Recently in Doctrine Category

Post-modern philosophy may be the latest fad in “Christian” circles (emerging-this, post-that, beyond-whatever, neo-something, social justice, etc.), but when an author complains about what he calls “neo-fundamentalism”, he actually reveals why post-modern philosophy fails so spectacularly (although he probably didn’t mean to).

Rachel Held Evans reviews “The Bible Made Impossible”, what appears to be a fairly liberal book (stay-tuned for the stunning—if honest—goal of the author).

Many so-called “pastors” or teachers don’t exactly proclaim what the Bible does. Some add, some deny, some change meanings. How should a Christian handle those who claim to follow the Bible, yet really don’t?

Christians will soon have to make a choice: follow the phony reality of The Matrix, or stand on the rock of God’s Word. Unfortunately, those calling for Christians to accept man’s philosophy miss an important point: man’s best ideas continually change — remember when using leaches was considered good medicine?

Sojourners (Jim Wallis and co.) got into a bit of hot water when they rejected an advertisement sponsored by a gay-rights group. Since Sojourners promotes policies of the left, the group become upset with Wallis’ Sojourners (Sojourners later accepted another ad from the group, so the controversy appears to have diminished a bit). The question remains, what exactly does a liberal “Christian” believe?

The social justice crowd frequently supports their position saying it’s “Biblical”. What does that mean, and was the church in Acts socialist and using redistribution, like social justice promoters want Christians to advocate today?

In many cases extreme views prove problematic. In regards to gender roles (men and women and their function in the church), two ideas frequently pop up. Unfortunately, both are quite wrong.

Another wacky idea blowing through the church is so-called “Red Letter Christianity”. Many of these movements blow through, distract many, and then fade away as they desire to redefine God’s Word into something “seeker friendly” for reasons of social justice, or other (bad) ideas.

It’s truly sad when someone receives improper teaching on the Bible, and rejects God because of it. Just as bad are some groups who desire to capitalize on such situations to promote their own heresies.

We’ve talked before about the coming church division, but it’s interesting even liberal progressive “Christians” have come to the conclusion a split will soon come.

Mr. Bart Ehrman (who calls himself a “renowned Bible scholar”) returns with a new book, this time claiming most of the New Testament was forged. We won’t analyze much of his “scholarship” because similarly to the Deutero-Isaiah Hypothesis, it only takes a few minutes to discover the “scholarship” has no basis in sound logic and analysis.

That got your attention, didn’t it? Jesus wants lower taxes, less welfare, a balanced budget, reduction of the debt, loves Reagan and Bush, but Clinton and Obama not so much.

Prove it wrong using the Bible.

An MSNBC host (Lawrence O’Donnell) caused a recent stir when he proclaimed:

“The Book of Revelation” is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes “The Book of Revelation.”

The situation in Wisconsin certainly stirred up a mess, didn’t it? Some progressive religious people rush into the fray, trying to score points using events to further their agenda (what’s that about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread?).

Through the years, one of the most popular articles on this site involves losing salvation, drawing some rather heated comments. It appears many people struggle with this issue, especially the Hebrews six passage (read the linked article for the full analysis). Since this topic causes so much anxiety and problems, let’s step back and consider it from a different angle.

To understand the danger of replacement theology, we need to get a firm grasp on what it is. Unfortunately, many people provide different definitions, from a subtle error, all the way to hostile anti-Semitic ideas.

Perhaps after losing salvation one of the more heated discussion involves Calvinism and Arminianism, or simply predestination versus free will — did God choose me or did I choose Him?

Christians seem to fight over anything and everything. Chuck Missler asks why Christians organize their firing squads in circles. Today’s buzzword bingo involves Complimentarian and Egalitarian, or the proper role of men and women. We’ve discussed it before, but it’s surprising how many people reject what the Bible states, creating their own religion.

If you watch cable news at all (no matter the channel), you’ve heard of Jim Wallis and the issue of “social justice” pop up. Mr. Wallis appears on MSNBC, Huffington Post and of course his own blog. No matter your leanings, you’ve likely heard his comments about social justice and the Gospel; allow Jim Wallis to define the gospel the way he sees it:

Captain, we’re drifting into dangerous waters! All hands on deck! Sound the alarm!

Perhaps nothing differentiates “modern” (read that: liberal) and traditional Christianity more than the role of men and women. Those promoting a modern social justice version discard parts of the Bible not fitting their position, frequently by arguing those parts have historical meaning only. Does that make sense? Can we pick and choose what is God’s Word and what isn’t? If so, how can that be done, and who gets to make the rules (since it isn’t God)?

In our previous article on Christians, the tea-party, and Libertarianism (prompted by Reverend Jim Wallis’ article disparaging the tea-party movement) one area left un-discussed was the issue of Christians and Romans 13. Since it can be used it to justify particular actions by government, it’s time to take a look to see what it says in context. First, Mr. Wallis’ argument.

Infinity represents one of the characteristics of God—a being with no beginning and no end, existing completely outside of time. Not always an easy concept to understand, but James gives us a surprising scientific and technical explanation in his letter.

In part one on the Trinity we discussed problems arising in the Bible if you deny the Trinity as some groups do: stating Jesus as a created being, a brother of satan, or something else non-divine. In this second part, we’ll consider the scientific reasoning behind the trinity from a passage in 1 John.

θεός (God-theos) ἐστί (is-esti) φῶς (light-phos) (1 John 1:5)

One concept causing problems for new believers and various other groups is the concept of the trinity — one God revealing Himself in three persons. Many groups deny the trinity, as they deny the deity of Jesus Himself, which causes problems in the Bible.

For some reason, atheists aren’t happy unless they convert religious people to their dogma. Why? I don’t know, but they frequently display intolerance, expressing a deep conviction to win converts to the religion of atheism. Here’s a statement which isn’t very remarkable, except for the revelation of the methods atheists should use to win converts.

What a silly question! Of course they do. Well not so fast — many “pastors” live as all sham and no wow as the churches they pastor exist as Christian in name only. Many deny the virgin birth, reality of hell, resurrection of Jesus, His return, judgment, and so on.