Global warming caused by the sun?

Interesting article here:

Al Gore may have to return his Nobel Peace Prize...

NASA reports that the "fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field."

So what? Here's what: The U.S. Committee on Environment and Public Works website reported the following back in March:

"Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun."

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Instruments in worship?

The other pamphlet I have with me is one arguing against the use of instruments in worship. It is written by Robert B. McCracken and published by Crown & Covenant Publications. I have decided to do a short review of this, as this is an issue which those who are fascinated by the scriptural soundness and maturity of the saints in former times like the Puritans would probably have to encounter. (And yes, I do know that means pobably 99.9% of my blog readers would not be interested in this)

Anyway, the argument against the utilization of instruments in worship is rather convoluted. In this missive, the main points of the arguments would be stated and summarized here, followed by a response to the argument presented.

ARGUMENT AGAINST USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP

Introduction of Instruments into the worship of God:

• Instruments were first introduced as utilized in worship when the Jewish temple worship were institutionalized. Such were done by the direct command of God.

• Such use of instruments were directly associated with the ceremonial rituals, that is, the offerings and sacrifices

• In 2 Chron. 29: 25-30, the first part of the worship before and during the offering of the sacrifice were with instruments. The second part of the worship after the sacrifice however, were without instruments.

• All of this suggests that the use of instruments in the worship of God is directly related to the temple service.

• Therefore, when Christ came and the ceremonial system came to an end, the use of instruments for worship would then cease.

Removal of Instruments from the worship of God

• 'There is not a trace in the complete New Testament of the use of instruments in the Church of Jesus Christ or in the worship of the Apostles. This seems strange if God intended this practice to continue'

• In the early church there were no instruments used in the churches, quoting Justin Matyr and Chrysostom to that effect.

• This continued until the 7th century. In the year 666 A.D., Pope Vitalian, brought into his worship Latin singing to the accompaniment of the organ

• In the Reformation, in order to purify the worship, godly leaders cast out the instruments from their worship services.

Reasons why Instruments were not continued in the N.T. Church

• Firstly, the perfect sacrifce of Christ did away with all the ceremonial ritual and thus the instruments also, as they were connected with the sacrificial system

• Secondly, the New Testament specifically tells us that the joy and praise which fills our hearts as Christians is to be expressed from the heart through our lips (cf Heb. 13:15)

• Thirdly, 'we are to "make music in [our] heart" (Eph. 5:19). The Greek word for "make music" is psallo, which means originally "to pluck the strings of an instrument." ... Since the word psallo cannot be seperated from the word "heart", it literally means "plucking te strings of your heart to the Lord." When the music of of the heart is expressed through lips that confess the Lord's name, there is no need for supporting instruments.'

• Fourthly, 'archaelogists have found no instruments of music among the furniture of the ancient synagogues. And even today in the Orthodox Jewish synagogue no instruments are used (confirming the idea that instruments were tied to the ceremonial system and temple worship). The Christian Church in its original state was patterned after the synagogue, and therefore the instruments had no place in their worship.'

BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL REFUTATION

After looking at the various points of their argument, let us analyze their position biblically and logically, and even historically.

The first point that we would analyze is that instruments were first stated as being used in the temple worship, as instituted by Moses and then David, under the direct command of God. This fact, while true, does not hold any significance at all for the argument at hand however. The Bible moves over the first few centuries of human history very quickly to focus on the story of Abraham and his descendents. Gen. 1-11 thus are a framework, while very important and must be held to be historically correct, for the narrative of Abraham to flow. As such, even if instruments are to be used for worship in such a period, they would not be mentioned. Before Moses, there was nothing that can be remotely called corporate worship, and the captive peole of Israel were hardly in spiritual health while they were in bondage down in Egypt. Therefore, when Moses was said to institutionalize the worship of God, the fact that he introduces instruments does not necessarily mean that instruments are tied to the ceremonial law. Moses institutionalize proper corporate worship also, so therefore this fact bring nothing to the discussion at hand.

This brings us to the second point — of instruments being directly associated with the ceremonial rituals. However, is that the case, or is it rather the case that corporate worship in the Old Testament always comes together with the performing of the ceremonial rituals? The fact that corporate worship always comes together with ceremonial rituals and sacrifices thus introduces another factor into the equation. As such, it is disingenious to simply state that instruments are directly associated with the ceremonial rituals when there is another possibility that instruments are always together with the ceremonial rituals because both are present in Old Testament corporate worship.

Nevertheless, let us proceed to consider 2 Chron. 29:25-30. When we look at this passage, it can be seen that to use this passage to say that instruments are absolutely linked to the cermonial rituals is straining at gnats. The passage is not explicitly clear either way, for although it is true that there are two parts of the worship, it cannot be proved that no instruments were used in the second part. The singing and playing of instruments would naturally stop when the king and his company bow down and worship, as we in our modern context would stop singing and playing our instruments when it comes to a very solemn moment in worship. However, what makes such an argument from silence ridiculous, is that earlier on it was mentioned that the Levites were stationed around with cymbals, harps and lyres (2 Chron. 29:25), but these instruments were never mentioned at all after that. Are we to infer that the Levties brought these instruments into the temple just to display them without playing them? But yet, this is what such an argument from silence would lead us to. It is thus far more likely that these instruments were used together with the singing of the people, while the trumpet were used only initially since they are typically used to herald the beginning.

As such, we have seen that the linking of instruments to the ceremonial system is pure conjecture founded on no biblical basis. Furthermore, since the use of instruments were never stated explicitly in the Scriptures to be part of the ceremonial system, it is ridiculous to say that Christ did away with their usage. As an aside, what are we to make of the fact that there are instruments in heaven (Rev. 5:8)? Are there ceremonial rituals up in heaven which are to be made obselete when Christ comes, but then Christ is always there!?

Wit regards to the New Testament, it is true that there are no mention of instruments in the New Testament, but then there wasn't any detailed description of a New Testament church service either, just that believers praised and worshipped God then. Knowing that those who are typically against the usage of instruments in worship are Covenantal Theologians and Exclusive Psalmodists, how then can they sing a Psalm such as Ps. 150:3-5 without 're-interpreting the words' so that the plain meaning of the psalm becomes irrelevant to them?

McCracken then goes on to a short history lesson. Of course, we must remember that Christians in the early days were generally poor and definitely persecuted. Therefore, that there were no instruments among them in general does not mean that instruments were banned, but more that they either could not afford them, or they are more pressing concerns like supporting missionaries etc. It is always a risky venture to argue from history, because it is more subjective and generally it proves nothing much of value, only in validity a point. In this case, the point has not been validated, so such would be an exercise in futility. With regards to the Reformation, generally there was an over-reaction to the abuses of the Roman clergy and this led to the removal of instruments as well. However, this proves nothing unless it can be shown that the prohibition of instruments is biblical.

In answer to the last part of the reasons given on why instruments are not continued, the fact that we are to have joy and praise which fills our hearts as Christians, which is to be expressed from the heart through our lips, does not negate the use of instruments. Ditto for the fact that we are to make music in our hearts to the Lord. Worship must always comes primarily from the heart, but to use that fact to prohibit instruments is to prohibit the eating of oranges because we need to eat apples.

With regards to the comparison with ancient synagogues, such a comparison is wrongfully made. Synagogues were originally more of a house of prayer than a true place of worship (which the temple in Jerusalem was). As such, no true coporate worship would originally be done in a synagogue, and therefore the comparison is in error.

From all of this, it can be seen that the linkage of instruments to the ceremonial system of the Old Testament, and therefore of the phohibition of instruments in worship, is severely misguided. The arguments have been shown to be more of grasping for straws and making invalud inferences and arguments from silence rather than true biblical exegesis. What makes it very ridiculous is the fact that people who call themselve Covenantal Theologians, who are supposed to believe in the continuity between the Old and New Covenants; the Old and New Testaments, who are promoting this sharp discontinuity and thus behaving more like Dispensationalists in this regard. As I have said before, such people can never in good conscience sing Ps. 150:3-5 because they prohibit the usage of any instruments in worship. Of course, I would like to know whether they think instruments can be used for personal worship, because David did play the harp in his own worship to God.

Exclusive Psalmody? (part 2) **Amended*

[continued from previous post here]

(Amended parts in red.)

BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY

As we have seen the arguments propped up for the promotion of exclusive Psalmody, let us look and logcally apply the text of Scripture to evalute their arguments.

1) The regulative principle of worship

As a Reformed Christian, I most definitely hold to the Regulative Principle of worship. Certainly, it is very clear in Scripture that we are to worship God in the way He has prescribed for us, and that is why I am against any form of mood enhancement used within charismatic circles (ie usage of different lightings in worship, changing of background pictures in worship song powerpoint slides, endless repetition of choruses etc.), and also against any form of drama and dancing in the corporate worship of God's people. That said, I disagee that the Regulative Principle reduces the songs to be sung to only the Psalms.

More will be said about the relation of Psalms with Hymns and Spiritual songs later, but for now it will be said that the premise that God has not commanded His people to sing Psalms only is false. The much debated phrase in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 of 'psalms, hymns and spiritual songs' does seem to state that God's people are to sing songs other than psalms. Of course, the exclusive Psalmodists will interpret the phrase to actually mean 'psalm, psalm and psalm', which is just ridiculous. Yes, the Bible does use such triadic forms of expression^[1], but such forms do not mean the same thing! They are variations of the point being driven at, but nevertheless they are different. For example, in Ex. 34:7, the term 'Iniquity', 'trasngression' and 'sin' are not the same. Definitely, all iniquity and transgression is sin, but iniquity (injustice) is not exactly the same as transgression (to violate a law), nor is sin consisting of iniquity and transgression and nothing more than that (it also includes for example Original Sin). Similarly, commandments, statutes and rules (Deut. 6:1) while having the same meaning do not have the same focus or connotations. Commandments focuses on the fact that God is making the keeping of them obligatory. Statutes focuses on the fact of the established nature of it, while rules focuses on the people who are to obey them. In another example, works (miracles), wonders and signs (Acts 2:22) are not exactly the same, as all miracles are wonders and signs, but not all signs are miracles (Nebuchadnezzar's dream depicting the rise of the Persian, Greek and Roman empires as interpreted by Daniel the prophet in Dan. 2:31-45 for example, or the fulfilment of most of the prophecies about Jesus which are pretty mundane - involving the sovereign working of God through Providence but not exactly miraculous). Thus, we can see from all this that triadic expressions do not at all prove that the phrase 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' mean 'psalms, psalms and psalms', even if that phrase is a triadic expression in the first place, which is strongly disputed.

2) Sufficiency of Scripture

This charge would only hold true if the songs that we sing are not derived from Scripture. Just because the exclusive Psalmodists do not like them does not mean that they are not derived from Scripture.

3) The Continuity of the Covenant

This supports the singing of the Psalms, but it has no weight in arguing for Exclusive Psalmody.

4) The Purpose of Worship

This argument presupposes that exclusive Psalmody is God's way. In other words, such an argument commits the logical fallacy of Petitio Principii or begging the question. Basically, what this is reduced to is that exclusive Psalmody is correct because it is God-centered, and the reason why it is God-centered is because exclusive Psalmody is correct.

5) They are without error/ Praise songs must be inspired

For the first argument, the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as singing something without interpretation. All other biblical hymns and songs which could be sung are derived from Scripture, and as such have the additional interpretative grid of the songwriter and the person who sings it to God. Psalms are inspired and are thus without any error (assuming they are not a paraphrase of the Psalms), but there is still the need for the worshipper singing it to interpret the words of Scripture and direct it towards God in a heart of worship to Him. Since that is the case, it is entirely possible that error may creep in to the singing of Psalms through the improper attitude of the worshipper or the misinterpretation of the words of Scripture sung, especially if the words are difficult to understand or the true meaning rendered obselete due to it being archaic (ie. singing the Psalsm in the KJV). I have personally took part in Psalm singing word for word from the KJV metrical Psalter before, and it might as well have been in another language due my inability to understand the archaic words fast enough to offer them up as a sacrifice to God. So much for perfection!

The second argument is another Petiotio Principii. God only accepted inspired songs as stated in the Bible because any song which was said to be acceptable unto God in the Bible must be written down and therefre they became inspired. If God has accepted any other worship song which is not stated in the Scriptures, how will we know that there is such a song? This is such a ridiculous argument on the part of the Exclusive Psalmodists!

6) They promote memorization

In other words, without singing Psalms, people will not memorize them? So if hymns and praise songs were organized around a particular verse or passage of Scripture, Exclusive Psalmodists would not be promoting memorization of that particular text or passage of Scripture since they prohibit people from singing them? This argument of theirs cuts both ways and is as such useless.

7) They carry the power of the Spirit

This is just another variation of the argument from the sufficiency of Scripture, and would be given the same response. Since the hymns and songs which we use are and will be derived from Scripture, they similarly carry the power of the Spirit with them. Furthermore, whatever happened to preaching if only the singing of Psalms would ensure that people's hearts would be touched by the Word?

8) They perfectly balance themes

And so do hymns and songs which give heed to the full counsel of God. Furthermore, if Christians have matured in their walk with Christ, there is NO thing which they would fell repugnant about God. They would accept and glorify God even in the manner of the imprecatory Psalms, so this argument is invalid.

9) They provide a basis for unity

Of all the arguments stated, this is the most ridiculous. The 'worship wars' have been one of the factors which are responsible for splitting churches.Rightly or wrongly, the fact of the matter is that instead of promoting unity, they promote disunity, especially when the Exclusive Psalmodists attempt to impose Psalms-only worship, creating a third group in the 'worship wars'. And the battle for bible versions could very well spill over into the singing of Psalms even if everybody consents to singing only Psalms. In such a hypothetical situation, would there be the 'KJV-Psalms-only group' verses the 'NIV-Psalms-only' group, or even the 'metrical Psalms' group verses the 'non-metrical Psalms' group? It is laugheable and extremely naive that agreeing to singing the Psalms only would immediately resolve all conflict in matters of worship.

10) Singing is a separate element of worship, not a circumstance of worship

The concept of separating worship into various "elements", each of which is to be governed by the regulative principle, is unbiblical. So instead of saying singing being a circumstance of worship, like Greg Bahnsen, it is instead maintained that the classic separation into "elements" is unbiblical in the first place. But even if it is conceded that such a separation is stated in Scripture, and even if singing is indeed a separate element of worship, the Exclusive Psalmodist point is also not proved. What it proves instead is that the lyrics of worship songs must be taken from Scripture en toto, not that only Psalms are allowed.

It has been seen that the Exclusive Psalmodists love to posit sharp demarcations between the category of psalms, that of hymns and that of spiritual songs "as defined in modern times". However, where did such a categorization came from? Definitely, all are songs of praise expressing devotion and worship unto God. If we would to use the so called triadic phrasing on Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, then these terms would be variations of the same main commonality, or songs offered as worship to God. Generally, Psalms are differentiated from Hymns by the fact that one is explicitly inspired and placed within a book of its own (Psalms), and the fact that they as such employ Hebrew poetic forms. What we class as 'spiritual songs' today (ie CCM - Contemporary Christian Music) are distinguishd from hymns due to the fact that they abandon the musical metrical form of hymns (ie 8.7.8.7) and they are generally not so rich in doctrine, more focused on the expression of worship through more detailed reflection on a few truths of Scripture rather than on the singing of various truths as in hymns. As such, they are more of a difference in literary and musical styles which differentiate them. Therefore, since all are derived from Scripture, I would suggest that unless the Exclusive Psalmodists would like to go into literary and musical styles, such sharp demarcation of theirs do not hold water. After all, the only reason why Psalms are known as Psalms and nothing else is is more because they are found in the book of Psalms rather than anything else.

With that said, let us go on the offensive.

The most devastating critique against exclusive Psalmody is the absence of the name Jesus, our most precious Savior, Redeemer and Lord. Yes, Jesus is prophesied throughout even the book of Psalms, but still His name is not mentioned. Substituting the name Jesus into the Psalms could well do the trick, but then it is no more exactly a Psalm rather than something akin to a paraphrase already, which is no different from what biblical hymn and song writers have been doing in putting biblical truths and verses into song.

Even worse for the Exclusive Psalmodists is that there is no biblical command for anyone to practice exclusive Psalmody. As I have shown previously, the Regulative Principle of worship does not prove exclusive Psalmody. Neither does it prove exclusive anything, neither psalms nor hymns nor CCM. All songs which are glorifying to God in their content and their musical style are permitted for God's people to be utilized for worship. The main thing that is most important is that the people must be able to understand the words and express their praise, thanksgiving and worship to our God, which using a KJV word-for-word metrical Psalter certainly didn't help in my case. As a side note, I really think that the Reformed churches should modernize their Psalms and Hymns, for example in replacing the 'thees' and 'thous'. For those who are not born in such an environment, it is a perpetual irritant which make people like me disconnected from the worship of a church (among other factors of course).

Other problems, some of them serious, can be seen in this push for Exclusive Psalmody. As stated by W. Gary Crampton,

Third, for their argument to be valid, the exclusive Psalmodists must distinguish between teaching, preaching, singing, and reciting Biblical truth. In Ephesians 5:19 we are told to “speak” (laleo) to one another, and in Colossians 3: l6 to “teach” (didasko) one another, “by means of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” Yet, Paul also instructed Timothy to “teach” (didasko) (1 Timothy 4:11; 6:2) and to “preach” (kerusso) (2 Timothy 4:2) to his congregation in public worship. Now is it rational to suppose that it is Biblically proper to preach the truths found in the Apostles’ Creed and not be able to sing or recite the same truths because they are nowhere found in the Psalms? This is far from likely; indeed, it is nonsensical. The church has every Biblical warrant to formulate Scripturally based uninspired hymns, songs, creedal statements, and so forth, and incorporate them into the public worship of God as a means of praising him and teaching one another.

Fourth, another question that must be posed to the exclusive Psalmodists is this: “What constitutes a metrical Psalm?” How faithful must the Psalms sung be to the Scriptures? Some of the metrical psalms are at best rough paraphrases of the Hebrew text. Exclusive Psalmodists would not tolerate such looseness in their Bibles. Singing these psalms is far from singing “inspired Scripture.” Does the exclusive Psalmodist violate the regulative principle when he does not sing the Psalms in the exact language of the Hebrew?^[2]

The argument for Exclusive Psalmody, or Exclusive anything, therefore collapses. Perhaps the Exclusive Psalmodists will wish to learn Hebrew and then sing the Psalms according to the wordings of the Masoretic Text?

Lastly, as for the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter XI, Paragraph V), it is stated that the religious worship of God ought to consists of the singing of psalms. Yet, here psalms most probably do not refer to the Psalms (capital 'P')^[2] but is a generic term referring to songs offered as worship unto God.

As such, it can be seen that there is no biblical and exegetical grounds for Exclusive Psalmody. May we in the Reformed churches stop adding to Scripture and impose such an unbiblical tradition on ourselves and others. Just because the Puritans and Presbyterians were right about many things does not make them infallible. We are to be always reforming (semper reformanda) according to the light of Scripture, not just copy wholesale the entirety of the doctrines and practices of spiritual giants, no matter how godly they were; they are not the standard - Norma normans non normata - Scripture is.

---

REFERENCES:

[1] Exclusive Psalmody: A biblical defense by Brian Schwertley (http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm)

[2] Exclusive Psalmody by W. Gary Crampton (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63). Bold added.

Exclusive Psalmody? (part 1)

Well, I have been clearing some stuff on my table, and I have come across 2 tracts which I have gotten from perhaps the most conservative church in Singapore during my brief visit there. Anyway, I would like to tackle the topic of exclusive psalmody here, which is practiced and promoted in that particular church. It is my conviction that exclusive Psalmody (singing the Psalms only) is not biblical, and I will show this to be the case.

First of all, I would like to summarize the arguments used to promote the practice of exclusive psalmody, especially as found within the pamphlet entitled The Church's Perfect Hymnbook — Why we sing the Pslams of the Bible exclusively in public worship (© 1996 Douglas W. Comin, Crown & Covenant Publications), among other sources.

THE CASE FOR EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY

From the pamphlet, the case could be build up as follows:

1) The Regulative Principle of Worship

Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it (Deut. 12:32)

The Regulative Principle of Worship can be seen explicitly in this verse and in various passages in the Bible, with the narrative of Lev. 10:1-3 showing the death of Aibhu and Nadab, the 2 sons of Aaron who died because they offered strange or unauthorized fire in worship before God, as the best illustration of the practice of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Israel was to worship God according to His stated ways; no more and no less. We are therefore not to worship God contrary to the ways He has prescribed to us in the Scriptures. According to the Exclusive Psalmodists therefore: "God has commanded His people to sing the Psalms of the Bible when they gather together for worship. He has not commanded them to sing songs of their own coposition. The consistent application of the Regulative Principle of Worship, then, excludes the use of songs which God has not commanded to be used in worship." (Comin)

2) Sufficiency of Scripture

"The Psalms of the Bible are God's Word. They lack nothing that is needed by the people of God in their expresson of praise and adoration to Him when they gather for worship.

The necessary implication of the use of man-written hymns in the worship of God is that the Psalms alone are somehow not a sufficient volume of praise for God's people. We reject this notion and we believe that the 150 Psalms of the Bible are a perfectly sufficient hymnbook for the church of God thoroughout the ages." (Comin)

3) The Continuity of the Covenant

"The Psalms of the Biblewere written for the very purpose of proclaiming the New Covenant promises which were fulfilled in Christ. In fact, Jesus Himself claimed that the Psalms were about Him (see Luke 24:44). Would it not seem strange if the people of God were commanded to sing the Psalms only until the time of Christ's appearing, and the to put them aside once they were able to fully appreciate their true meaning?

We do not believe that the Old Testament is outdated. ... By anchoring the church's praise in the prophecies of the Old Testament through the book of Psalms, God's people are continually reminded of their heritage among the chosen people of God throughout all ages" (Comin)

4) The Purpose of Worship

"We believe that worship is to be God-centered. ... When God's people approach His worship in this way, they will inevitably be blessed. When they approach Him according to their own ideas of what is acceptable to Him, they may experience some emotional uplifting, but God has not been honored through the keeping of Hid Word. (Comin)

5) They are without error/ Praise songs must be inspired

We should be concerned that what we offer to God in praise is perfect and without blemish. "When we sing to God the songs which He Himself has written, we can be assured that what we are offering to God in praise is not tainted with error" (Comin)

"A careful examination of the Scripture passages which discuss the songs used in worship and how worship songs were composed reveals that God only authorizes and accepts divinely inspired songs for the praise of Himself." ^[1]

6) They promote memorization

"Another great benefit to singing the Psalms is the memorization of the Scriptures." (Comin)

7) They carry the power of the Spirit

"We have no promise from God that the words of men, no matter how well-intentioned, will pierce the heart and adminster grace to His people. But we have such a promise with regard to God's own Word" (Heb. 4:12) (Comin)

8) They perfectly balance themes

"There are some themes in th Bible in which wetend to take special delight. There are others whih seem more difficult to swallow, but which are just as neccessary for our growth in grace and in the knowledge of the whole counsel of God ... [The book of Psalms] is, therefore, a book of praise which keeps us anchored in the whole counsel of God, feeding our souls with both the "sweet" and the "sour" meat of God's Word"

9) They provide a basis for unity

"There are certain hymns ... containing doctrinal statements with which Christians from another denominational background might disagree. But there is no such difficulty with the Psalms. They are the very Word of God.

Imagine what strides would be made towards unifying the church if all of God's people made His songs the theme of their praise whenever they came together for corporate worship" (Comin)

10) Singing is a separate element of worship, not a circumstance of worship

This was written to counter critics of Exclusive Psalmody, of which Brian Schwertley^[1] targets Greg Bahnsen who is quoted as saying that singing is a circumstance of worship, or in other words that although praising God is commanded, the mode is a mere circumstance not strictly regulated by God's Word.

[to be continued]

---

REFERENCES:

[1] Exclusive Psalmody: A biblical defense by Brian Schwertley (http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm)

Growth in infuence of the Reformed truth?

I guess sooner or later I would need to engage with this. In an article featured last year on Christianity Astray Today entitled "Young, Restless and Reformed", an argument was made to show the resurgance of Calvinism within primarily the Southern Baptist Convention. It seems that quite a few Reformed folks and bloggers have been excited about this growing trend. At that time, I didn't exactly mentioned much about it, for the same reasons which I still hold to now. Far from seeing it as a revival and a growth towards Reformation, what I see is a bright speck of light which pales beneath the growing darkness engulfing the Church, all too ready to be snuffed out. Seen in the light of the trends in Christendom, this is something which probably would not lead to widespread revival, but only a strengthening of the Remnant while the others fall away into perdition.

There are a few reasons why I think such is the case. First and foremost is the growth of the Neo-liberal Emerging Church Movement and the death of logical thinking in the churches and in the culture. The neglect and even destruction of true critical thinking for the exchange of the false Dialetical 'critical thinking' contributes to the overall embrace of misology or the hatred of logic, and this can be seen in the post-modern Emerging Church Movement with its post-foundationalist epistemology etc. It has been my suspicion before that some of these so-called 'new Calvinists' are not actually Calvinists at all, and I have recently found one. In a recent post on Pyromaniacs, A Certain Uncertainty, Drew who is in the Emerging Church Movement, have this to say when questioned about whether he held to the 5 points of Calvinism:

Of the 5 points of Calvinism, I hold them all. Total depravity means that every part of me has been touched by sin, and I am NOT a faithful interpreter of scripture. So I question and doubt every conclusion that I reach, and I submit myself to the Holy Spirit, other brothers and sisters in Christ (including saints that have gone before me) and the whole counsel of scripture.

Are these the type of people who are making up part of the increase in those who embrace Calvinism? What's the use of embracing the 5 points while denying the clarity, sufficiency and authority of Scripture? Of course, that sentence of his is illogical, since as it can be seen, he doesn't doubt what he thinks the 5 points are teaching, and of course not the certainty of his uncertainty. Later on, he states he doubts this even, yet it does not show in his manner and language. (After all, if you doubt even your own uncertainty, would you still comment and defend it?). Either he is a hypocrite, or he is pathologically illogical by so doing.

It is primarily because of this that I am very skeptical of any true resurgance. That there is a resurgance in Calvinist thought is indeed true, but that it is indeed something really strong and robust is more hype than reality. And why should we believe the rosy picture that Christianity Astray paints of this movement? Christianity Astray is notorious for hyping certain things higher than what the reality warrants, and of course deprecating the seriousness of any heretical wind that is blowing through the New Evangelical landscape. Witness the near deafening silence of the New Evangelicals against the heresy of Open Theism. Sure, there may be voices indicating disapproval, but to denounce Open Theism as heresy and its promoters as heretics? Forget it!

Secondly, it is a well-known fact that people such as Piper are not thoroughly orthodox. Calvinist he indeed is, and he is indeed a solid preacher, as an off-white candle is the whitest when compared to a bunch of dark colored ones; in other words he is good not because he is really good but because there are few good pastors and theologians around. Piper through his promotion of the two wills of God and common grace is a Neo-Amyraldian, and thus is not totally orthodox. Also, his association with people in the Emerging Church Movement, while not exactly compromising, does not particularly show a clear break away from the movement, resulting in probable so-called 'Calvinist' Emergents like Drew above.

Thirdly, this is going on mainly in the Southern Bapist Convention. While the largest Evangelical denomination currently in the US, the fact of the matter is that it is not Reformed. Its foundation is indeed Calvinistic, and people such as Al Mohler are Calvinists, but Reformed it is not. The most it promotes New Covenantal Theology, and as such it most probably deny such teachings as the Covenant of Works and definitely Infant Baptism, hallmarks of historic Covenantal Theology. Without Covenantal Theology, the movement cannot be termed Reformed with a captial 'R'. Theology has consequences, and while these are not doctrines which we should split on, the fact of the matter is that a strong robust Reformation in my opinion is impossible without the embrace of Covenantal Theology, coupled with a repudiation of the distortion resulting from an inbalance placed on the importance of the Local Church. With regards to the former, Covenantal Theology provides a strong foundation for the Doctrines of Grace to stand upon. With regards to the latter, I will mention more about it in the future, but suffice it is to say for the moment that an overemphasis on the Local Church would contribute to the inward looking 'Ostrich-type' separatism characteristic of most Reformed churches in Singapore.

As such, in conclusion, I am extremely skeptical of any true robust resurgence in Calvinism, nevermind the Reformed faith. Despite the rose-tinted glasses of some, I do not share their optimism. Perhaps in time to come, something really robust would emerge, but as it is currently, nothing of much substance can be seen.

Odds and ends

I have been very busy recently. Anway, here are two good articles from the Pyromanics blog:

Chritianity Astray

Fire!

The first one is by Phil Johnson of the slow but steady apostasy of Christianity Today and New Evangelicalism in general. The second is a good article by Dan Phillips on the difference between "fire-in-the-belly evangelicals" and "fire-sale evangelicals". I like this description of New Evangelicalism best:

Contempt for God's truth, we observe, is forgivable.
Contempt for those who display such contempt? Not so much.

Seeing as it is from the recent increase and probably periodic increases in my workload, I guess perhaps I need to establish a weekly feature so that I at least I would forced disciplined to post something regularly...

Christianity and the Culture War (part 2)

[continued from here]

We have seen why is it that Christians should get involved in the Culture War and that they should take a stand. It is therefore not an option to say that we would antagonize those we are trying to read, or to state that the Kingdom of God is not of this world and therefore we should not get involved in it. Anyway, those who refuse to fight now would find out if the opposition wins that they would soon have to live under oppressive laws, if not persecuted for their beliefs.

That said, I would now like to expound on this topic from another area from the other side which should concern many of us as well, especially those of us who are involved in the Culture War.

Especially in the USA, the Culture War has many evangelicals focused on trying to uphold the morality of the country and its Christian foundation which is gradually having its signs removed. Such has led to strange alliances, as 'evangelicals' have decided to ally with Roman Catholics, and then with people of faith or morals to counter the immorality flooding the nation. Such is a blatent violation of the Doctrine of Separation of course. What makes it worse that in the name of "reclaiming the culture", 'evangelicals' have sacrificed the Gospel as a matter of political expediency in order to build their alliance of the "moral majority". Therefore, it has became a true war between the sides of the immoral liberals on the one hand, and the moral 'conservatives' on the other hand. The Church of Christ has been demoted to just one more political activist grouping, which is most evident in the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush to the US Presidency.

Firstly, the question to be asked of course is 'Where is the Gospel?' By fighting the immoral liberals who are behaving exactly as who they are, unregenerate people, we are fighting against the people who need the Gospel most. Unlike just taking a stand, by polarizing people between the 'religious right' and the 'immoral left', we are fighting against the person and not the idea. And such typically is very judgmetal, since the people would just condemn the immoral liberals (who are behaving consistently with their beliefs) instead of using their sin and guilt to press home their sinfulness and need of Christ.

Secondly, such compromise with unbelievers destroy the witness of the Church. It furthermore forces the believer not to share the Gospel with the lost moral pagans and Roman Catholics, in the name of not disrupting the unified front against the immoral left. Of course, this raises the question of what we are supposed to accomplish by so doing. Christianity is not about making people moral, but if the moral majority have their way, the nation would be just like Israel in the 1st century AD; clean on the inside and dirty on the inside. What is the point of having a moral nation whereby the people go to hell because they have rejected God?

As such, the Culture War is not to occupy a lot of our time also, as we are to be first and foremost witnesses of the Gospel. The Culture War could thus be used for us to bring home the Law, so that people would turn to Christ because of the realization of their sinfulness. Although the issues are important, those of us who are engaged in it should not spend too much time on it, but to fight and stand up when necessary, and even then to utilize it to spread the Gospel, knowing well that only the Gospel has the ability to change hearts and thus bring true victory in the Culture Wars when believed in.

[THE END!]

---

See also:

The New Religious Common Ground — Cultural Co-Belligerance by Steve Camp

Christianity and the Culture War (part 1)

What is the relation between Christianity and the Culture War? Should Christians be involved in it through speaking out against homosexuality and supporting the crimalization of homosexuality (or in other countries perhaps to lobby against the passage of bigoted, homofascist "hate speech" laws)?

It can be easily seen that the Scriptures are very clear on various social issues such as the wickedness of homosexuality. Also, on issues such as the evil of abortion and the rightness of the death penalty, Scriptures is abundently clear. Yet the question will be asked as to whether we should 'impose' our religious values upon others who are not themselves Christians. After all, religious freedom is something which is biblical after all.

Such a question shows a lack of understanding of the nature of moral laws and of society. Moral laws are such that there can be no neutrality; taking no stand IS a stand for anarchy, which no one will ever want in society anyway. As an example, let us consider the homosexual agenda in Singapore, who is intensely lobbying for decriminalzation of their behavior. They would argue that the society can just not make a statement regarding it, or that the society could be indifferent towards it (ie neither affirming nor discriminating against it). This is of course not feasible. What the homosexuals want is for the state and others to believe that it is morally wrong for the state to get involved in questions of morality, which is of course a self-defeating notion. For to truly believe that a state should not get involved in questions of morality would mean that the state would be willingly powerless and in a state of anarchy whereby whoever happens to have the power (be they the majority or the elite minority) would impose their morality on others.

Since this is so, it is not a question of imposing morality, since in the final analysis, someone's or some group's morality would be imposed on the population anyway. Whether the morality being imposed is correct or wrong is another matter altogether (which would be judged by God and His Word). As such, to say that just because there are non-Christians out there means that we should not impose their moralty is just plain ridiculous. If you don't impose yours, someone else would impose theirs.

Now, this doesn't mean that by so doing, that would be much conflict with others even from different religions. Since all Man is created by God in the image of God, they would have enough light in them through General Revelation such that there is some form of common principles in which we can all agree upon. Barring some abberant people like the homofacists, this would mean that by and large, we would be able to get a largely consensus moral viewpoint which is suitable for governing society.

Christians thus are allowed to lobby for their views, similar to any other group, and if successful, to impose it through societal laws and regulations (similar to any other group). However, such should not be done in a contentious manner but politely. Also, execution of such laws should be limited to the public domain since they are meant for the sake of society and not individuals (unless those people decide to make their immorality a public matter)

The more serious question that Christians would need to grapple with is with regards to our calling as Christians. We are supposed to witness for Christ, and taking such a stand may antagonize and alienate those whom we are called to witness to. Also, since the Kingdom of God is not of this world (Jn. 18:36), why should we bother with earthly issues that clearly are not seen to be necessary for fulfiling the Great Commission?

With regards to the former objection, it must be stated that such an answer shows either the rejection of God's sovereignty in salvation, or a minsunderstanding of how taking a stand ought to be, or a straightforward fear of Man. Since God is the only one who saves, and He WILL draw His sheep (Jn. 6:37), we should not fear that taking a stand might antagonize and alienate our target audience. In fact, doing so might help in bringing in the Law of God and applying it to their life, showing their sinfulness and depravity before a Holy God, and therefore hopefully driving them to the cross. When taking a stand also, it is possible that many Christians see it as using the truth to club unbelievers with the truth. However, this is not how it should be done. Such a stand should be made in conjunction with the presentation of the Law of God. If done in a spirit of intellectual pride or arrogance, then obviously it is not right. As such, Christians should know that in the culture war, ultimately our taking a stand must always be a tool towards sharing the Gospel with them.

With regards to the latter objections, firstly it must be states that the Bible do tell us to be light and salt in this world (Mt. 5:13-16), thus we are not to run away from our responsibility to show people the way and preserve society. The Great Commission is not the only thing found within the pages of Scripture for sure, and thus we are to obey all of Scripture, not just the parts that we like or the "spiritual" parts only. Furthermore, Jesus' words that His Kingdom is not of this world when read in context is not a statement that says Christians are only to care about the other world and not this world, but rather that the cause of Christ is advanced by spiritual weapons and not the carnal weapons of the flesh. As such, taking a stand, political lobbying etc., is not something which advances the Kingdom of God but rather is just something which Christians are called to do as salt and light in the world.

Of course, as light, our ultimate purpose is to lead people to Christ, and as such, I would now turn.

[to be continued]

On the concept of Cherem

And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent. (Josh. 6:17)

Recently, a group of us were just doing an overview of the book of Joshua. The study materials we were using was not exactly something I would read or recommand or use, but anyway on that particular week, the topic turned to the idea of cherem or the idea that things were devoted to destruction unto God. The word cherem is the transliteration of the Hebrew word that is translated as the phrase 'devoted to the Lord for destruction' in Josh. 6:17 in the ESV. In the context of the book of Joshua, the first city conquered, Jericho, was defeated supernaturally and everything in it was devoted to God. All life present in it were wiped out; all man, woman and children (yes and babies too) were put to the sword, together with all the livestock. The city and everything in it was burned to the ground and all the metalware (which incidentally are not burnable) were taken and placed into the Lord's treasury. This by far is one of if not the most graphic picture of what it means for people or things to be considered cherem.

Now, the study as we have it attempts to focus on the morality of such supposedly genocidal and babaric actions, but before we even talk about this, I think it is intrumental to see it from a biblical point of view first. Disregarding whatever historical basis of such an action in for example ANE (Ancient Near East - a term Middle East historians like to use for some reason) cultures, the more important thing we should consider is the biblical rationale for it. The Bible is clear that the annihilation visited upon the various inhibitants of Canaan is because of their sin (Gen. 15: 16), and not because of a capricious act of God. As such, they must be eradicated so as to preserve the holy family and the holy seed from which Jesus would descend, from corruption. This is more religious than ethnic, as we can see from the integration of former Gentiles like Ruth and Rahab the prostitute.

The total eradication of all the inhibitants thus is judgment against them and such that there would be no people around to corrupt the pure religion of God among God's chosen people.

The case of Jericho is indeed a special one. As the first city to be conquered, Jericho is the firstfruit of the conquest, and therefore special commands and circumstance present itself to the invading Israelites. Firstly, God was the one who single-handedly destroyed the strong fortifications of Jericho. Jericho thus fell by the hand of God alone rather than the military strategies or prowess of the Israelites. This proved to the Israelites that God is the one who would go before them in battle, and He would give Israel the victory even over enemies far superior than them militarily. As the first city, this showed Israel that God will be with them right from the start in their conquest. They are not to be afraid, but to know the truth that 'if God is for us, who can be against us' (Rom. 8:31).

Secondly, since Jericho was the firstfruits of the conquest, God is teaching Israel that they must be grateful and give Him the firstfruits of whatever they have (Deut. 26). As such, everything in it must be dedicated to the Lord; the perisheable to the flames, and the imperisherable to the Lord's treasury. As such, nobody is allowed to take any of the livestock or goods from the city as loot. Those who do so are subjected to the same treatment given to the inhibitants of Jericho, as Achan found out to his and his family's destruction (Josh. 7:10-26).

The eradication of the Canaanite thus have a solidly biblical rationale behind it. Are there any spiritual leasons we can draw from the concept of cherem?

The first thing we can learn is the passion of God for the purity of His people. God demands that His people be holy, for He is holy (Lev. 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16) and he burns with wrath against all forms of compromise and every defilement that we may bring in. God is not a respector of persons (Rom. 2:11), and He will punish His own people for their disobedience like that of the pagans, nay, worse than that, seemingly worse than them even sometimes (1 Peter 4:17; Heb. 12:7-11). That God would wipe out entire groups of people, who deserved to be killed anyway because of their sins, for Israel's sake shows His passison for the purity of His people. In fact, because of their failure to wipe out all of the former inhabitants (Judges 2:1-5), God judged them by allowing them to be oppressed and be led astray by foreigners. From this, we can learn that sin and compromise must be totally eradicated, otherwise they will come back, metastasize and attempt to eliminate our spiritual life. There is no such thing as 'just a little sin' or 'a little compromise', and that 'God will understand'. Those who do so, unless they repent, will find to their sorrow that they would have slowly but surely turn away from God, with disastrous results.

So now, we turn back to the concept of cherem. I have checked out the word in the Septuagint (the first Greek translation of the OT), and it is translated as anathema and used to that effect. It is thus the same word and the same approach, albeit spiritually, we are to use against those who preach a false 'christ' and a false 'gospel' (Gal. 1:8-9). Such people are to separated from and handed over for to God for the ultimate destruction of their souls in the lake of fire. Unless these false teachers repent, they are to be considered accursed, consecrated unto God in their destruction for the praise of His glorious name. Amen.

With all of these covered, how should we tackle the question of moralty? How can a loving God permits and even orders wholesale genocide?

Now, we have already stated the theological reasons for such an action to be taken. With regards to the moral question, I would turn the tables on such people. Who are you to make such a judgment of God? Will what is moulded say to its molder, '"Why have you made me like this?" (Rom. 9:20b) Without God you don't even have the basis upon which you can make any form of ethical statement coherently. Who dares sits in judgment againt the LORD Almighty, his/her creator? The audacity of created beings counseling and conspiring against their Creator, to impeach Him, is laugheable and will be mocked by the most high (Ps. 2:4-6). Furthermore, since God is the Creator of life, who dares to tell Him what He can and cannot do with His creation? And these people deserved what they would be getting. They spit at God, hold His name in contempt, mock Him, refuse to worship Him, commit all manner of atrocities including incest and homosexuality, and God is at fault in wiping them out? Those who dare bring a charge against God clearly have no sense of their sin and depravity before God. They know not the hot, fiery wrath of God poured out against them for their disobedience, and therefore can never comprehend and grasp the grace offered freely to all sinners who would repent of their sins through the atoning sacrifice in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If anything, they are the ones in the dock, not God who will judge everybody in the final judgment.

In conclusion, it is hoped that we would learn from the concept of cherem primarily and the examples of both the wicked Canaanites and the Israelites. Surely God who is over all desires for us to turn to Him, to cleave onto Him always in purity and oneness of heart, without compromise. Amen.

The false dichotomy between doctrine and practice — or doctrine being purely intellectual

As it can be seen, I have added another blog category entitled ' "Reformed" downgrade', as these are some of the things I have heard coming from so-called "Reformed" circles which make me truly wonder whether it is better to go back to New Evangelical circles; at least there they do not claim to be reformed and are thus less hypocritical.

I would hereby comment on various things said in a sermon which I have heard recently. The sermon was with regards to the Diaconate ministry, utilizing the texts of Act 6:1-7. In this sermon, a couple of errors were made that has serious doctrinal consequences.

Firstly, a statement was made stating that doctrine appeals to the intellect (the mind) and thus helps us to grow in our (intellectual) knowledge of God. While true in and of itself, the contrast is then stated between knowing and doing, with the claim being made that apart from knowing more about God, we should also apply God's Word. What he meas by this is further clarified in subsequent statements. The preacher continues on in stating that we humans have three parts: our intellect, our emotions and our will. He then uses the analogy of Christ's offices to show how God ministers to us through Christ Jesus. Our Lord Jesus Christ has the office of Prophet, Priest and King, and therefore according to him, Christ's prophetic ministry ministers to our intellect, the priestly ministry to our emotions, and the kingly ministry to our will or volition. To make it even clearer as to what he had in mind, he later states that doctrine and the exercise of the prophetic office will make us intellectually satisfied while the ministry of the deacons will make us physically satisfied.

From what can be seen so far, it should be evident that what the preacher is saying is that doctrine is purely or mostly of the intellect only. Thus, he divorces the mind from the emotions, and doctrine from practice. Since doctrine and the prophetic office is said to deal only with the intellect, and not with the emotions and practice, doctrine is now isolated from practice. And preaching becomes purely an exercise in intellectual knowledge impartation. The reformed emphasis on correct doctrine within such a framework thus becomes a celebration of intellectual correctness as being something which God desires that all Christians should have.

To put it nicely, I was not pleased. Doctrine is not an exercise in intellectual correctness, and preaching is NOT giving an intellectual discourse! God also doesn't desire our intellectual correctness in and of itself. To be sure, the intellect is involved, but to make it purely intellectual is demeaning to the entire thrust of Scripture. The Scriptures are abundently clear that correct doctrine is very practical (eg 2 Tim. 3:16-17), not just for intellectual value. In fact, the remedy that Paul applies to a problematic church in Corinth is not a list of practical do's and don'ts, but more doctrines (1 Cor., 2 Cor.) and this can be said of any church problems which Paul or any of the other apostles handled as stated in their epistles. To make doctrine purely a matter of intellect goes against the entirety of Scripture, and it sounded more of a strawman created by anti-intellectual Charismatics than truth. I was thus shocked that some people who call themselves reformed actually believe and preached such a false dichotomy between doctrine and practice.

Of course, embrace of such a false dichotomy would have serious negative implications. Doctrine would therefore be only for those who are intellectual; the rest can just get by with practical topics such as "Ways of relieving stress" or "Coping with difficult people". When doctrine is treasured, it may not be applied but just taught as something which brings 'intellectual satisfaction' and thus somewhat akin as leading to self-actualization. The sermon becomes a time whereby the preacher will just give us his take on a passage, of course hopefully as much as possible faithful to the text, but the preacher cannot consistently see it as being a means for the Holy Spirit to use the Word preached for the transformation of souls, unless conversion is seen to be something not related to the emotions or will but just the intellect.

Along with such nonsense, another error was made by the preacher as he expounded further on this so-called analogy of Christ's office to the church's offices. Christ being Prophet, Priest and King, the prophetic ministry has been pass down to the Elders who preach the Word, ... while the priestly ministry has been passed to the Deacons? As Christ in His priestly ministry ministers to our emotions, the Diaconate should minister to the physical needs of the flock? What rubbish! Christ does NOT minister to our emotions through His priestly ministry. As our great high Priest, Christ offered the blood of sacrifice (His own) before God to save us (Heb. 9:11-12), and then intercedes on our behalf (Heb. 9:24), being the one and only mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). Such is the duty of a priest, and not some 'ministering to physical or even emotional needs'! Obviously, deacons cannot be said to exercise anything even remotely similar to the priestly ministry, which has been done permanently and completed forever in our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:24). The closest thing to a deacon in the OT are the chiefs and elders of Israel who took care of the physical needs of the people (Ex. 18:17-26).

It is with great sadness that I witness such ridiculous nonsense from "reformed" circles. How can you pass on Christ's Priestly ministry to any human minister, let alone Deacons? In fact, how can you even dream up such nonsense?! It is totally beyond me, especially since we are talking about the NT church. It is sacrilegious to even think of such a comparison!

And with this I finish this post. I am grieved by such unorthodox nonsene being taught by a purpertedly reformed preacher. The only thing I hope for is that this 'deacons as priests' teaching is not some official teaching in any reformed church or denomination, otherwise they would be really off in this respect. May God convict that preacher of his error and lead him to repentance.

Articles: Christian leaders invite Muslims to love God, neighbors together

Read this article for yourself. Isn't it strange that two groups can be said to worship the same God when one group denies that Jesus is God? Go figure... Oh, and Rick Warren signed this document, as well as Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evanjellyfishes Evangelicals. Second Reformation and revival? More likely the Great apostasy!

[HT: Slice of Laodicia]

Radical Environmentalists refuse to have babies... Good riddance!

Radical Gaia worshippers have decided that to save Gaia, they must stop pro-creating, as humans beings will add to the destruction of the planet. Good for us as they have less lives to corrupt. Nevertheless, they are to be pitied for their misguided beliefs in this religion of theirs, in worshipping the created earth in such a manner contrary to nature (small n):

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery. Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way. At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

You see here one reason why I am skeptical about issues such as global warming? With mostly Gaia worshippers promoting Global warming, I am skeptical that the scientific evidence actually supports their case. Of course, there are more reasons, but such would suffice for the moment.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Roger Oakland exposes the Emerging Church Movement

Interesting talk given by Roger Oakland exposing the Emerging Church Movement in general:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Award...

Thanks to Sicarii (Isaiah) for being so kind as to award to me this Prudent Power award (Do read the rules). I really appreciate it. In turn, I would like to award it to:

• Viva Vox Dei (tr. The living Word of God) by my friend Vincent Chia
• Possessing the Treasure by Mike Ratliff
• Sola Dei Gloria by PJ Miller
• Apprising Ministries by Pastor Ken Silva, and
• Christian Research Net. Yeah, I know the latter two are ministry blogs, but I don't see why they can't receive it for proclaiming the truth, although it is doubtful whether they will put the award on their blog meta.

I guess that's about all for now. Work has been busy and I do have other commitments, as well as continuing my reading of theological and other good Christian books. (No reading, nothing to write, stunted Christian growth, simple as that). I also have rather stringent criteria and therefore only 5 blogs are chosen. If you think your blog would make the grade, do let me know and perhaps I will fill up the remaining 2 slots with them.

Anyway, here are my criteria:

• No promotion of heresy or unorthodoxy in any form
• Posts in general must have substantial 'nutrition' in them
• Blogger must have shown willingness to contend for the faith, and have done so at least once
• True Christian love must be exhibited, as opposed to the extremes of harshness and of effeminate 'love'

'Interesting' finds...

Well, today, I was browsing for something, and I happen to be in the Popular Bookstore near my home. Look at what I saw:

OK, this is a secular bookstore, but this just shows that Joel Osteen's heresies are available here in Singapore (and being promoted, as we can see from the 20% off sticker), where I am SURE there would be people buying, even those who call themselves Christians.

And in one New Evangelical bookstore, I saw this:

Breath prayers ... where have I heard of them before? Oh, of course, in Rick Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life. So now anyone interested or curious can find out how to start on your journey into the mists of New Age Contemplative Spirituality.