Archive for category: General Apologetics

Who knows? Maybe that title will end up on a book in the not too distant future. But one thing is for sure: I’m simply amazed that a few blog entries interacting with a theologian’s denial of what used to be assumed to be a central, important aspect of theological teaching and belief (the imputation of the righteousness of Christ

Al Mohler has commented on an amazing example of the hatred of the world for the “God who is there.” Check it out.

I’m off to the Apologetics Conference in Middletown, PA (click here). Lord willing, back on Monday.

Lots of resources noted in this hour long discussion.

Want to test to see if your friendly neighborhood Arminian (a very common species of Christianus Evangelicus) has the Glasses of Libertarian Tradition firmly glued upon his or her face when reading the Scriptures? John 8:47 provides an excellent detection device: “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because

OK, I’m getting the message loud and clear: massive confusion over-load in blog land. Perhaps this isn’t even the medium in which to attempt to address these things, I don’t know. In talking with folks in channel and in person I am coming to the conclusion that I am obviously incapable of expressing point #1 on the topic of the

I’ve been hitting a lot of topics quickly this weekend, but one needs to stay “current” through Monday (when a lot of folks catch up on the blog). That is the Phillips, Craig & Dean controversy. If you didn’t see it, here’s the entire article.

It comes up every few years.  Ever since I noted something that had appeared in Charisma magazine regarding the singing group Phillips, Craig, and Dean, namely, that they are ministers in Oneness or non-Trinitarian churches, in the context of writing an article on loving the Trinity, we have received inquiries, and once in a while, disturbingly accusatory correspondence regarding the issue.  It

I have been examining the claims of Southern Seminary professor Mark Seifrid from his book, Christ, Our Righteousness, wherein he claims the Protestant belief in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is an “addition” to Paul’s teaching on the subject of justification that is without basis in the text itself, and that, in fact, such a belief is in error. I

I continue examining the claims of Southern Seminary professor Mark Seifrid on the issue of justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ. Seifrid writes, By virtue of their extrinsic character and finality, Christ’s cross and resurrection exclude the notions of an inherent righteousness and progress in justification which Protestant divines were concerned to avoid. As a result, there is no

Thursday night I spent about 35 to 40 minutes discussing a particular lecture by Tom Wright, bishop of Durham, author extraordinaire. Those who actually listened know that it was sort of a basic introduction, since many are not familiar with Wright and his books. I mean, I sat here and just went through some major titles from the past decade

by Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)   The following short essay was originally published in the The Christian Irishman, Dublin, May 1911, p. 71. The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. Sometimes we are told that Justification by Faith

These “interlopers” Paul roundly condemns as “sham-Christians,” that is, persons who called themselves and were probably regarded by others as Christians but whose conduct in fact falsified their claim to be Christian….It thus emerges that the interlopers were sham-Christians precisely because they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel—justification by faith apart from works of the law.

  But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation. Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” (Jeremiah 10:10-11)  

Isn’t it amazing that this is the big question today because of the Gibson film? And isn’t it even more amazing that the early church, long before the first gospel was written or the first epistle penned, knew the answer? And isn’t it just sad that most evangelicals don’t even believe what the Bible says about it anymore, and refuse

Real briefly today: two odd, odd things I saw this morning. First, TGE was confusing “New Covenant Theology” with various other viewpoints he doesn’t like, and in the process said,  The Incarnation means the SPACE TIME world is IMPORTANT, which therefore means that BODY is important, which therefore means that RITUAL is important, which therefore means that theology that downplays

OK, I’ve made glancing comments on the Dividing Line without getting specific, mainly due to respect for the individual (I still like this guy!) and out of hope that some semblance of balance might be regained. But today’s rambling comments by Timothy Enloe (see the blog entry for 1/14/04) simply demand a brief response. Seemingly, unless you believe it is

As I have been speaking a lot lately on “New Perspectivism”, I thought I would share a thought that I was developing while speaking on the subject briefly in St. Paul, Minnesota over the weekend. First, as I was flying up there, I had been giving thought to how NPism “flattens out” some of the most precious and full truths

Sadly, in our nation today there is a strong movement under way to steal from our children the freedom to think and examine their world outside of a very narrow, all-pervasive religious perspective. While it is common to hear in the media that it is Christian “fundamentalists” behind this movement, exactly the opposite is true. Rather, those who embrace the

(The following is “The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy” taken from Inerrancy edited by Norman Geisler, Academie Books, 1980, pages 493-497.) Article I We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. Article II We affirm

(Doctrines of Anthropology, Sin, and Soteriology Inclusive) Man as Creature. Man has a derivative nature – Acts 17:28. Man is finite Man is dependent Man must receive revelation Man in the Image of God The Image as Personality The Image as Intellect The Image as differing from animals Man as Sinful Being Sin as rebellion, denial of God’s true Being