I have done some intensive study on the New Perspective, and have come to conclude that some (not all!) of it is unbiblical. So here you get to see some good resources (Recommended by me, hehe!) for you to check out:

The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul

Read this first! This is a very good "first looks" at the New Perspective On Paul. A good analysis and response.

The Doctrine of Justification In The Work Of N.T. Wright

It's very technical, but it's also the most thorough analysis of N.T. Wright's theology in MP3 lectures (Not just justification, but his other aspects of theology as well, such as his Covenant Theology, so prepare to sit through that!). I haven't listened to all of them, but those that I've listened to were very informative.

The New Perspective On Justification- By James White

Just scroll down until you find them. It's done by one of the foremost Christian Apologists. Makes a good introduction and basic critique of the New Perspective. In MP3 format.

That's about it. I've read other smaller articles on the New Perspective, but they're not long enough to warrant any place here. Some have recommended John Piper's defense of the imputation of righteousness which you can find here. I haven't read it, but from reading the recommendations, it should be good.

They have, against all odds, taken the Champions League. Now, they are setting their sights on the English Premier League.

I expect a massive overhaul on the team- on that I hope is for the best. Next season, of course, should be much better.

I only fear if the new Liverpool shall be better or worse. I don't know.

(From Emergent Village)

It is changing philosophically, from modern to postmodern, from a world of absolutes and certainty to a world of questions and searching, of challenge and anxiety, of opportunity and danger.

This is one interesting statement. Since the Emergent's emphasize conformity to evangelize (i.e. Seeker Sensitive), we would expect them to, instead of offering certainty and truth, all we have are more questions and searching. If this is so, then you won't expect a lot of fulfilment from this movement. The Christian faith offers truth & certainty- we need to recognize this fact, and not to conform to this age. Whatever we are saved with, we are saved too. I still remember these words. Perhaps we should stop try to get people who are "disillusioned" with the Church to join it some other way. People sometimes don't realize that THEY are the ones who despise the church. Not because of what the church is or what it has done, but they simply don't want it.

Romans 12:2- And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind

We have to remember this verse. We do not belong to this world, the church and our practices all don't. Again, we have to realize that we do not get people to the church. God does.

The Church which is married to the Spirit of the Age will be a widow in the next.
-- Dean Inge

Apologetics, in this post-modern age, is now needed more than ever before. Some people think that it is enough to pray for them and to "coax" them into the kingdom. But for some, it is never enough.

They want the truth, and it is disheartening to see people who claim to be Christians not offering it to them. Jesus is the Way, The Truth & The Life. We need evangelism that has apologetics. We need it now, more than ever before.

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:15)

Pluralism may, in fact, be considered more dangerous than atheism or agnosticism. It is also philosophically self-defeating- saying that all religions are both right and wrong at the same time. This contradiction alone is enough to discredit this theory. Perhaps it will be better to expand and explain this contradiction.

• Pluralism says that all religions are right.
• Christianity says that only it is right.
• Therefore, Pluralism is wrong or Christianity is wrong.
• But since Pluralism says that Christianity (along with other religions) are right, then Pluralism is wrong since Christianity says that it alone is right.

A common explanation put forward in support of pluralism is the "Elephant Body Parts" illustration. It basically states that all religions have a "feel" at different body parts of the elephant. Obviously the experiences are all different, but what they feel is actually one thing.

But there is a big problem with this illustration. First of all, the pluralist will have to completely see the big picture. That is, they have to see the whole "elephant" and know that all religions are touching a part of it, and not touching something else altogether. And to claim to know the "full" truth (rather than the "half" truth of other religions) is the same arrogance of knowing the whole truth that the pluralist condemns!

So here's a quick refutation of pluralism for you.

This list, of course, will always grow. So check back often.

The Church On The Threshold (Monergism)

A very, very great website. Filled with almost any article related to Christianity from a Reformed perspective. Highly recommended.

Alpha-Omega Ministries

Run by James White, this site has some good stuff on apologetics, also from a Reformed perspective.

Tektonics Apologetics Ministry

One of the best apologetics websites out there, written with wit and style, you're definitely going to love it (or hate it, depending on your point of view). I worry, however, of their (ab)use of context studies. Their treatment of Calvinism and Calvinists recently also earns a thumbs down.

Challies.com

Contains good book reviews, as well as critiques of the Contemporary Church.

Emergent No

Perhaps the only blog out there actively critiquing the Emergent movement. Highly recommened resource.

Internet Monk

Another good site with critiques of the Contemporary Church. Does get very highly opinionated though. Becareful of the compromise with Roman Catholicism and the Emergent movement.

Answers In Genesis

One of the most highly recommended Creationist resource combating the bad science of evolution.

I'm not very into sharing personal info with other people, but here goes anyway:

The usual blablabla...

Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Age: Born 1990

Ok done. Now:

Theological Persuasion

Denomination: Reformed Baptist (Not very popular denomination among Reformed folk, I know)

Theology: I'm a TULIP Calvinist, and currently studying Covenant Theology. (Means I'm no Dispy!)

Eschatological Position: Definitely not a Pre-tribulationist nor a full Preterist. The strongest contender(s) right now are Modified Post-Millenial Preterism, Amilennialism and Historic Premillenialism.

Likes and Dislikes, things that I do:

Favourite Books: The Bible, obviously. I also love the Artemis Fowl series, by Eoin Colfer. I used to like Harry Potter, but lost all interest when I had to drag myself through the Order Of The Phoenix which was, well, draggy.

Favourite Movies: The Matrix Trilogy as well as Star Wars.

Favourite Music: Classical (i.e. Music by a bunch of dead guys) - A few of my favourite composers include Beethoven, Handel & Listz. I also like Classical Crossover, especially when combined with techno. I despise rap, rock and country.

Hobbies: Apologetics, Evangelism & Polemics. I like to write stories too.

Misc.

Apologetic Method: Presuppositional. Philosophical/Logical and Evidential when it comes to defense, Presuppositional when it comes to offense.

But above all, I enjoy my Christian life. To sum it up, I'm a Christian and loving it!

Yet another renovation of my blog. It seems that my branching out experiment has failed miserably, so I have eliminated the Apologetics Ministry section as well as ExegeZone, therefore, you can find all my posts here again.

I've tried to make the blog more pleasing to read (all white background). The links section have been replaced with a list of recommended websites as well as an "About Me" section replacing my profile. The statement of faith is however, still there.

Soli Deo Gloria!

So, Liverpool won't be playing in the Champions League next season. But we can still win it this time round.

I do hope, however that we perform and achieve much better next season.

Disappointed-very.

Yep. The Semi-Finals between Liverpool and Chelsea will take place at Anfield.

As always, my realism pulls through- thus, I do not expect Liverpool to win. Nobody does. Then again, the pressure is on Chelsea, indeed, they have already won the EPL, and they're expected to win the Champions League.

So who do I think is going to win? The statistics say it's Chelsea. I believe they could pull it off too.
But Liverpool is going to throw every single thing at them. And I also believe they will pull it off.

Apparently he has responded to Steve Hays take on Marvin Wilson. Although I am not precisely interested in the subject of Hebrew Block Logic (Whom Hays and Holding are sparring on), I will have to comment a little of Holding's rebuttal.

First off, Holding uses a lot of ad hominems. (Well okay, like he doesn't, but Hays is a Christian, treat him like a brother) In any case, Holding says Hays is not qualified (Speaking of credentials, of course). Well Holding is not qualified too. I'm getting tired of the way he treats people, and his arguments (against Calvinism), which is mostly a manhandling of context studies. I will now comment a little more- Context studies must always be used with caution, and not be shot off like a machine gun. We never know if there are any inaccuracies in it, not to mention Western political correctness being applied to findings. We also must take into account an alien party that has no ANE bearing- God. See for example Holding's use of the Semitic Totality Concept to explain the Faith vs. Works puzzle. Although it does seem to fit in quite well with the Bible, how does Holding know that a foreign party (God) will introduce a totally different concept for salvation (Nothing related to the STC) . Do we apply human culture to God? Would God introduce a concept nothing at all related to the practices of Jews? Caution therefore, is required here. The context group is not infallible.

BTW, there is an interesting blog post that provides some interesting quotes from Marvin Wilson. Not that I would use it as a rebuttal against Holding's use of Wilson, but it makes a (somewhat) interesting read.