It seems to be that the majority of posts here come straight from my thoughts. Yes, I think a lot...though most of what I think never make it here. Anyway, since my business exam is tomorrow I'll be busy studying- not! (It happens to be an open book one, so I'm not so worried about getting the answers right. I'm only worried about how I phrase them so as to not lose any points in grammer...hehe).

The Hedonese has written a very interesting post on how the Agora differs from EMO. I think Dave describes exactly my thoughts on the Emergent conversation as a whole when he states that, "I always agree with McLaren's analysis of problems, but not always his prescriptions for cure."

Likewise for me.

Also, someone in an online forum asked an intriguing question- "What do Christians think of non-believers?" That got me thinking (as with most questions like this!). What do I see in a non-believer? Firstly, I someone who is desperately in need of hearing the gospel. Secondly, someone who is hopelessly lost in his sin and wanders aimlessly (Even though he might think he has a purpose in life). Thirdly, I see a person who may have unanswered questions about things that affect his salvation (Is there a God, is there only one way to him etc.). I do have other things to write down here, but these are three main things that I usually think of when I meet an unbeliever.

To other Christians: What do you think of when you see a non-believer?

Steve Hays, I think, does a remarkable job of reviewing-critiquing Witherington's book. If he (Hays) has correctly represented Witherington's position, than it would indeed be a complete shame for the Arminian position. I'm looking forward to Ben's reply- if he does respond, that is.
Hays' review is in 3 parts: 1,2,3.

On other matters, it's indeed interesting to note that Phil Johnson @ PyroManiac gives some "penalty points" to the like of Frank Turk and Fide-O.

Now that's what I call fairness!

I still do reserve some respect for Michael Spencer, considering that he has (had?) devoted himself to exposing error in God's church (Most notably, Joel Osteen). As for the folks at BHT, that's another story. But I've already vowed not to do blog any more on this issue(s)- and I'm not about to break it.

In the end, it's all going to be forgotten. Like a drop of water in a pond, the ripples slowly, after a while, fade away. And that's how it is going to be, at least, most of the time.

Good grief, I'm getting poetic...

*Sarcasm Alert*

So? What shall we say?

The next time a Roman Catholic apologist comes along and uses says that this is "evidence that demands a verdict", I've got some alternatives for you:

1. That this is the devil trying to deceive Protestants into accepting Roman Catholicism. Or it is the Devil solidifying the faith of Roman Catholics.
   
2. That this is a hoax and those who are seeing it are deluded. Unfortunately, the RC apologist will say that this is the same argument that skeptics use to dismiss the miracles in the Bible, so you go on an say that
3. This is an elaborate conspiracy by the folks at Communio Sanctorum. But why CS, and not some secret wing of the Vatican? Well, it's up to you to decide. But just so you know, Paul Owen can get tired of writing about baptists.
   

Of course we can accept this as a genuine miracle- but I beg to differ. Perhaps if a statue of Virgin Mary appeared out of nowhere holding shreds of Scripture Alone in its hands than maybe it will be something to me. But then James White will be calling up Dave Armstrong asking about his whereabouts for the last few days...

The Star's report on transsexuality, (TS from now on) that they are biologically "wired" to be one is indeed interesting. But I have a few qualms.

A study by Prof L.J.G. Gooren from the Gender Studies and Gender Reassignment Programmes at Vrije University in Amsterdam, Netherlands apparently bears this out.

I have a few comments. Firstly, the fact that this study is conducted in Holland makes me question the objectivity of the researchers. Some might say that this is downright poisoning of the well, but in a country where the age of consent in 12, one would expect nothing less than a bias treatment of issues concerning sexuality.

Secondly, the study claims that the hypothalamus region of the brain (which is bigger than a female's for a normal male) of a TS male follows the size of a female. And the same vice-versa.

However, there are some problems that I see. For example, has the researchers compared the hypothalamus region of other normal males to see if any of them match the size of a female's even though they are non-TS? Also, how big was the group of TSs that were compared? Were the results selectively chosen so as to project the conception that the hypothalamus size of a TS male was equivalent to that of a normal female?

It is also interesting to note the comment Dr. Mohd Ismail that it "usually during adolescence that transsexuals would want to be close to the gender of their choice". Considering that the choice of ones gender is "determined" during this period of raging hormones (where passions can get easily confused, I might add) speaks a lot.

A final thing that I might add: Even if it can be proven that biologically someone can indeed "feel" like the opposite gender, it certainly doesn't justify something that radical as completely changing your sex. Considering that even though you have gone through countless surgeries to make yourself look like the gender you "feel" you are, you will nevertheless have to continue taking hormon replacements etc. It goes to say that no matter what, you are still the gender you were born with. And to justify your decision to change sex on something as flimsy as "feelings" is stupid, at best.

One thing that I have always noticed is the lack of discernment (some may say gullibility) in regards to Christians who listen to preachers. I, too, shake my head everytime everyone around me says "Amen!" when a preacher mouths off some "health-and-wealth" statement or commits a clearcut exegetical mistake.

Some would say that we have no business critiquing men called my God. I think the Bible speaks to the contrary, when it says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 that we should "test all things". Without a doubt many Christians are familiar with the verse. Yet they don't seem to be applying it consistently. Thus, by critiquing the preacher, I find that I tend to get more truth in the end- as well as complying to the word of God.

However, some would add that another mistake is that of being hyper-critical. I concur. It might, I think, be a little bit too much to nitpick every single thing in a sermon that in the end we end up disagreeing with every single preacher we encounter. No doubt there are imperfect sermons- but we must always keep in mind that although it is important to analyze the small print, we must nevertheless look at the big picture and decide whether those errors impede the truth of the sermon as a whole.

So then, when I listen to a sermon, I always pay attention and listen to the truth that is contained within it- as well as to any errors. This is why we must always take the initiative to study the Bible on our own. We should expect pastors to spoonfeed us; and it will also make sure we are able to detect any problems in a sermon.

What about pre-judgements? I think they are valid in some cases. For example, if a preacher that is known to have in the past expounded bad theology, certainly we should be a bit more careful the next time around we listen to him. Or perhaps to avoid him altogether.

To sum up, pastors and those who are responsible for teaching God's word will indeed be accountable before God and they will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1). Nevertheless this does not mean we can sit back, relax, and imbibe everything they have to offer us and if we end up in any errors, we plead to God that it was their fault.

This should not be.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Well, I think I've got to hand it to our police force for "owning up" to their dreadful treatment of a Chinese national. Certainly, it would have been expected that the police would immediately try to wash their hands off the whole affair- so as not to tarnish the image of their organization.

Aside from that, a recent post by Sebastian Heck at the Reformata Blog makes an interesting read. I haven't heard much about the Moreland/Franke exchange, except from the A-Team blog. It has been pretty relevant to me, considering that I've been recently studying the three theories of truth (Correspondance, Coherence and Pragmatism respectively).

Anyways, I've not been feeling good with myself recently, considering that my studies have been draining all my time usually reserved for Bible reading, prayer etc. Being very weak at time management, no wonder. And I haven't read anything theological for nearly the whole weak already, grr...

Why doesn't God prevent evil, why doesn't God just show himself to us and end all of this...

So then these are just some of the questions that both Christian and non-Christian have. It is is probable that there may never be a completely satisfactory answer for both groups.

The answer, for me, has been that it is God's will. As cliched as it may sound, I nevertheless have found pyschological satisfaction with this answer.

I do, however have moments where my anger with God on this very subject becomes apparent. But, after a few minutes, hours or days, something becomes apparent to me- my doubts are more emotional. Emotional in the sense that I feel anger because God never does this, never does that. Whenever I try to carry this forward to the logical realm, "God wills it" seems to stop me.

I certainly don't see myself as a "bullet-proof" apologist (some do, though, but I nevertheless respect them). But I do believe that I can and will persevere to the end- with the grace of God alone. Recently, though, the fear that I may be wrong kept me from a total rejection of my faith. I shudder when I think back about it. I definitely would not like a repeat of that event.

But what I found propelled my doubts was troubles that I experienced. I didn't blame God for them. I blamed Him because he did nothing about them. But now, I realise that it is not my Lord's imperative to take away my burdens. I have learned now not to expect it as a certainty, but nevertheless I still believe he can do it- take away my troubles. I have learned to cast it upon Him. And pray and believe.

There is nothing wrong with doubts. But what we do with them is important. We can do something right or wrong.

And in all things, I keep something in mind. Again and again, as Job said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." For it is his will. Soli Deo Gloria.

still haven't started begun doing my work (and homework). I think it's myself to blame though- I've been chilling out with online games for a few weeks already. And I think I better stop before I get addicted (feeling the effects already) ;)

I'm currently spoilt for choice in whether to start a course at Biblical Training (Church history looks good) or Ockenga Institute's Dimensions Of Faith programme (Their lectures on church history and missions look tempting too). Hmm...I wonder what I'll take up?

And I hope that I'll be able to blog more often. Yes...maybe I'll try to hit the "1 post a day" mark. May God enable me =)

been away from blogging for awhile. I've been busy studying for my Maths and Business exams respectively- ergo I've not been thinking much on other issues- hence my absence. I don't like the feeling of not blogging (Don't know why), but I guess when I'm not writing my thoughts down for some time, they build up and more posts result, so maybe I'll be able to go on another blogging streak. For me at least, blogging once a day is a next to impossible task, but maybe I'll start trying soon =)

Anyway, I guess I'll have to chip in my 2 cents on the much publicised story of the marriage of a transsexual with "her" spouse. Dave a.k.a. the Hedonese has posted a good reply to the issue. I'll jot down some of my own.

People have certainly responded to the issue, some with the traditional "include, not exclude" call for tolerance if not acceptance of them and their marriage. There are others, like me, who would certainly object to such a thing being called a "marriage"- as well as being the right thing. The question is whether "she" is truly a woman. No doubt "she" feels like one. But, people feel all kinds of things. They feel happy, sad. They feel like giving, they feel like killing. It should be said that some emotions could not be considered natural. What more when a man feels like he is a woman. One has to ask whether his feelings are legitimate- whether he is truly what he "feels" he is- a woman. Since God made us man and woman- and we certainly take the gender we are born with the gender we truly are- I don't see any reason why God would make a man on the outside and woman on the inside. Sure, sin has scarred us- it may touch us physically and spiritually- but I doubt it can ever go that far.

So, in the end, I answer the question of whether their marriage is legitimate, whether it is right. I say no. After all, marriage- as God instituted it- is between a man and a woman. Not just between those who are man or woman on the outside, but those who are man or woman inwardly, spiritually as well.

One thing that I have come across often is that of Christians- sincere ones- claiming that reason has no place, or, at least, is not necessary in the defense of the faith. I write this now to show that it is a must.

The common alternative posited by those who do not hold to reason as part of apologetics is that of faith, among other things.

The problem with faith is that it is completely arbritary. Those whom are against the Christian faith might as well say, "I have faith that you are wrong and that I am right." What shall we say to them then? The appeal to faith, then, is clearly fallacious inasmuch as that it is based no or little evidence whatsoever[1]. Shall we wage our eternal life on poor evidence?

At this point, Christians who are still hesitant to employ reason in the defense of the faith would appeal to religious experience- like pointing out a miracle that has happened to them, prayers that have been answered etc.

However, as the skeptic would point out[2] (who already assumes such things like naturalism) miracles can't happen, and even if they did to you there is no way you can be sure that you are not deceived, delusional or lying. Not to mention that you cannot prove that such a miracle ever happened. As to such things like answered prayer, the unbeliever would say that such things are merely coincidences...nothing special.

The Christian would finally fall back on such things as an appeal to teleology, or to some form of Pascal's wager. But by then they are already employing reason as part of the defense of their beliefs.

It should be obvious that faith or religious experience alone cannot be employed in apologetics. This is not to deny their validity, but to merely point out that they are logically useless. Only if one uses reason can we provide certain proof that the Christian faith is indeed true.
______________________________

1. See the article by Holding who argues that faith is loyalty based on prior evidence. See also Bahnsen's article.

2. I do not deny that God answers prayer or does miracles. I am arguing from a skeptic's point of view at this moment.

Good grief...I didn't notice I had shot past the 100 posts mark for my blog. It was an "occasion worthy of a celebration"...hehe.

Anyway, the charismatic debate on Phil Johnson's blog is perhaps going to reach its peak when the Pyromaniac blogs on the prophecies of Spurgeon. For the record, I do believe that God gave a special kind of prophecy to Spurgeon et. al.

To explain a bit further- I do believe that it is God's will that in special instances he will dispense a special "prophecy" to a person whom he chooses. If you're still confused, then check out Garry Vanderveen's excellent article on this subject.

For me at least, debating with charismatics has always been a dead-end...usually with both sides not willing to budge any further at a certain point. It is crucial, I believe, to keep our tempers and emotions in check as we dialogue on this issue- something that is oft forgotten. I too, am guilty of it sometimes. Until then, even when nobody seems to be willing to convert to either side, at least let everyone be "fully convinced in his own mind."-Romans 14:5

"Why don't you expose your children to the outside world?"

Without a doubt, this is probably the main objection to homeschooling.

(Yes, I'm blogging on homeschooling. I never, ever wanted to, but here I am)

Being a homeschooler, I've obviously met many other homeschoolers. Some are almost the same like those who attend school- except a bit more uncultured. My younger brothers loathe these kinds of people. (They loathe almost everyone except those whom they don't loathe, admittedly)
Then there are, of course, the other homeschoolers. They're more normal people who are more tolerable, hehe.

Anyway, I can't really see why that objection would stand upon close observation- homeschoolers are indeed exposed, probably even more than those who go to school. Obviously, there are some of those who are carefully, jealously, guarded by their parents...but so do other people who are non-homeschoolers.

What I worry about, rather, is lack of regard for their-our- home country. Most HS (May I abbreviate it?) don't know Bahasa Malaysia (Our national language), unfortunately. I can recall the moment my friend asked me what the "Berhenti" sign on the road meant...

Other than that, it might be said that homeschooler are even more exposed than those who go to the public schools, as I can personally attest.

(Methinks that this is it- I'm going to be writing more stuff on homeschooling from now on. Stay tuned.)

This is a must see site. I'm not very sure whether the author is serious or writes in jest, but it sure makes you laugh!

Following are some quotes:

(From the author's profile)

I'm tolerant, open-minded, progressive, and not bound by superstitious things such as the Bible.

(From a blog post)

The problem with "Christians" is that they think that they're right and others are wrong. This is not acceptable, nor is it polite behavior in our modern enlightened times.

(Another blog post on Halloween)

If people come by your home, be sure to give the children of color and the alternative-lifestyle children equal amounts of candy (make sure it is organic candy) as well as a firm dose of acceptance. We're all in this 2-gether.

And finally...

Fundamentalism is a threat to our tolerant and open society. And, as it will be seen, I will be intolerant towards Fundamentalists. There is no contradiction embodied in this. But even if there is, I'm not going to be logocentric.

That sure made my day!

Well, I'm heading off to the Sunway Lagoon theme park to enjoy some time off with my cousins...though I'm rather not so enthusiastic about the idea of going there on a weekend (consider the crowds)!

Challies' review of Sam Storms' latest book prompted these thoughts.

Nobody would argue that the tag "Reformed Charismatic" is not without its popular adherents- from Wayne Grudem to C.J. Mahaney to John Piper (Though I'm not so sure if he would want that tag; but, nevertheless, he fits it well).

Storms, in his latest book, urges Calvinists who adhere to the traditional Reformed understanding of the charismatic gifts to alter their understanding and "converge" with charismaticism. Obviously, arguments will be needed. He gives us them. (If you want to learn more about it, then do read the review)

Anyway, I'm not exactly discussing Storms' book, but about the "Reformed Charismatic" group. Certainly, they have some great men of God at the helm. Without a doubt, their arguments sound convincing. But alas, I'm not.

I believe they have the right to call themselves Reformed Charismatics, but I'm not so certain whether the two would fit together exactly. For, the majority "Reformed" opinion has been that the gifts have ceased. That puts it right at odds with charismaticism.

I not about to launch into a critique of charismaticism (and a defense of the opposite view) here, but I would like to say that it certainly matters which side you're on. If you choose to implement tenets of two views together, then at least do it with lots of study.

I certainly am not complaining that non-cessationists have the right to hold to a "Reformed" tag, but I do believe that although Calvinism is certainly biblical, Charismaticism is not- hence, for me at least, those two words might be an oxymoron.

Of course I tremendously respect people like Grudem and Piper (They have been greatly influential in forming my beliefs on complementarianism and Calvinism respectively). But one certainly has to be aware that despite the seemingly good fruits of combining charismaticism and Calvinism together, the Word of God should always take precedence- even if it results in loss of something, be they charismaticism or Calvinism.

I can't believe I forgot about Reformation Day...but to remind myself, October 31st 1517 was the day Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the door of a church in Wittenburg. To utter an understatement, "It was a historic event."

Also, to add upon my previous post, I think Douglas Groothuis expresses my feelings exactly:

"Some Christians are hailing postmodernism as the trend that will make the church interesting and exciting to postmoderns. We are told that Christians must shift their emphasis from objective truth to communal experience, from rational argument to subjective appeal, from doctrinal orthodoxy to ‘relevant’ practices...this move is nothing less than fatal to Christian integrity and biblical witness. It is also illogical philosophically. We have something far better to offer."

And Adam Cummings has written a great poem called "Freedom Of The Will". Since he has built upon a hymn by Watts, I think with some adjustments it could make its way into the hymnal...though don't expect the Wesleyans to be singing it just yet!

Ah, yes, it's back to blogging for me. This whole week is a holiday week, though not really for me (Devoting my free time to my studies). Anyway, during my break from blogging I spared some time to engage in my favourite hobby...thinking. Here's some of my thoughts on the subject of the Church and its relation to Post-Modernism:

Still mostly "on the fence" with this issue. I don't like to be on the fence, but to take a side on this issues like this requires lots of study, contemplating and prayer. As far as I am concerned, it is not whether we should take and implement modernism or post-modernism into our church, but to focus on the Bible, and to project the best of our understanding of the Word onto everything else. I also dislike the modern/post-modern dichotomy, because Christians immediately are placed under those categories even if they do not completely subscribe to the whole deal.

Then there is also the issue of whether our society is still in its modern state, or has made the drift to post-modernism, or perhaps something else. I, myself, can't really say which. But methinks that rather than adapting our strategies to the "post-modern crowd", don't you think that we should approach the World in a distinctly Biblical way? I know that there is a lot of uncertainty over the meaning "Biblical", but that shouldn't stop us from trying to find out which is which. I don't really have a problem with adaptation (If it is biblically warranted, of course), but I still feel uneasy about the whole idea of changing our evangelistic methods to our worship services everytime the World changes its trends.

Well that's about it... I've a lot more thoughts on other subjects but not much time to write them down. Until next time,

Soli Deo Gloria