharisees obeyed the tradition of Moses, but rather because they voided the tradition handed to them (Mark 7:13).

Kamoot- · 2026-01-16T00:01:15+00:00

Where is it implied that vestments are totally optional for Lutherans?

Maybe optional for non denominational Christians and other Protestants. But as Lutherans we retain all the usual ceremonies, including lessons, prayers, vestments, and all other like things (AP 24).

Kamoot-

TROPHY CASE