It's our country's 48th Birthday since our independance in 1957!

I'm not such a patriotic kind of person, though suffice to say, I'm more than happy with my country.

True, there are many problems that I hope would be solved. Like religious pluralism which is plaguing our nation (Yes, Malaysians aren't that smart) as well as something that I would desperately like to see: To let Muslims be evangelized.

I pray that God will grant these things as soon as possible, and, in any case, Selamat Hari Merdeka!

While I was in a library I came across a simple book introducing the different world religions. At the end of the book I came across these sentences (Most of it is reproduced from my memory, thus I filled out some areas that have not been rewritten from memory):

All religions have some amount of truth in them. Some people, however, claim that their religion is the only one that is right. Intolerance, however, has led to many wars and the loss of life. We should respect and affirm the truth of the religions of one another.

Talk about unproven premises! I'll dismantle these fallacious statements bit by bit

-All religions have some amount of truth in them.

How does the author know? But, I'm pretty certain, the author knows that not all religions are totally correct. In this sense, its kind of like a semantic game: The glass is half full, not half empty. Nobody likes to be told that their religion is riddled with bits and pieces of balderdash, now do they?

-Some people, however, claim that their religion is the only one that is right.

Some? I guess the author believes that the majority of Muslims or Christians are pluralists. Alas, the very fact that they are Muslims shows that they believe that it is the only one that is right (or, at the very least, the best one) in contrast to other religions.

-Intolerance, however, has led to many wars and the loss of life.

Witness this not-too-subtle sleight of hand. Restrictivism equals intolerance and intolerance equals wars and murders. All of them, again, unproven.

I guess I'll skip the last sentence since it has already been refuted. Honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed to waste my time on this "argument" for pluralism. But let it serve as a reminder on how NOT to argue for it.

On other matters, I am pleased to announce my entrance to the League Of Reformed Bloggers. Thanks Challies for adding me into the aggregator!

Also, I've added Haloscan to my blog. My sincere apologies for your lost comments.

A Barna Survey pretty much reveals why Churches today are all style and no substance.

To quote a little from the article and to briefly comment:

Two books emerged as the most helpful of all: The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church, both written by Rick Warren. Purpose Driven Life topped the list, with one out of every five Senior Pastors (21%) naming it as one of the most helpful books they have read in the last three years.

Helpful indeed. Personally, the Purpose Driven Life is devoid of any meat (it's milk, and not even good milk to begin with). If pastors are going to let their flock wallow in infancy...well, God forgive them.

And, among the most influential authors on pastors, we have:

Not surprisingly, Rick Warren was king-of-the-hill in this listing, as his books were mentioned by 30% of the pastors. John Maxwell was the runner-up, with books listed as among the most helpful by 5% of pastors. Five writers were mentioned by 3% of the nation’s church leaders: Henry Blackaby, Jim Cymbala, Bill Hybels, Andy Stanley, and Phil Yancey. The other influential authors were George Barna, John Eldredge and John Piper, each of whom was mentioned by 2%.

Let it speak for itself. On the other hand, at least I can thank the Lord for at least one author on this list, namely, John Piper. John MacArthur also appears, thank God.

I have always moaned the lack of theological teaching among the so called "Charismatic" churches in Malaysia. No doubt in America the same thing is happening:

Pastors who lead charismatic or Pentecostal congregations were by far the least likely to include books on theology among their chosen titles: only 2% did so.

Four centuries ago people would be wondering how many apostate churches were out there.

Now, I'm wondering how many biblical churches are left.

Gleason continues his critique of the Emergent Conversation with his fifth article in the series, "The Death Knell Of The Emergent Movement".

If Gleason is right, then we can expect the Emergent bus to crash. And, as he says, who is going to clean up the mess? I'll refrain from commenting further (read and decide for yourself). But suffice to say, the Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Baptist denominations have been alive for centuries already (In their original, undiluted form, of course). They have plowed through the Enlightenment and the advent of Post-Modernism (Brought about by the likes of Nietzsche) and they sure look like they're going to make it through the post-post modern phase...and beyond that.

I wonder how long the Emergent Movement will last?

J.P. Holding at Tektonics takes to another deflating tract at Dan Brown's magnum opus (Yup) The "Da Vinci Code"

So.

Two days back, my (younger) brother, an "animal lover" (So he claims!) caught a squirrel. I protested, being perhaps the only logical person in the house (Okay, that was a little hyperbolic but anyway...). You don't suppose you can keep a poor squirrel in a cage for the rest of its natural life, do you?

Obviously, the poor little creature desired for freedom. And this showed, during a delicate stage of the proceedings, when my father was transfering the squirrel from the trap it was caught in to a much larger cage, it managed to escape. No, it did not run back into the trees. It couldn't, as we happen to live a dozen or so stories up in an apartment. Bad luck. But, whatever it was, the squirrel was gone. Presumably, it climbed to another floor.

An hour or so later, we found it that it was hiding amid the flower pots in our balcony. And naturally, we tried to catch it. Was it easy? Nope. After nearly two hours of trying to catch it by cornering it into tight places, we finally managed to get it into my room. No place for it to escape now. But, alas, it wouldn't give up without a fight. Half and hour later, we finally caught it again, but not before it let out a rather horrendous shriek (of defeat, I guess).

Now, it resides in a little cage for the time being...until my brother decides to release him. Poor thing.

***

Ron Gleason (Already one of my favourites) is back at it again, as witty as ever. I have no need to comment on this one. Let it speak for itself.

On other matters, I'm currently busying myself up before I enter college on October. Thus, expect my blog to slow down when that period starts. But of course, I don't intend to stop blogging entirely...there's just to many things out there to blog on!

"While recognizing much that is commendable in the ministry of John Piper, including his emphasis on a passionately God-centered life and his identity as a theological conservative, the FBFI has some genuine concerns about his doctrine and practice. John Piper teaches in his local ministry that miraculous sign gifts are continuing. Piper has also failed to separate from the Baptist General Conference which has deliberately chosen to tolerate the heresy known as open theism in its membership. He also enthusiastically endorses Daniel Fuller, who has championed the attack on the inerrancy of scripture in our generation. The great popularity of Piper’s writings, especially among younger fundamentalists, requires that FBFI warn its members concerning Piper’s non-separatist position and, for those who read his works, to do so with careful discernment."

Source.

A few comments are in order.

• Although I do disagree with Piper on his non-cessationist stance and think that the miraculous gifts are unnecessary for today (See my response to him on this regard here), I think it will be too naive a notion to dismiss him because of this. This is a rather debateable aspect of Christian theology, so I would say we must be more loose in this regard. Also, keep in mind that Piper, in this regard, isn't in the same line of extreme Charismaticism as Hinn etc.
• Not seperating with one group because of false doctrine does not equal accepting/tolerating it. John Piper is very, very clear on his view on Open Theism. See here which helpfully elaborates Piper's views.
• In regards to Fuller it is the same thing with above; Piper is very clear on this regard too.
  

I think FBFI's main issue with Piper is his non-seperatist stance. I will not go deep into discussion in regards to the doctrine of seperation (As the Fundamental Baptists understand it), but suffice to say I believe that one ought to seperate when a that person or group goes beyond the bounds of absolutely orthodox theology. FBFI's resolution can be found here which goes into more detail in regards to Piper's ministry. Most of it centers on "Christian Hedonism". Since I do not particularly subscribe to this aspect of Piper's teaching in detail, I will not comment on it (Though I think that at least some aspects of it I endorse and heartily agree with it). FBFI's statement ends with a big duh- asking for discernment. Well, everything should be read discerningly, though there is, of course, a difference between the discernment when one reads the writings of not particularly commendable teachers and the kind of common discernment when one reads the works of say, Spurgeon.

I would like to comment a little deeper in regards to Piper's non-cessationist stance. I do not think that there is anything wrong with non-cessationism per se, as I believe that the default stance in the miraculous gifts debate is the "Open But Cautious" one until one comes to their own position (Though as a cessationist I'm waving my hand right now saying "Come on over!") . I do find it disturbing a fact that Piper holds to Grudem's fallible prophecy hypothesis (I personally feel that acceptance of this doctrine is, at worst, would be devastating to a Church), though as I remarked earlier he is not in line with the Pentecostals/Charismatics but clearly is more close to the Third-Wavers. I would like to close with the observation that although the FBFI is following its cessationist stance, to case doubt on a person's ministry because of his very debateable stance is bad judgement. I personally have been enormously impacted by Piper's ministry.

I hope my little contribution to the defense of John Piper would be helpful, and I pray that God will continue to bless this man of God!

Postmodernism Is, As Derrida Might Say, Le Dead

I am continuing to slog my way through McLaren and Raschke, left hand raised high so I won't get any on my watch. And I have come to the settled conclusion that postmodernism is dead. Why do I think this? What is the evidence? The proof is conclusive -- we can tell that postmodernism is dead because contemporary evangelicals have started to embrace it. The party ceases to be cool when the nerd shows up.

-Doug Wilson

Well, I've finally managed to watch Stanley Kubrick's legendary "2001: A Space Odyssey". It was, naturally, brilliant, albeit slow moving. One gets the impression that although he films so many scenes that doesn't even budge the plot a single bit, one still is impressed!

Excellent movie, nonetheless.

Yep- I officially turn fifteen years of age today!

So, what am I going to do? Well, nothing much...except ponder on what to get with the money I have!

Sometimes it's hard to imagine that I'm fifteen already- exactly three years before I ever first had any interest in the business of apologetics- which eventually led me to theology. Indeed, three years back I was absolutely clueless about the Christian faith (Yes, even though I went to church every single week). Perhaps I can take it as my conversion.

And barely a year back I was introduced to the Reformed faith- that was when things clicked. Despite being rather skeptical towards Calvinism (No thanks to the work of a certain apologist I still respect), I've begun to lean towards this side of Christianity. Granted I'm not so confident in calling myself a Calvinist yet- I've still got to ponder over the various refutations of the five points of it- but suffice to say, I'm most inclined towards this side.

Also, do enter this free give away at Challies:

Yes, I'm on the computer and I'm bored...having nothing to do (Obviously). So, I've decided to (once again) comment on Ron Gleason's series (Now in the 3rd Installment) on the Emergent Church.

And yes, thank God our prayers have been answered! No more haze!

Well, as of 3:20 PM, the situation (As in, visibility) has improved dramatically (My health hasn't, though). But perhaps we are just in the eye of the storm, and the situation will get worse again. In this regard, check out this site which gives vent to the feelings of M'sians. Of course I don't harbor hatred for my Indonesian neighbours... but they ought to do something NOW!

And Pedge, my family's budgerigar (presumably) succumbed to the haze. Thankfully our other pets (A quail, iguana and arowana) are still alive.

But, I always, always, remember God's sovereignity in these kind of situations! Prayers are most welcome...I'm having a very bad cold =(

J.P. Holding, in his response to the Calvinist explanation of 1 Timothy 2:4 makes this statement:

The Calvinist attempt to deflate this verse nestles around the hyperbolic implication that to pray for "all men" one must pray for them one at a time. This is a non-objection. In this day and age men belonged to classes or groups by nation or by other criteria; the idea of praying for people one at a time would never have occurred to a collectivist-minded writer. Beyond this do we not even today pray, for example, for every man on a ship in the Navy, as a collective, to be safe in their journey?

I have a few problems.

1. Holding makes the serious mistake of constraining the writer's conditioned upbringing to restrict his usage of words entirely. It may be true that collectivists don't do that, though who says they can't go against their sensibilities, not to mention with the Holy Spirit inspiring them?
2. And we do indeed pray collectively, though in light of 1 Timothy 2:1, ("I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,") do we then give thanks to the likes of Hitler, Satan etc. ?
   

In this regard, Holding makes several leaps of logic to arrive at his intended conclusion. If it is indeed God's will that all people will come to be saved, will he not then try such things as letting the Holy Spirit speak the truth of the gospel to all men, and asking them to choose Jesus? In Holding's logic, there is no contradiction of free will with such and act, though it is clear that the Holy Spirit does not "whisper" John 3:16 into the ears of the heathen. The silence in regards to such acts by God especially if one accepts Holding's "exegesis" of this verse is deafening.

Sometimes I wonder why I am adamant to remain in my country (And not go to live in another) especially during when there is some horrible, horrible haze where I live. To describe just how bad is it, the visibility from my apartment is barely half a kilometer. And even a non-meteorologist will know that a horrible condition.

On a brighter note, I've managed to track down Jewett's classic "Infant Baptism & The Covenant Of Grace", as you can see on my reading list. I'm not very hard on my credobaptist stance, though perhaps after going through this I will be a tad harder!

Ron Gleason is back again with a rather strongly titled, "The Death Knell For The Emerging Church Movement". Its subtitle is even more stronger: A Movement Begins A Slow But Certain Death. Gleason doesn't seem to be offering any proof throughout his article that the Emergent Church is on its way to oblivion. Thus, I'm rather skeptical of Gleason's assumption that the Emergents are on their way to an end. I leave it to you to decide for yourself, though I have to say with the rest of Ron's article I agree with.

What is the fate of the Emergent Church then? It's best to say that I really don't know; But this kind of church is more of a seasonal than permanent one- as some people have pointed out, "Emergent" would hardly be a word that would describe this movement ten or twenty years onward. Will it die out? Most likely not. But I think it will change, and I pray, for the better.

***

Gleason's second part of his series has appeared.

It's slightly better than the first (Though some who commented on his article don't think so!), so perhaps I'm now waiting for his third article (On the Emergent Convention held recently). I'll refrain from telling who is right and who is wrong for the moment, but maybe after I've done some thorough reading...then I'll come up with my final thoughts on this subject.

***

Yep, Ron Gleason is back again with his third part of his critique on the Emergent Church. And, finally, he gives us a (rather good) reason why this movement is on its way to an end:

My argument is one from history; based on movements with analogous planks in their platforms that were faddish, popular, and failed. The adage that those who are not acquainted with history are destined to repeat it contains an important element of truth. We must realize and acknowledge that in the history of the Church there have been other movements that have appeared and announced that they were unique. Their unique status could arise from special revelations, their eclectic, smorgasbord-like approach, the uniqueness of their pronouncements (God is dead theology), or any other number of things.

On the same note, Andrew Jones writes:

I am hoping when all the faddish people move on to the next thing, that those people within the emerging church movement in USA and around the world, who are learning to minister like Jesus did, who are moving towards a trinitarian missiology, who are speaking life fluently in new media, who are sharing the unchanging gospel with cultural creatives, who are starting simple churches like the ones in the Book of Acts . . . well i am hoping they will not die off but will keep ministering. We need them to stay. The next generation needs them. If they don't know their Bibles (who taught them??) then they MUST be given the biblical grounding for their ministry in emerging culture. (How do you teach multi-tasking creative people?) Many would argue that they are returning TO the Scriptures and are abandoning pop-psychology, motivational speaking and management techniques that they learned in Seminary, or their previous churches . . but that is another discussion.

I agree with both of them- if there are Emergent Churches out there they need to be equipped. I'm sure that there are some biblical churches out there holding to the philosophy of the Emergents...even if some say they aren't true churches- something which I seriously disagree with (What? Only Reformed churches are biblical???)- I do not doubt their salvation and sincerity. Though, again, they have zeal for God- but without knowledge (Hebrews 9:1).

I've noticed that I've soften my stance against them a lot after reading through a lot of material published by them. I am, though, still cringing at what McLaren said in his A New Kind Of Christian books.

If and when Gleason posts yet another critique you can be sure I'll comment on it. Until then I leave you with some thoughts: How are we applying Romans 12:2 to our situation today? Have we developed a method of evangelizing the unregenerate that is consistently biblical? (Being a Van Tillian, I don't believe that there is any "common ground" in regards to evangelizing non-Christians)

But perhaps it would be unjust to force these questions onto pastors (I sometimes cringe at the evangelism tactics of certain Churches). But I'm sure everyone would agree that we seriously need a method that is (Dare I say?) radically Biblical when confronting the world.

I've heard people accuse organizations like AiG of scientific dishonesty, mainly because they happen to be young earth creationists. Most of them are (surprise, surprise) Christians. I have two observations to make here:

First of all, most old-earthers (and evolutionists) claim that there is exegetical support for an old-earth from Genesis 1, and that "literalists" (As we Young-Earthers are so often called) merely impose scripture upon science. In regards to the exegetical support, I have no doubt that there are competent old-earthers like Gleason Archer. Then there is Meredith Kline, who developed the Framework Hypothesis which pretty much permits an old-earth. Although I will not respond in detail, I believe there is convincing evidence to show that Genesis 1 does teach a young-earth (Liberals like Barr admit it, though some would say that he has his own "errancy" agenda to put forth).

Second, most Christians who are old-earthers fail to consider whether they view evidence for an old-earth from fields such as geology or astronomy either as facts or interpretations. They tend to take them as the former, though logic requires it to be the latter. Have they ever considered that the age of the earth has been agressively put forth by evolutionists to support their interpretations?

To end, I would like to see old-earthers (Especially Christians) respect the Young-Earthers more and treat them as competent opponents to their views.

On other matters, I especially recommend that you read this article on Challies. You'll laugh for sure!