Year: 2025

When it was announced that the covid 19 mRNA vaccines were ready in early 2021,  we were convinced by the authorities that the efficacy of these mRNA vaccines was 95%.  The clinical trials of Pfizer were conducted this way.  2 groups of 20,000 volunteers participated with one group vaccinated while the other did not.  8 and 162 persons were infected from the vaccinated group and the non vaccinated group respectively.

Efficacy of the vaccine   =    1 – 8/162 x 100   =  95%

Out of caution,  I hesitated to take the vaccination till 50% of the nation’s population was fully vaccinated as announced by the authorities in their official website.  The cumulative figures of infection in that week were :

Fully vaccinated (2 jabs)       :   412   out of 2.5 million

Partially vaccinated (1 jab)   :  283   out of 0.5 million

Non vaccinated                      :  253    out of 2.0 million

Looking squarely at the above statistical data,  it was very strange that the partially vaccinated had the highest percentage of infection among the three groups.  If we leave out the partially vaccinated figures,  using the above formula in calculating the efficacy of the vaccine,

Efficacy   =  1 – 412 /253 x 100   = – 63% 

That was a red flag for me.  Instead of even getting zero efficacy,  the actual efficacy was negative 63% implying that the vaccinated was more likely to spread the disease.  Later, the authorities changed their narrative that the vaccine did not prevent transmission but protect against hospitalization and death.  It would be too far-fetched or bizzare for me to believe that the vaccine, which could not prevent the first line of defense against transmission, but could prevent the second or third line of defense of hospitalization and death.  Since the population was over 90% vaccinated, there was no control group for comparison to make such assumption.

Later, the authorities informed that the killed virus vaccine such as the China made vaccines were inferior to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.  That defied common sense again.  How could the killed virus vaccine, which presented the whole real virus but killed as not to cause disease, be inferior to the mRNA vaccine, which was only producing one spike protein of the virus ? Won’t a person’s immune system trained by the killed real virus vaccine recognize the same real virus better when he is exposed to the real virus than trained by the simulated single spike protein vaccine bearing no semblance to the real virus ?   The authorities also informed that natural immunity was inferior.  That was also bizzare for me.   It is like someone who has actually won a real fight against the enemy, and will he not better trained in future fights against the same enemy than just learning to fight in a simulated situation ? Some 9000, who suffered severe side effects from the first mRNA vaccine jab since rollout, were told by the authorities to complete. their vaccination regimen by taking the Sinovac killed virus vaccine. Was it not telling us that the killed virus vaccine was safer ?

Fast forward to 19 Feb 2025 when the Straits Times newspaper reported that 100,000 people in Thailand were infected with flu since the start of 2025 and there was 9 fatalities which all 9 fatalities were vaccinated.  

Due to the kiasu nature of the Singapore population,  32% were vaccinated upon learning of the death of a very famous Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu due to pneumonia. I could safely assume that the Thailand population had lower vaccination rates below 20%.   Common sense interpreting the above data should tell us that the flu vaccine was not only not effective but might possibly weaken the immune system where all the deaths came from the very small vaccinated percentage. (Does not this statistics cast doubt on the earlier premise that mRNA vaccine does not prevent transmission but does prevent death ?)

Open theism is a theological view that emphasizes God’s dynamic relationship with creation, particularly regarding human free will and the nature of the future.  It asserts that :

1. God is Omniscient but the Future is Partially Open.   

Open theists believe that God knows everything that can be known, but because the future includes free choices that have not yet been made, it is not fully determined and therefore, not fully knowable.

2. Genuine Free Will.

Human beings have real freedom to make choices, which means their decisions are not pre-determined by God.  This view contrasts with classical theism, which holds that God’s foreknowledge includes all future events.

3. God Can Change His Plans.

Since the future is not entirely fixed, God can interact with humanity in real time, responding, adapting and even changing His course of action based on human choices and prayers.

4. God’s Sovereignty includes Risk.

Unlike traditional views that depict God as meticulously controlling everything, open theism suggests that God, in His sovereignty, allows for uncertainty and risk, valuing genuine relationships with His creatures.

Open theism is often contrasted with classical theism (which holds that God knows the future exhaustively) and is debated among theologians, with critics arguing that it undermines God’s omniscience and sovereignty. However, supporters believe it better aligns with biblical depictions of God’s relational nature and human responsibility. 

(See Table 1 for the comparison of Open Theism with Classical Theism, Arminianism and Calvinism.)

Let’s see how the various views interpret the following verses.

1.  God’s Knowledge of the Future.  

Isaiah 46:9-10.  “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.”

Classical Theism And Calvinism.   Strongly supports God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and sovereignty over all history.

Arminianism.  Affirms that God knows the future, but human free will is still intact.

Open Theism.  Open theists interpret this as God declaring His ultimate plan, not every single human choice.

1 Samuel 15:11.  “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me.”

Classical Theism & Calvinism.  View this as anthropomorphic language – God is expressing disappointment but knew this would happen.

Arminianism.  Acknowledges that God foresaw Saul’s rebellion but still allowed him free will.

Open Theism.  Suggests that God’s plans can change based on human actions, meaning the future is not entirely pre-determined.

2. Human Free Will.

Deut 30:19.   “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.  Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”

Classical Theism & Calvinism.  Accepts human choices but interprets them as working within God’s ultimate plan.

Open Theism & Arminianism.  Strongly supports libertarian free will – humans can genuinely choose their destiny.

Acts 2:23.  “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

Calvinism.  Shows that God’s sovereignty includes determining major events like Jesus’ crucifixion.

Classical Theism & Arminianism.  Supports foreknowledge but does not necessarily mean predestination of all things.

Open Theism.  Might argue that God’s plan involved sending Jesus,  but human choices (e.g. Judas’ betrayal) were not fully determined.

3. God’s Sovereignty vs Human Responsibility.

Proverbs 16:9.  “The heart of man plans his way,  but the Lord establishes his steps.”

Calvinism & Classical Theism.  Strongly supports God’s control over human decisions.

Arminianism.  Suggests God allows human plans but still guides history.

Open Theism.  Could interpret this as God influencing but not dictating outcomes.

Jonah 3:10.  “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”

Classical Theism & Calvinism.  Argue that this is God revealing His unchanging character rather than literally “changing His mind”.

Arminianism.  Agrees that God takes human repentance into account but still knows the final outcome.

Open Theism.  Strongly supports the idea that God responds dynamically to human actions.  

4. Prayer And Divine Change.

Exodus 32:14.  “And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.”

Classical Theism & Calvinism.  God’s “relenting” is seen as part of His eternal plan rather than a true change in decision.

Arminianism.  Prayer is significant, but God already knows the outcome.

Open Theism.  Prayer genuinely influences God’s actions, showing an open future.

James 5:16.  “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”

Classical Theism & Calvinism.  Agrees but believes God already knew the prayers and included them in His plan.

Arminianism.  Accepts that prayer is powerful but within God’s foreknown will.

Open Theism.  Supports the view that prayer makes a real difference.

(See Table 2 for the comparison.)

The early Christians were persecuted throughout the first three centuries under the Roman Empire for refusing to worship the Roman gods and the Emperor.   The worst period of persecution was under Emperor Diocletian from 303 to 311 AD.  It ended when the next emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD.  He convened the first of seven ecumenical councils in Nicaea in 325 AD.

Christianity was made the state religion in 335 AD, and the first Christmas celebration was celebrated by the early Christians thereafter in 336 AD.  There was about a few hundred churches scattered across the whole Roman Empire then and there was no central authority. The fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon was held at a later date in 381 AD implying that there was still no central papal authority then.  Our formal doctrines were derived from these ecumenical councils especially that of Nicaea and Chalcedon.

The bishop of Rome gained prominence over other bishops primarily because it was the capital of the Roman empire then before it moved to Byzantium which was renamed Constantinople.  The church of Rome was the first to celebrate the Christmas before the few hundred churches also celebrated over time.   How did the individual church bishops arrive at such a decision to celebrate the Lord’s birthday based on theological or liturgical reasons was still debatable because it was not determined at any of the seven ecumenical councils. Papal authority was only formalized in 440 AD under Pope Leo I which was more than 100 years after the first celebration.  

It is clear that neither the state nor the later papal authority started the first Christmas celebration but rather the early Christians in Rome.  

To me, the Christmas celebration is a matter of conscience just like whether we should eat food offered to idols.  Scripture did give us clear instruction on such matter of conscience.  The small budding church in Ephesus faced such dilemma on whether to eat food offered to idols which was sold in marketplaces or being invited to feast by pagan friends.  In my opinion, one will be making a wrong turn to contend against each other on such matter of conscience.  After the Reformation,  the Lutheran church continued to celebrate Christmas proving that the matter of conscience of Christmas celebration was not in conflict with the matter of truth detailed in the five solas.  

Rom 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Any violation of the natural function is an abomination to our Lord God. An affront to His wisdom of His created order. The churches can argue that times have changed and the unnatural relationships can have committed faithfulness to each other is immaterial.

Likewise God has mandated that man is the head of the family. We can argue that women today are well educated and can just be as capable. (God has created men and women to be equal and all will be like angels in the coming glory. Gal 3:26-29. But for the time being, that is what God had decreed for the family relationship in this life.). It is also a clear scriptural command that women are not allow to teach and have spiritual authority over men. 1 Tim 2:12-13. The reason given was that Adam was formed first, then Eve – telling us that God’s sovereign will in His created order settled the issue.

Likewise the medical drugs invented so far either enhance or inhibit the NATURAL FUNCTION of the human organs or cells. Should one day the drugs interfere with the natural function of our cells (especially to alter to bad function), that is also a violation of God’s created order in my opinion.