Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2013

PiperPiper, John. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2007.

Before covering the positives of the book, I will first  cover a few negatives regarding this book.  Negatives of this book can be found in these areas: some unclear areas, defense of N.T. Wright, and perhaps the lack of exposure to the dangers of N.T. Wright’s clever perspectives regarding justification.  In light of the negatives, I will first tackle the issue of the book being unclear in some areas.

Although I appreciate John Piper’s attempt in trying to address this issue, I did find it hard at times reading his book.  Towards the latter part of his book, the issues started to make sense (i.e. covenant community, justification, etc.).  But I wish I did not have trouble understanding the concepts in the beginning chapters of his books.  Understanding it better at the beginning would of given a better flow of the reading.  If Piper would have provided a clear proposition regarding the crux of the matter, the reading would have been less convoluting and more fruitful to me as a reader.

I appreciate Piper’s graciousness towards others who are not in agreement because we are called to be gentle and gracious to those who are in opposition (1 Peter 3:15).  However, I think Pastor Piper maybe a bit too gracious to Wright.  Wright’s view of justification is really no different from Rome and hence is a works righteous understanding of justification.  Wright believes that one is declared righteous or justified at the eschaton.  Based on Wright’s understanding of justification, he is treading on dangerous ground and falls under the condemnation as described by Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6-9.  I find it hard for me to see him as an evangelical.  Paul condemns the notion of works righteousness that was implemented by the Judaizers.  Here in this book, Wright is implementing the notion of works righteousness that is finally realized at the eschaton.  But justification is realized at the moment when one places his faith in Christ.

I think it would have been helpful if Piper uncovered Wright’s cleverness.  Wright does seem to be subtle in terms of how he teaches his view of justification.  As a result, it is hard for some who are not familiar with the terms he uses to be lost.  Hence, I think it would be helpful for Piper to uncover his dangerous subtleness.

In regards to the positives of the book, here are the areas I would like to cover: Piper’s familiarity with the topic, Piper’s exegesis, and Piper’s breakdown of the misinterpreted term of justification used by N.T. Wright.

In terms of Piper’s strengths, I really enjoyed his breakdown of the misinterpretation of justification.  For example, he clarified the mishandling of the term by explaining the relationship between covenant and law-court imagery, law-court dynamics of justification and the meaning of God’s righteousness, law-court dynamics of justification and the necessity of real moral righteousness, law-court dynamics of justification and the necessity of real moral righteousness, justification and the Gospel, the place of our works in justification, imputed righteousness, second-temple Judaism, etc. (Piper, Table of Contents).

Another strength by Piper is his familiarity with the topic. He understood Wright’s views and was able to define it well.  For that, I commend him.

CONCLUSION

The Gospel hinges on the doctrine of justification because the doctrine of justification hinges on penal substitution.  If one has a misunderstanding of justification, then it is safe to say that one has a misunderstanding of penal substitution.  For example, when one sees penal substitution in its biblical lens, one will believe that His sacrifice is enough to declare one right.

Justification happens and becomes a reality because of the sacrifice of Christ and is operated once one places his faith in Christ.  He is not justified at the eschaton as Wright suggests.  With that said, justification has nothing to do with one being part of the covenant community because one cannot be part of the covenant community unless one is justified by Christ (Theo. III notes; pg. 188).  As a result, justification has nothing to do with whether we are members of God’s covenant people.  To say that justification is related to members of the covenant people is to blur the line of justification and ecclesiology.  Justification is solely soteriological.

It must be understand by the people of God for the sake of assurance, that justification is a once in a lifetime transaction by God.  In other words, God justifies only once.  Not only is justification once in a lifetime, but justification has no degrees. Scripture is clear that positionally; we are justified at the same level.  No one is more justified than another person.  But to embrace Wright’s justification would imply a works righteousness process.  Justification has nothing to do with works.  Moreover, once one is justified, one cannot be unjustified.  But to pursue a works righteousness system would open up a Pandora box of one possibly being unjustified if one does not live a righteous life.

Because justification is an important topic, much has been said.  For me to worry about a system of works as Wright described is no different from Rome.  To believe in Wright’s view of justification would cause much worry and anxiety upon a believer.  But to believe in the biblical understanding of justification brings peace when we take our last breath here on earth because we know that God will forgive us for our imperfections.

For a free PDF book of Future Justification, please see this linkFuture Justification

 

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Brief_Illustrated_Guide_To_Understanding_Islam

INTRODUCTION

There is a popular colorful pamphlet arguing for Islam titled, A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam.  Not too long ago I looked into one of the evidences it gave for Islam here, while for this post I want to consider another argument the booklet presents for Islam in which the author(s) claims that the Bible made a prophecy pointing to Muhammad.  At the outset, I want the readers to know that this discussion cannot be divorced from one’s methodology of apologetics and I think the best method of Christian apologetics interacting with Islam is to begin with the Bible as the authoritative and infallible Word of God.  No doubt Muslims will object, saying the Bible has been corrupted while some Christians will dismiss this strategy as ineffective in light of the predictable Muslim reaction to such an apologetic.  However, as I have argued here on this blog, the Muslim is not permitted to dismiss the Bible as corrupt and no longer authoritative because the Quran’s teaching is contrary to this, expounding explicitly the view and appealing directly to the Bible as authoritative and a reliable text.  Thus, the benefit of this methodology is three-fold: (1) it makes the Muslim conscious of the issue of authority, and allow the Christian to quickly press them on the internal tension within the Muslim’s own worldview concerning the Bible, (2) while the Christian continues to have the Word of God as his foundation even in his apologetic (3) and also exposes the Muslims to the Bible, God’s Word, which does it’s work among the hearers and readers. (Note: This approach would be consistent with the apologetic methodology of Presuppositional apologetics.)  Of course, when the Muslims read the Bible they will read it as a Muslim and might be inclined to see it pointing to and validating Islam which require a Christian to look more closely at their own Scriptures concerning these claims.

THE PROPHET AN ISHMAELITE?

Such a claim for the Bible as evidence for Islam appears on page 33 of the booklet: “The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the Prophet Muhammad  are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe in the Bible.”  It then quoted Deuteronomy 18:18-19 as evidence.  Whereas Muslims believe Deuteronomy 18:18-19 predicts the coming of Muhammad, Christians believe that that this passage was fulfilled by Jesus.  Deuteronomy 18:18-19 as quoted from the New American Standard Bible states,

 I will raise up a prophet from among their [l]countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.

The book then tries to extrapolate from Deuteronomy 18 that this coming prophet

must have the following three characteristics:
1) That he will be like Moses.
2) That he will come from the brothers of the Israelites, i.e. the
Ishmaelites.
3) That God will put His words into the mouth of this prophet
and that he will declare what God commands him.

Of these three characteristics, the second seems to be the most problematic: that the prophet must be an Ishmaelites (which Muslims believe Muhammad was a descendant of).  Ishmael was the son of Abraham through his wife’s slave Hagar, as the Bible in Genesis 16 records.  Since the nation of Israel was a descendant of Abraham through the line of Issac, one might say that Issac and Ishmael were “half-brothers.”  So the Muslim argument here is that Deuteronomy 18 teaches this “Prophet” will be coming from their “brothers,” that is from the Ishmaelites, and since they say Muhammad is a descendant of Ishamel, he must be the Prophet predicted.

The Muslim no doubt will object to the NASB translation of “countrymen” in verse 18 and prefer it to be translated “brothers” which they do have a point.  The Hebrew word that the NASB translated as “countrymen” is the Hebrew word אֲחֵיהֶם.  Literally, אֲחֵיהֶם is from the Hebrew word meaning “brother” in the plural form with a third person masculine plural suffix that’s functioning possessively  thus a woodenly literal translation would be “their brother.”  The NASB here interprets “their brother” to refer to fellow Israelites, hence the translation of “countrymen.”  Just because the Hebrew word translated literally would be “their brothers” does not necessarily entail this is a prophecy for Muhammad however, since “brothers” can possibly refer to Ishmaelites or the Israelites themselves.  Determining the referent must be done in light of the consideration of the context of Deuteronomy 18, which suggests that Moses here has in mind that the Prophet will be Jewish rather than an Ishmaelite.  There are three reasons that opposes the interpretation that Deuteronomy 18 is talking about an Ishmaelite.

The first reason against the Muslim interpretation is the fact that the context of Deuteronomy 18 has no reference to Ishmaelites.  There is nothing explicit (“Ishmaelites” or “Ishmael”) or implicit (“Hagar,” etc).  The Muslim then has no warrant to suddenly assume “their brothers” to refer to Ishmaelites.  No doubt the Muslim might say this is an argument from silence for the view that Deuteronomy 18 refers to a Jew, but here I am not using an argument for silence to prove that Deuteronomy 18 is referring to a Prophet of Jewish descendant  but I am only showing that the Muslim has no justification to read into the text that an Ishmaelite is the referent.  The other two points below is my basis for interpreting the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 must be a descendant of Israel.

The second reason against the Muslim “Ishmaelite” interpretation is within Deuteronomy 18:18 itself.  The Hebrew word following אֲחֵיהֶם (“their brothers”) is כָּמֹוךָ, which has a preposition of comparison (“like, as”) coupled with a second person plural suffix.  The second person plural refers to those whom Moses is addressing, which specifically were the second Generation Israelites that left Egypt and waiting to enter into the Promise Land.  This Prophet will be as an Israelite, a Jew, and not an Ishmaelite.

The third reason against the Muslim “Ishmaelite” interpretation is from the contextual flow leading up to Deuteronomy 18:18-19.  Deuteronomy 18:15 is similar to Deuteronomy 18:18-19:

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your [j]countrymen, you shall listen to him.

And like Deuteronomy 18:18, the NASB translation of “your countrymen” here is the same Hebrew word in verse 18 that refers to “brothers.”  Verse 15 narrows and specify whom Moses meant by “brothers” when he said “from among you.”  The phrase “from among you” in Hebrew is מִקִּרְבְּךָ, which is a construction of a preposition indicating source coupled with the noun קרב and second person plural suffix.  According to Holladay’s concise Hebrew lexicon, the noun קרב always refer to something internal as opposed to outside or external in all it’s lexical range of meaning whether it refers to the inward nonphysical parts of a person (compare Genesis 18:12, 1 Kings 17:21, Isaiah 19:3, Jeremiah 4:16), the inner physical body (compare Genesis 41:21), inner part of a city (Genesis 18:22), or sacrificial animal (Exodus 12:9).  This is also true when it is referring to people (for example, Exodus 34:12, 1 Samuel 16:13).  When the preposition מִ appears before the nounקרב, it has the idea of “from among” (for example, compare Numbers 14:13), that is, internal from within one’s group.  The source of the Prophet’s origin is indicated by the second person plural suffix, which again refers to the second generation Israelites that left Egypt waiting to enter into the Promise Land.  Thus, this Prophet can only be from among the Jews and not some external group of non-Jews.  Though it is not visible in our English translation, in Hebrew the construct מִקִּרְבְּךָ (“from among you”) is even nuanced, appearing before the phrase “like me,” or “from your countrymen.”  That is, the author Moses was emphasizing to his readers so that they won’t miss the truth that this Prophet will be from among their own kin, effectively ruling out Muhammad as a candidate for fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18.

A DENIAL OF JESUS’ FULFILLMENT OF DEUTERONOMY 18

As demonstrated above, Muhammad cannot be the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18 because he is not a Jew.  The other reason why Deuteronomy 18 cannot point to Muhammad is because Jesus fulfills the prophecy in Deuteronomy as “The Prophet.”  Of course, most Jews would disagree but Christians following the New Testament are obligated to believe this, since the New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18.  Likewise, Muslims are also obligated to believe this since the Quran teaches that the Bible  including the New Testament is authoritative and not corrupted (as it is established elsewhere in our blog).  Muslim however reject this conclusion, instead arguing against Jesus as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18.  On page 34 of A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, the author (s) argued

If we look in a Bible with cross-references, we will find in the marginal notes where the words “the Prophet” occur in John 1:21, that these words refer to the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18.1  We conclude from this that Jesus Christ is not the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18.

The footnote in the book indicates that the source used for cross-referencing John 1:21 is from the NIV Study Bible.  Reading John 1:21, one wonders how the book can conclude from this passage that Jesus is not the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18.  For context, John 1:19-23 states:

19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not [q]the Christ.”21 They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he *said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

Note that this passage records the conversation John the Baptist had with the Jewish priests and Levites from Jerusalem (v.19).  From verses 19 to 23, the Jewish religious leaders were trying to figure out who John was, by first asking him “Who are you?” (v. 19), then specifically whether he was Elijah (v.21a), or the Prophet (v. 21b).  In both instances, John denies being Elijah and “the Prophet” (v.21), with the Prophet being an allusion to Deuteronomy 18.  Instead, John identifies himself as the one predicted in Isaiah 40:3 as preparing the way for the Messiah.  Yet how could the booklet then “conclude from this that Jesus Christ is not the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18” when the passage record John the Baptist denial of himself being the Prophet?  John the Baptist’s denial of being the Prophet is not the same thing as him denying Jesus as the Prophet of Deuteronomy and neither is it the equivalent of Jesus denying Himself to be the prophet.  This is rather fuzzy thinking on the part of the author (s) of A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam where once again there is a confusion of referent nor does the conclusion follow from the text.

JESUS IS THE PROPHET OF DEUTERONOMY 18

The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus is the one who fulfilled Deuteronomy 18.  If the New Testament does teach this, as re-iterated before, the Muslim is obligated to believe this because of the Quran’s bibliology.  Any Muslim who deny Jesus as the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 faces the internal tension between the Muslim’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 18 and the Quran’s teaching concerning the truth of the Bible.

In a sermon that Peter preached to the Jews during the early days of the church after Pentecost, Peter paraphrased Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19 in Acts 3:22-23:

Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet [k]like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you. 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

The contextual flow of Peter’s sermon is the preaching of Jesus Christ to the Jewish people (v. 12-21). For instance, right before verses 22-23, Peter states in verses 19-21:

Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

For the Muslim critic, Peter’s inspired message from God cannot be taken to refer to Muhammad as the referent of the Prophet since verse 24 makes it clear the timing of everything he is talking about (the Suffering Servant, the Prophet to be listened to, etc) were taking place “these days” (that is during the time of Peter’s contemporary) rather than six hundred years later (Muhammad and Islam):

And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days.

What other event could be more central to Peter and the early believers than the suffering and death of Jesus Christ which Peter keeps on talking about in chapter 3?  It is important to remember that Peter’s citation of Deuteronomy 18 is situated in a context dominated by the centrality of Christ.  Note again how verse 24 mentioned that “all the prophets who have spoken…announced these days.”  This is similar to how Peter have said earlier in verse 18 that “all the prophets” were making prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus has now fulfilled:

 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.

Because Jesus have fulfilled these Messianic prophecies, Peter assigns Messianic titles to Jesus such as “His Servants” (v.13 and 26, an allusion to Isaiah’s prophecies), “the Holy and Righteous One” (v. 14), “Prince of life” (v.15) and Christ (v.18 and 20).  In such a context the reference to “that Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18 is just one more Messianic Old Testament titles that Peter is saying Jesus fulfilled.

If Jesus is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18, verse 15 of that chapter makes it clear that He must be listened to, which Acts 3:23 paraphrases.  That’s exactly what God Himself announces during the Transfiguration.  The same author of Acts, the Physician Luke, also recorded in Luke 9:35 echoes of Deuteronomy 18:15, when God declared that Jesus is the one whom people must listen to:

Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”

Thus, Jesus is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18 according to Acts 3.  Since Jesus is the referent in Deuteronomy 18, this does not give room for Muhammad to fulfill this prophecy especially since Muhammad is not Jewish, a criteria of Deuteronomy 18.  Muslims should read the Holy Bible (both Old and New Testament) and come to know Jesus as their Lord God, and Savior of their sins.  Have faith (trust) in Jesus and repent (turn away) from your sins.  Trust in Jesus as your Prophet, Priest and King.

Read Full Post »

Should you believe in the Trinity JW

The last few weeks in the providence of God, I’ve been able to witness to various Jehovah’s Witnesses.  As some of you know, they are big on attacking the Trinity.  Each conversation ended with my inquiry for their famous “Should You believe in the Trinity?” pamphlet since my copy has not been readily available, being in storage at my parent’s place.  Each time the Jehovah’s Witnesses said they didn’t have a copy on them (though they had many of the other resources on them).  Each time they told me they will look for one to pass to me next time followed by a plug to visit the Watchtower society’s website.  I still haven’t gotten a physical copy and when I go online to their website, I could not find it and only get this.

Well I found online on Youtube that apparently I was not the only one who experienced a sudden disappearance of this infamous pamphlet.

As a young baby Christian this was the work that appeared to be the ultimate one stop shop with the summaries of the core arguments against the Trinity but as I grew older I discovered the many mistakes it made biblically, historically and poor use of quoting reference.  As the guy on the Youtube clip pointed out, a great resource that one can ask the JWs to look up to find that the Watchtower has lied to them in terms of their “scholarship” is no longer readily available.

The guy who made the video, “The Snarky Apologist” has loaded up online and made available the booklet online for the record if you wanted to see, click HERE.

Read Full Post »

Augustine for Armchair theologianPurchase:  Amazon

The book is supposed to be an introduction to the great Church father Augustine. The author spent the bulk of the book on Augustine’s autobiography, The Confessions. It made me want to read The Confessions alongside this work either as a commentary or as a “cliff note.” However, with the book’s title, “Augustine for Armchair Theologians,” one would expect the book to be broad enough to cover Augustine’s life and theology rather than spending 175 pages out of 222 on the The Confession alone. It doesn’t do justice to Augustine, especially for a work that’s suppose to be a guide for “arm chair theologians,”since there is so much more to Augustine than just his conversion; he was also a prolific writer and thinker, and from what I understand, the man has written over ninety separate works. I would have loved for the book to have explore some of these lesser known writings by Augustine and also for the book to further explore Augustine’s view of the Trinity and his contribution to it’s theological development. Writings by Augustine that the author did explore was rather brief, such as The City of God. Having read portions of The City of God, I wished the author could have expounded more upon it as I found Augustine’s reasoning and argumentation in the beginning of this classic to be witty and insightful. At times I thought the author was too sympathetic with Augustine’s theological opponents. While recently I have had second thoughts and desire to revisit my understanding of the Donatists’ position for fear that others might have caricatured it, nevertheless I was somewhat taken aback with the author’s sympathies with Pelagius and his followers. Again, the strength of the book was really it’s extensive discussion of The Confession and according to statements in the book, the author taught courses on it and must have been his area of expertise.

Read Full Post »

Christians must vote according to Biblical principles, not against it.  Here’s a voter’s guide for the local election guide from the great website, Election Forum, for the Los Angeles County.

March 5, 2013 Election Recommendations

Ratings:

Every candidate is considered after thorough research; we also have a questionnaire for candidates to complete.

  • thumb upthumb upthumb up : Strongest endorsement for values voters
  • thumb upthumb up : Above average
  • thumb up : Better than opponent, vote represents “lesser of two evils”
  • No Endorsement: We either oppose the candidates or have found no reason to support a candidate. If you don’t vote for a candidate or issue, all your other votes still count.

Los Angeles County

City

Council Member; City of Azusa (2 Elected)

  • Marc A. Caro thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Sandra Benavides
  • Robert Gonzales
  • Edward J. Alvarez thumb upthumb up
  • Jeri S. Vogel
  • Mercedes Castro

City Clerk; City of Azusa

  • Stephanie Carmona Mills
  • Russ Rentschler
  • Jorge V. Rosales
  • Jeffrey Lawrence Cornejo, Jr. thumb up

City Treasurer; City of Azusa

  • Arthur M. Vasquez, Jr.
  • Marcene Hamilton thumb up

Council Member; City of Bell (2 Elected)

  • Danny Harber
  • Ana Maria Quintana
  • Alicia Romero
  • Yamel “Jimmy” Mourad thumb up
  • Nora A. Saenz thumb up
  • Donna I. Gannon thumb up
  • Council Member; City

Council Member; City of Bellflower; 4 Year Term (2 Elected)

  • Dan L. Koops
  • Usbaldo B. “Wally” Munoz thumb up
  • Scott A. Larsen

Council Member; City of Bellflower; 2 Year Term

  • R. Yahye
  • Ron Schnablegger thumb up
  • Gloria Willingham
  • Luis Melliz

Council Member; City of Beverly Hills (3 Elected)

  • William Warren Brien
  • Katherine Cohan thumb up
  • Michael Talei thumb up
  • Brian Rosenstein
  • John A. Mirisch thumb up
  • Nancy H. Krasne

Council Member; City of Calabasas (3 Elected)

  • Mary Sue Maurer
  • James Bozajian thumb upthumb up
  • Jody Thomas thumb up
  • David Shapiro thumb up

Mayor; City of Carson

  • Jim Dear
  • Lula Davis-Holmes thumb up

Council Member; City of Carson (2 Elected)

  • Joseph Gordon
  • Timothy Muckey thumb up
  • Charlotte Brimmer
  • Rita R. Boggs
  • Mike Gipson
  • Albert Robles
  • Stephen Anyaka thumb up
  • Julie Ruiz-Raber

Council Member; City of Cerritos (2 Elected)

  • Carol Chen thumb upthumb up
  • Alejandro Estella
  • George Ray thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Frank Aurelio Yokoyama
  • K. Y. Ma
  • Gerad Valencia
  • James Kang

Council Member; City of Claremont (2 Elected)

  • Corey Calaycay thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Michael Keenan
  • Larry Schroeder thumb up

Council Member; City of Commerce (3 Elected)

  • Joanna E. Flores
  • Art A. Gonzalez
  • Lilia R. Leon thumb up
  • Jaime Valencia thumb up
  • Ivan Altamirano
  • Tina Baca Del Rio

Council Member; City of Covina (3 Elected)

  • Kevin Stapleton thumb upthumb up
  • Jorge A. Marquez
  • John C. King thumb up
  • Kay Manning thumb up

Council Member; City of Cudahy; 4 Year Term (2 Elected)

  • Martin Aguilera
  • Issac Delfino Velasquez
  • Chris Garcia
  • Richard Lara
  • Ruben Pivaral
  • Jack M. Guerrero thumb upthumb upthumb up

Council Member; City of Cudahy; 2 Year Term

  • Josue Barrios
  • Richard Iglesias thumb up
  • Baru A. Sanchez

Council Member; City of Gardena (2 Elected)

  • Mark E. Henderson
  • Terrence Terauchi
  • Rodney Tanaka thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Kathleen “Suzy” Evans thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Tasha Cerda

City Clerk; City of Gardena

  • Shannon Nichole Tsukiyama
  • Harout “Art” Kaskanian
  • Mina Semenza thumb up

Council Member; City of Huntington Park (2 Elected)

  • Elba Guerrero
  • Karina Macias
  • Andy Molina thumb up
  • Valentin Palos Amezquita thumb up

Council Member; City of La Habra Heights (3 Elected)

  • Brian S. Bergman thumb up
  • George Edwards
  • Kyle Miller
  • Chester Jeng
  • Michael Higgins

Council Member; City of La Canada Flintridge (2 Elected)

  • David A. Spence thumb upthumb up
  • Jon Curtis thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Joe Layton

Council Member; City of La Mirada (2 Elected)

  • Steve Keithly thumb upthumb up
  • Andrew Sarega thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Randy Gray
  • Pauline Deal
  • Gabriel Garcia

Mayor; City of Los Angeles

  • Emanuel Alberto Pleitez
  • Kevin James thumb upthumb up
  • Wendy J. Greuel
  • Norton Sandler
  • Eric Garcetti
  • Addie M. Miller
  • Jan Perry
  • Yehuda “Yj” Draiman thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Joseph “Joe” Gardner

City Attorney; Los Angeles

  • Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich thumb up
  • Mike Feuer
  • Greg Smith
  • Noel Wiess

City Controller; City of Los Angeles

  • David Manuel Gonzales (write in)
  • Analilia Joya
  • Ankur Patel
  • Cary Brazeman
  • Ron Galperin
  • Dennis Zine thumb up
  • Jeff Bornstein

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 1

  • Jose Gardea thumb up
  • Gilbert “Gil” Cedillo
  • Jesse Rosas

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 3

  • Scott Silverstein
  • Cary T. Iaccino thumb upthumb up
  • Bob Blumenfield
  • Joyce Pearson
  • Elizabeth Badger
  • Steven Presberg

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 5

  • Paul Koretz
  • Mark Matthew Herd thumb up

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 7

  • Krystee Clark
  • Felipe Fuentes
  • Jesse “David” Barron thumb upthumb up
  • Nicole Case

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 9

  • Manuel “Manny” Aldana thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Curren D. Price Jr.
  • Ana Cubas
  • Ronald Gochez
  • Terry Hara
  • Mike Davis
  • David Anothny Roberts

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 11

  • Odysseus Bostick
  • Mike Bonin
  • Fredrick Sutton thumb upthumb up
  • Tina Hess

Council Member; City of Los Angeles, District 15

  • Joe Buscaino
  • Gina Hardin (write in) thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • James T. Law

Council Member; City of Manhattan Beach

  • Tony D’errico thumb upthumb up
  • Mitch Ward
  • Mark Burton thumb upthumb up
  • Mark Lipps
  • Wayne Powell thumb up
  • Viet Ngo

City Treasurer; City of Monterey Park

  • Stephen Lam thumb up
  • Joseph Leon

City Clerk; City of Monterey Park

  • Jeff Schwartz
  • Vincent Dionicia Chang
  • Neal Alvarez thumb up

Council Member; City of Norwalk

  • Mike Mendez
  • Cheri Kelley thumb up
  • Darryl Adams
  • Enrique Aranda
  • Candy Martinez thumb up

Council Member; City of Pasadena; District 3

  • John Kennedy
  • Ishmael Trone thumb up
  • Nicholas Benson

Council Member; City of Pasadena; District 5

  • Victor M. Gordo
  • Israel Estrada thumb up

Council Member; City of Redondo Beach, District 1

  • Kimberly Fine thumb upthumb up
  • James Anothny Light
  • Dianne Prado
  • Jeff Ginsburg

Mayor; City of Redondo Beach

  • Matthew “Matt” Kilroy thumb upthumb up
  • Eric Coleman
  • Steve Aspel
  • Pat Aust

Read Full Post »

Kinda Christianity

A great satire on the Emergent church movement, with a title parodying McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity.”  The author are two Reformed Christians.  After going through primary sources of Emergent leaders to hear them speak for themselves as well as wading through refutations of them in the forms of presentations, papers, discussion, articles and blogs, I have to say that this satire would probably stick better for most people’s memory given how hilarious it is. Good use of humor and irony to expose a theological group that stresses so much that they can’t be sterotyped only to discover that they do present themselves with a certain persona and stereotypes. Think hipster coke bottle glasses and pseudo-intellectual stuffness. Or “a Coexist bumper sticker on your used Volvo.” Again, a witty book beginning with the cover (see Brian McLaren’s cover of”A New Kind of Christianity” to get it), the fake endorsements (the J.I Packer one got me laughing aloud), the preface by Frank Turk of PyroManiac, the meat of the book and the concluding appendix. For those who are familiar with the Emergent movement and knows it’s people, you will be smiling and laughing out loud (for real). Certainly would step on toes but no one could fault them that unlike the “real” Emergent (real and authentic as adjectives for Emergents?), at least the authors lived up to it’s parody of being”generous, fair organic free range guide” considering the fact that they are selling this for a buck for Kindle which I downloaded on my Iphone. As the book pointed out, “The Apple Store: If you’re not buying your technology here, you’re not emergent.

If you want it get it here on Amazon by clicking here.

Read Full Post »

shark eating sardines

Here are some of the links on Presuppositional apologetics around the web this session.

1.) A Christian Argument for Purpose and Significance

2.) Chris Bolt’s Farewell to my Readers (Note to Readers: Chris Bolt has definitely been an encouragement in advocating and advancing Presuppositional apologetics).

3.) Calvin’s Sensus Divinitatis

4.) What Sinners Ought to Know from Natural Revelation

5.) A Rant Against the Postmodernization of Scripture

6.) APOLOGETICS 101 – ARBITRARINESS

7.) Observation: Bitter atheism

8.) Secular terrorists

9.) Falsificationism And Christianity

10.) Did you know you’re related to a rat?

Are there any other links that you are aware of?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »