Yay! Liverpool has defeated Everton!

Too bad though, Milan Baros got sent off...and all those injuries. Anyway, it was a great game.

Now, we have to focus for that fourth place-And Juventus. Yes, we gotta defeat em' too. Hmm...I wonder if we'll make it?

This just came into my heart, striking me powerfully.

I was pondering...why are the Charismatics so ardent for their kind of life? Why do they want revival? I have read about John Piper and other people of Reformed doctrine desire for a better, more charismatic church. My question is this: What is a better church? What is a true revival?

Is it with a church that has prophecy, tongues and miracles? Is it a church that is full of evangelistic zeal? Or is it a church that preaches and teaches the Word of God, ardently and fervently? Most Charismatics fall into the first two categories, though the more recent "3rd Wave" movement, with people like John Piper and Wayne Grudem who are one of the foremost followers hold to all three. They talk about the need for a church with passion and power, and have noted how cessationist churches cover their lack of "zeal" with doctrine. I sincerely believe that these people have a true, burning need to see a revival in the church. But let me ask again: What is a better church; what is a true revival?

Why do we need miracles? Why do we need prophecy? Don't we have the Word of God? Didn't Jesus say that if a person does not hear the Prophets, not even a miracle would convince them?

My brothers, why are you calling us cold churches? Why do you think that we need a church that has prophecy and signs and wonders to be a spirit-filled, powerful church?

Why do we have to seek the Baptism of the Spirit? Why? Aren't we fully born again, justified and renewed the moment we accept Jesus Christ? Was his sacrifice necessary? Was it not enough? Is it enough?

You may say, "It is better to be emotional than cold!" But I will say, "Why do we have to be emotional? And why do you say we are cold?" Is it because we do not prophecy? But how can we-We cannot! We do not, as we have the Word of God, the complete perfect Bible! The God-breathed bible, that is useful for every single good work?

Why do you have to settle for "fallible" prophecy? Wouldn't God give his children the best? Aren't we his elect? Surely he loves us a lot and would give us miracles and revelation day after day. But why only you claim this kind of things? Why would he give us second-rate spiritual gifts? Aren't we not all in the same family, in one body? Aren't we all Christians, justified by the Lord? Why would a loving God let some of his churches grow cold, and the rest whom he blesses?

You say, "He is giving a revival to us!" But I say in reply, "What revival? Why does it only belong to you? Don't we not love God too? Don't we pray, read the Bible, win souls and do all of his commands? Why you and no one else?" You may counter, "It is because you do not seek it!" But I reply, "Have we not seeked the Lord always? Don't we not fervently desire him and his blessings? Why is he not giving this gifts to us? Why do we have to "tarry" for gifts? Does the bible say we can obtain gifts by asking the Lord: won't it no longer be a gift if it was given by request?"

What kind of revival is going on!? Does it come from the Lord? Or from the great deceiver, who comes as an angel of light, Satan? Why do we still see so much false doctrine, immorality, people who reject the authority of the Bible and other apostate, immoral people? Why? What is a real revival? How do you judge a revival? Do we judge it by the people who prophecy, or do miracles or heal other people? You claim gifts that we say are not for today; that have not been seen by the church for two thousand years. You say God blesses us yesterday, today, and forevermore. But can you not see that times have changed? No longer do we have a Peter, or a John, or a James, or a Paul. No longer do we see oceans parting, nor pillars of fire. No longer do we see people raised from the dead, or healed on the street; standing up and removing their mats. No longer do we see signs and miracles and wonders that were told of in the Bible. Why do we not see them today? Is this real revival? Is God stirring the Church again? IS THE CHURCH REALLY REVIVING?

What is revival? Where does it start? Does it start with miracles, with signs, with wonders? Or does it start from inward, from inside the heart-Propelled by the desire for a pure church with pure doctrine.

How does a revival start then? When we look at the Reformation, did we see it started by miracles or prophecy? No! It was started by a humble monk, who desired for pure doctrine. It was the most powerful revival of the church that we may ever witness. And how did it start? Did it start by signs and wonders? No! It started because of one person's desire to see the true doctrines of the Word of God assimilated into a pure, clean church. A church that God intended for. A Church that did not have miracles, nor prophecy, nor tongues, nor healings- but was passionate, zealous and yes, powerful.

In this age of apostasy, of materialism, of immorality in the Church-Do we look for signs? Or do we look at the Word of God? Do we revive it with miracles? Or do we revive it with the Bible?

You tell me.

Your loving brother in Christ,
Lycaphim.

Being a complementarian, a position which is very misunderstood, one can't help but groan at the strawmen and mis-representation of your view. I had recently taken another trip to the Christians For Biblical Equality website. I couldn't help but groan at their "arguments". The happily call complementarianism the "sub-ordination" of women and even linking it to Darwinism! Boy, do these people get really desperate. Mocking and slander is obviously common. Apparently, the only big name people who side their view are N.T. Wright (The odd fellow who thought the Reformation got it all wrong on Paul, considered a heretic), F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee. Eeesh. Apparently they are selling a book on their bookstore website by an openly gay minister. Woot. I heard other people claiming that complementarianism is "male ego with a halo" and "viewing women as people who need to be saved". *Sigh*

Thus, I present my ten BASIC theses against egalitarians, something I'll try to argue with egalitarians from here onward.

1. You accuse us of presenting our position out of male pride, but aren't you presenting yours out of female pride?
2. No women has become pastors for the last 18 centuries. Not until now, when feminism infected the church. Why are you conforming to the world (Rom. 12:2)? Egalitarianism can be said to be made out of "peer pressure" from the unregenerate.
3. Why has not woman stood up for pastorhood for the nearly a thousand years until now? Is God "liberating" women? Why now? Is it a "revival"? Yeah, child molesting priests and gay pastors...what a wonderful revival indeed, Lord.
4. Why did Paul appeal to the created order when arguing for male headship? Why did he say Adam was created first and Eve, second? Can we change the creation order? Were Adam and Eve created at the same time?
5. Why did Paul say right after telling women to keep quiet and to be in submission in 1 Cor. 14:34 to say that: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." (v.37) Isn't this saying that GOD commands women to submit and be silent?
6. Why are you saying that we treat women as "sub-ordinates" and "inferior" when all we say is that women and men have different roles? Why are you being influenced by the Devil's ideas? (Conforming to the world)
7. Why is it wrong to say that men and women have different roles in the church; since, after all, men and women are different?
8. Why are you saying that we should "submit" to each other? What about parents and children? Why do children have to submit to their parents? Isn't that unfair?
9. Why with the introduction of women as pastors have we seen so much immorality and false doctrine in the church today?
10. Why isn't it logical that since Christ is the head of the church, and the husband is the head of the wife, that man cannot be the head of the women in church?

These then are my ten theses. So called "equality" advocates have happily hijacked the term "biblical" for their unbiblical egalitarianism. They should be called "Wordly Equality" advocates, since that is what this sinful world asks of women. It has never been wrong to follow what the bible says about men and women. This is true Biblical Equality. Egalitarians have been blinded by their pride and by the world to be unable to see that they have been influence by the world, controlled by the Devil. Thus, I say that they have been influenced by the world itself. I'm not branding all egalitarians as deluded, though all are in some sense. We need to come back to the Bible here, and not do what is considered "hip" by the world.
_____________________________________________
Resources:-

Fifty Crucial Questions on Manhood & Womanhood

Six Questions That Have Never Been Answered By Egalitarians

Biblical Gynecology Pt.1 Pt.2

Galatians 3:28 (Considered main proof text of "equality")

Just writing some thoughts about the KJV Bible...

I just recently got a KJV Study Bible as a gift. It reminded me of how long this bible version has had lasted (Nearly 4 Centuries!) without being forgotten. Although the KJV has been surpassed by the NIV, it is still fondly remembered by many (And defended too, by KJV Onlyists, which I plan to write more about in the times to come).

Many people complain about the KJV's archaic language. The english of the KJV may be outdated, but so is Shakespeare's works...and I don't remember anyone complaining about that. In terms of grace and poetry, the King James Version is arguable, unsurpassed. Although there are more accurate bible out there today, I will still recommend the KJV as a brilliant bible not just because of its graceful language, but also because of it's powerful and memorable heritage.

It's sad to see how the majority of mainstream Christians today view God. I found out about this after posting what I thought about God, and other stuff in a mailing list.

What is God? He is all loving? All holy? I say he is both.

How do I know he is loving? Well, he chose me for salvation. He has been patient with the world, waiting and refraining from unleashing his wrath upon the sinful world.

How do I know he is holy? It's because of the way he punishes sinners: Hell. God is so holy, that when mortal men commit finite sin against an infinite God, it demands eternal punishment.

Are there other attributes to him? Yes, definitely, though I won't list them all down here.

So what's wrong with the views of Christians on God today? Well, they think he is ONLY all loving. Just that. That is simply not true.

The problem, mainly, is that Christians have had emphasized so much of God's loving nature that when disaster comes, skeptics will say, "I thought you had a loving God." It drives people away. Should we have a better view of God? Yes, definitely.

It is my solemn and sincere prayer that Christians of all denomination will come to see the essential God. I'm not saying I REALLY know God for what he is, but rather, to do away with the stereotypes.

A simple reflection.

Charismatics have put forth these verses in the last chapter of Mark to support their claims that miraculous gifts shall follow them that believe. This raises a serious question, as to why the church for 18 centuries did not exhibit these kind of gifts, even when they were obviously saved. The only answers a Charismatic can give is to say that these people have never actually believed (which is, of course, ludicrous, considering the great men of God like Luther and Spurgeon who had never exhibited these gifts) or that these signs only follow some, not all, or perhaps all that believed will only get some of those gifts described (This also does not answer why the church has never exhibited ANY of these gifts at all for the past centuries). I hope to answer these questions by analyzing the verses 17 to 20.
_________________________________

17 "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. "

19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. (NASB)
---

It is imperative to keep in mind the context of these verses: that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (v.14) before I proceed.

Note:The verses from Mark 16 v. 9 onwards has been said to be a late addition to the gospel of Mark and thus, not valid. If this is true, then omitting this text would be required and thus do away with the charismatic arguments. However, I still believe that these verses are genuine and likewise, will treat it as such. If however, you want to look into the arguments against the validity of these verses, you can check out here.

17 "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

A key aspect that most people miss in this verses is the "those who have believed". Notice the past tense. The KJV renders this part "shall follow them that believe", which is unfortunate. The Greek tense in this passage is aorist, and in the English it is always translated as past tense. Albert Barnes comments on the "those who have believed" part: The apostles, and those in the primitive age who were endowed with like power. Like I have said earlier, if these signs will accompany those who have believed, what about the Christians who have never exhibited this gifts? Again, like I have said: The only objection the charismatic can present is to say that those were not true believers and, in essence, say that they are the only true Christians!

Also, we find out that "they will speak with new tongues;" does not connote the meaning that the "new" means the gibberish spoken by the charismatics (There are, however, Pentecostals who believe the gift of tongues are human languages, which is true. However, they believe that this gift is still for today, which, I believe, is not). It is to be kept in mind that when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles on Pentecost, they spoke in languages understandable to men. (Acts 2:4-11)

18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. "

This verse definitely can only describe the apostles. A snake did not harm Paul when he was on Malta and it is a sad, but true, fact that the cases of believers healing sick people with the laying on of hands a few, and far between. Notice the "will recover". The sick will recover. This is unfortunately untrue with those who claim to have the gift of healing today.

We therefore conclude that these verses could not have been referring to believers in general.

Of the two more verses:

19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.

Of interest is verse 20. "And confirmed the word by the signs that followed." What signs? The miraculous signs described earlier. They confirmed the word. This then is the true purpose of the miraculous gifts. To confirm the word. What is the word? The gospel. Although they were also exercised by the church for edification (like tongues), it would seem reasonable to say that their primary purpose was to confirm the gospel message. This kind of miracles was almost exclusive to the apostles and the beginning of the church era, and I would not hesitate to say that the gifts have ceased along with the last apostle.

those who have believed is best interpreted to be the apostles with two reasons: 1. It is in past tense, and thus, only those who have believed in Jesus before his ascension is the only group of people likely to be mentioned in this verse. 2. It will leave us with a contradiction with history: Believers have never exhibited this signs (Unless one wishes to count the "signs" by the charismatics, which is shown to be not the case).

What then do these verses refer to? It is a definite possibility that Jesus was referring to the apostles, those that would exhibit these signs. Although there were those who were not apostles who exhibited these gifts, their references in the bible are few and of course, contradicts history if these verses would apply to all believers.

If this verses support any view at all, it would be cessationism.
__________
Resources used: Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

I was gladly surprised at how Liverpool stomped Bayer Leverkusen at their own home ground. It was a great performance, and now, we can look to our next match- Which is definitely going to be harder. It's one of the great elite clubs of European football that we are going to face. No more easy clubs and lucky draws. This is it. We must definitely show the world how good we are.

We must do it...and we will do it.
______________

On a side note, I'm currently studying Systematic Theology and probably won't have a lot of time to post on my blog from now on (All my computer time will be used studying theology). At least though, I have my PlayStation to accompany me...hehe :-)

After seeing the Barcelona vs. Chelsea match, I chuckled at myself and thought how good Liverpool was during their match ups with Chelsea. Seing Chelsea knock in three goals within a few minutes was a clear reminder of how Liverpool dominated their match ups with Chelsea and almost always lost by 1-o.

Today Liverpool will take on Bayer Leverkusen, and I have to say, I really want Liverpool to win this. I hope we can go through to the next round (and maybe) take our revenge on Chelsea (hehe).
That said, Bayer might trump us at their home grounds, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

For those who think Liverpool won't win the Champions League...well...I guess you forgot about what Greece did. Now...don't you think we might have that chance?

Being an animal lover, (Animal lover being in the sense of admiring them, and supporting groups like WWF; and not in the sense of owning tons of them, though my brother does) I sometimes feel that groups like PETA (Often parodied by: People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) go overboards like saying that animals are equal to human beings.

Although I am not implying that animals should be treated lowly, I am saying that animals are often treated too highly. I think though that they are definitely inferior to humans (Let's all say Duh, excluding PETA). We, however, should treat them fairly and humanely, and of course, stop the abuse and poaching of animals.

The thing I lament about animal rights activists is that they take animal abuse too seriously by going to the opposite extreme end, that is, too say eating animals is cruel and should not be allowed. This is wrong, though, the Bible says that animals are for our consumption. In fact, it says that vegetarianism is a doctrine of devils! (1 Timothy 4:1-4)

Just some thoughts.

It seems the end is sighted for the ongoing debate between Holding and White. As an observer who is on White's side of doctrine, Holding has been the most mischievous in my opinion. I think that he should have more respect for his fellow Christian brethren. My respect-o-meter for Holding is falling considerably.

I for one, wouldn't like my doctrines be established by an ex-librarian, but though Holding quotes from "credentialed" sources, one can counter that there is a Ph.D for the atheist and theist. The debate boils down to a simple fact: Who has the most scriptural arguments and not who quotes from the most scholarly source. I think that Holding has made a mockery of himself mocking others and hides the fact when people just have had enough of him by chiding them as "playing the cards of the atheist". This is fantastic. One can drench your arguments with countless ad hominems against your opponent; and when he has had enough and replies on the same note, you say he is acting like an atheist. Someone ought to play this game with Holding.

Since I actually used Holding's article on Unconditional Election against Calvinists; after being converted to Reformed doctrines have I now actually begun to see the errors in his critique of the U in the TULIP. I think though that Holding tries to blur the window by throwing arguments from "scholarly" sources with Ph.Ds with a good dose of ad hominem and you have got yourself a good "brick" wall. Holding fans will definitely be appeased by his quick and constant replies to his critics, excusing his behaviour towards his regenerate brethren as "warranted".

Again, the two points that I am trying to bring out: Ph.D or no Ph.D, there is a degree for the pro and con. One can cite a degreed scholar for your opinion, but then the other side can do the same just as easily. Another thing is the way Holding treats other people. Although I have no problem with him name calling agnostics, he should reconsider his way of discourse with Christians. One might say a week or two in a Reformed Church in Vietnam will put him into perspective. His wife should slap some sense into him when it comes to dialogues with people you are going to meet with in heaven :-).

And in the end, it's up to the reader to decide which side has the best scriptural arguments. Oh, and the best manners.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am glad to be back home after going to a vacation celebrating my bro's 8th birthday. But it didn't really feel like a vacation to me, considering I have been going to that same place for a vacation/time-out for nearly like, fifty times.

Anyway, I would like to begin by saying that predestination (or Unconditional Election) is a very unpopular doctrine. Of course, we have the very, very popular Arminian style Predestination (Which is not even "predestination") and the Calvinist style predestination.

Many evangelists (or missionaries) don't hold to Unconditional Election mainly because they think it makes their work a farce. But I don't think so. I think without predestination no one will come to Christ. The Bible clearly tells us that man is totally depraved and unable to come to Christ without God's help, that is, by the grace given to those who are of the elect by the Holy Spirit.

But since Unconditional Election also tells us that all of those who are elected beforehand by God will be eventually saved. The Arminian will gleefully say, "So much for evangelism."

But I disagree. Although all of God's elect will eventually be saved, one needs to understand that without people to bring the Gospel to them, they won't come to Christ. If some one doesn't do it, another person burdened by God will.

This is what William Carey did. Although during his time, the Christians (Who all held Reformed doctrines) didn't really went into mission trips to other countries. But the great missionary and man of God still believed that God will save all the elect eventually, but yet still went to call out the elect. That is what everyone should be doing.

Another objection is that Calvinists hold less soul-winning zeal. Although I don't know about all the Calvinists, I disagree. To know that someone is walking out there, waiting to be converted by God by just hearing the gospel is very, very, energizing.

For the Arminian, it is a chance game. They hope that those who listen to the gospel will repent and believe in Christ. But if they don't, then too bad.

To believe in an Arminian style of evangelism is to render unnecessary burden to the soul-winner. He is responsible for everyone he passes by who is not saved.

"Why didn't you tell me about Christ?" says the sinner to his Arminian friend when he goes to hell, if their doctrine is indeed true.

Of course one will counter that un-elected sinners will be moaning in hell why they weren't elected. This is untrue. The unregenerate sinner would never care less about going to heaven.
C.S. Lewis once described hell as being locked...from the inside. I think this is true. Those that God did not choose to go to heaven will never ever think about turning around and heading for the right path. This is true for the Christian who used to be unregenerate. Without God's intervention, no one will go to heaven.

So therefore, Predestination (or Calvinism, for that matterA), does not negate evangelism. It confirms it!

Being an ardent fan of the super-cool Tektonics.org, I have recently been disappointed by the way the founder/creator/whatever of that site, J.P. Holding (Or his real name, which is Robert Turkel) has been treating those who are Reformed in their theology.

He seemed to be favouring ad-hominems to well thought out arguments against us. One can say subtle "mockery". (Go to TWeb and see his avatar and its title "Of course I'm Calvinist!")

I seem to be losing respect for him, though I will always value his site as a good resource in apologetics. I think though that people who have been responding to him (Like James White), are right when they say he doesn't merit a response. Holding is making a mockery of himself by mocking other fellow evangelicals, even adding James White and Steve Hays to his "Screwballs of the Month". Hmm...

I've seen his arguments against the TULIP theology, and I have to say, they are perhaps more drenched in sarcasm and a low view of scripture inspiration (What I mean by this is that Holding seems to forget that God would have had in mind other non-ANE Christians when he wrote the Bible).

He seems to have forgotten that "Predestination" was at the very heart of the reformation. It was by those who held the theology that he has been mocking that we are here in the first place. I'm sure he will either downplay or ignore this fact.

The reason I view Reformed theology as the most scriptural (aside from thorough bible study) is that it gives all the glory to God.

Holding I think, should review the way he treats fellow Christians or risk being known as a "Christian Atheist".

Oh well.

In the news recently I have found out that five people had died during a baptism ceremony in the sea. Apparently one of them was "overcome" by the Holy Spirit and in a trance like state led him and four other people who tried to save him, to their death. The news report can be found here.

One needs to understand...would the Holy Spirit of God "lead" someone to their death? I don't think so. I think the church leader should have thought better than to pin their deaths to the "Holy Spirit". If the unregenerate think that's what might happen to them when they get baptized...good luck if anyone converts.

Just some thoughts.