A lot of modern evangelism focuses on the love God. We rarely hear it preached that God is angry at us because of our moral rebellion, and we rarely hear about the coming judgment. And yet, when you look at what the early church preached in Acts, it was a lot about judgment and not a word about the love of God or inviting people to have a relationship with God (see Evangelism: Are we preaching what the early church preached?).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t preach that God loves sinners. I’m saying we need to preach both that God loves us and that we are sinners. Indeed, only if we understand that we are enemies of God does the message of God’s love and forgiveness make sense. Apart from that context, why should anyone even care that God loves them?
An increasing number of professing Christians will acknowledge that the Bible is opposed to some practice, but then claim that God has evolved regarding the issue and the Spirit is speaking something different to the church today. Apart from the epistemological problems that such a claim entails, isn’t it interesting that the Spirit is always being more permissive today (just like our culture)? That’s quite strange, because when God has given new revelation in the past, it was not in the direction of moral permissiveness, but in the direction of moral stringency.
The truth of a doctrine is not determined by its age or by a historical consensus, and yet we naturally assign great weight to doctrinal tradition. After all, there’s something to be said for a historical consensus, and it should not be dismissed lightly. We should not ignore the understanding and insights of the majority who have preceded us. And in general, we should not dismiss a doctrinal tradition unless we have compelling reasons to do so.
The pope has officially jumped the shark. While a number of mainline Protestant denominations and prominent Evangelical pastors have changed their position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage in recent years, I never expected that the Catholic Church would do so. On Monday, the pope issued a declaration (
Most people would define a hypocrite as someone who does something that they claim is wrong. That can’t be the right definition, however, because it would consign everyone to being a hypocrite. Everyone sins, which means everyone who believes in morality acts in ways that is contrary to morality. That would make everyone a hypocrite. If your definition of hypocrite turns every person into a hypocrite, then your definition is not a meaningful definition. Something is wrong with the definition. A hypocrite is not someone who fails to live up to their moral ideals, but someone who falsely professes to believe in such ideals in the first place. A hypocrite is an actor.
“Hate” is considered a bad word these days. The culture tells us that we should not hate. We have even criminalized hate in the form of “hate crimes.” Many people are under the impression that this attitude toward hate is rooted in Judeo-Christian theology – that the Bible is opposed to all hate. This is not true. While the Bible does condemn certain expressions of hate (e.g. Lev 19:17), it actually teaches us to hate. It’s a matter of who or what we should hate.
I have started a new podcast series on the Biblical teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. This was an intensive research project for me that I am finally ready to share. I have already posted a 1-N-Done episode on the topic which summarizes my conclusions. This will be followed by a long series of episodes where I will explore the topic in much more detail. Once I have finished the series, I will publish my research paper as well.
I’ve often heard people claim that Saul of Tarsus confessed the deity of Christ during his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road by calling him “lord.” We read: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ 5 ‘Who are you, Lord? Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.” (Acts 9:3-5)
I completely forgot to mention that I was doing a series on the atonement for the Thinking to Believe podcast. It is a four part series. The final episode just went live.
Naturalism cannot support the idea that human beings have real, intrinsic value. This is a feature of the Judeo-Christian theology of the imago Dei – that we are made in the image of God. Absent this theological foundation, there is no reason to think human value is real. At best, humans only have a subjective, extrinsic value; i.e. our value is derived from our own estimation of ourselves. Human beings value particular traits that they possess, and thus value the human beings who possess such traits (a circular, biased, and wholly subjective estimation). This sort of value, however, is fictitious. It only exists in our minds, and it only extends to those that we think it extends to. This value is never equal, and it rarely applies to all human beings. Some human beings will be considered to be more valuable than others, and some will be deemed to have no value at all.
Many Eastern religions make this claim about God. And now, it is being picked up as a popular idea among Westerners. Unfortunately, it is incoherent.
Thomas would not believe the report of the other disciples who said they had seen Jesus alive. He only believed in Jesus’ resurrection after Jesus appeared to Him as well. Jesus’ words to Thomas on that day have been immortalized in the Gospel of John: “Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
Thinking to Believe 