Get PDF version

I am thoroughly orthodox. No, not Eastern with a capital “O”, but orthodox meaning that I believe all the right things. Well . . . at least I think I am. But, really, it depends on how one defines “orthodox.” What does it mean to be orthodox?

It would seem that this question is taking center stage in the current theological landscape. I have heard rumors that some prominent leaders in the emerging church are going to be writing on this issue, challenging the traditional thought concerning what it means to be “orthodox”—even more than they have already done. Some in the Emergent church, such as Tony Jones and Brian McLaren, are saying that there may not be such a thing as “orthodox.” Others, like Andrew Jones, seem to suggest that orthodoxy simply should be thought of as “right worship” rather than right teaching. Some of our more fundamentalistic brothers and sisters believe that orthodox means you agree with everything in their particular tradition or denomination. Some Christians even say that “orthodoxy” is a representation of a dynamic confession that has developed throughout church history. Well . . . ahem . . . that would be me.

With this in mind, I have written a short series on this subject. I am going to try to argue that there is such a thing as orthodoxy and it means first and foremost “right teaching” or “right belief.” I am also going to propose that orthodoxy is a progressive representation of truth as it has been revealed and understood throughout history.

Here is the chart that I will use to serve as a visual aid. We will break it down and add to it throughout this series.

Continue Reading »

Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens.  Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Life is a precious gift of God. Christians see life as something that must be preserved, enjoyed, and celebrated. Yet Christians—evangelical Christians—are often among those who support the death penalty. How can this be? Isn’t there an inconsistency with the Christian witness of life, grace, and mercy and support of the death penalty? Isn’t there an inconsistency when Christians say that they are against abortion but for the death penalty? Possibly.

I want to give a brief primer on the Christian options with regards to the issue of capital punishment. Hopefully this will serves to help people on both sides understand the issue more accurately.

There are essentially two positions that Christians have taken with regards to capital punishment:

• Rehabilitationalism
• Retributionalism 

Retributionalism: Believes that capital punishment is prescribed by God for all people in order to maintain societal order and retribution.

Rehabilitationalism: Believes that capital punishment is repealed by the New Testament’s command to love one another and let God have final retribution.

Arguments for Capital Punishment (Retributionalism): Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is an Easter repost—Happy Easter! 

I have a special interest in the death of the Apostles. We all should. Every Christian should spend some time looking into the historical records. There are many legends concerning their deaths which makes the historical evidence hard to interpret. Many times the accounts conflict with one another. Most early Christians wanted their home to be crowned with the stature of having been the final resting place of one of the twelve. It is probably for this reason that there were embellishments forged.

Sifting through the wheat and the chaff is not easy task. The martyrdom of some of the Apostles is more certain than others. Historians will have different degrees of certainty concerning the circumstances of their deaths. For instance, unbiased historians will not take issue with the historical credibility of the martyrdom of Peter, Paul, and James the Apostle. Many of the other accounts have decent historic validity as well. Some accounts, however, raise the eyebrow and cause us to remain agnostic.

However, when boiled down to their least common denominator, it is very feasible to believe that all but one of the Apostles suffered and died a martyr’s death, even if we can’t be sure of the exact details. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Here is an illustrated history of postmodernism. It has to be watched to be understood.

I am hoping that this will give people a better idea of why we live in a postmodern world. It does not justify or endorse postmodernism in any way, it simply gives a context for the confused mindset that many in our generation are experiencing. The emerging church, Emergent and emerging, is that which seeks to be a witness for Christ because they identify with the postmodern mindset. I hope this helps in our ongoing discussion.

 

 History of Postmodernism: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (2116)

This video is taken from the Introduction to Theology course of The Theology Program.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

From Vance McAllister at Submerging Influence. 

____________________________________

There is currently a spectrum of belief among Christians regarding the origins and nature of the universe and Mankind, ranging from those who cling to a flat-earth (very rare) and a geocentric universe (still with some vocal proponents), all the way to a form of theistic evolution in which God created in such a way that it all happened naturally. Needless to say, this has become a major topic of debate, for good or ill, and I think it is useful to survey the broad spectrum of beliefs held by devout, Bible-believing Christians. Kind of viewing the “playing field”, so to speak.

These positions are very often tied to how literally one reads Scripture and the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation (scientific discovery) to inform their beliefs about that Creation. Ultimately, it is not a debate about whether to believe what the Bible says (since even Theistic Evolutionists believe what the Bible says), but rather how to understand what the Bible says. Think of the spectrum running from left to right, as I diagram below. What is important is to keep in mind that everyone other than number 1 has allowed a certain degree of scientific knowledge to inform and influence their interpretation of Scripture (whether they know it or not). Each position looks at the one to the left of them and says that they are reading Scripture too literally, and looks at the one to the right and says they are not reading Scripture literally enough, and letting scientific conclusions influence their interpretation (and sometimes thinking they do not do that at all). Here is the spectrum generally, you can review the descriptions further below to see what each refers to: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have a confession to make. Not sure if this is to you or to God, but here is goes: I love Ghost Hunters. We even planned a watch party for the first show of the new season!

Maybe you are not familiar with the show, but it is a weekly program that airs on the SCIFI Channel. It is going into its fourth season and I have seen them all! Here is a synopsis: Investigators from The North Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS) began to broadcast their investigations. They take calls from around the country from those who believe that their place of residence is “haunted.” Each show consists of the investigation crew traveling to the “haunted” location and listening to stories from the witnesses. After this they set up their cameras, night vision and thermal imaging, and begin to walk around in the dark looking for some type of communication from the dead or paranormal experience. What I like most about the show is that they don’t seem to be looking to claim any place as haunted. In fact, for the most part they “debunk” people’s claims, finding plausible alternative explanations to the their experience. But every once in a while (maybe every third show) they find something that leaves you scratching your head asking “How do I fit that into my theology?”

Since Ghost Hunters began a few years ago, there has been a massive surgence of television shows about paranormal activity. From Ghost Hunters spin-offs to reenactments of “actual” hauntings, the entertainment business has found a niche to peak and feed peoples’ insatiable curiosity in the spiritual world. Its popularity cannot be ignored.

The most popular understanding of the word “ghost” is in reference to disembodied spirits of humans who have died yet still walk the earth. It is believed by many that these disembodied spirits “haunt” certain locations. Trapped between this world and the next, these ghosts, it is claimed, often reach out to the land of the living.

Do ghosts fit into the Christian worldview? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Millard Erickson has a book called Postmodernizing the Faith where he summarizes the different approaches that the Christian community is taking in response to the postmodern plight. I blogged on this last year, but thought I would advance some of my thoughts. I think it is a great and valuable study that helps us approach a sensitive issue in an understanding, irenic, and profitable way.

The question is How do we as Christians engage a postmodern way of thinking? More specifically, how do we change the postmodern—or do we? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Considering the conflict that is brought about with regards to the issue of faith and science, I thought I would write a primer on the philosophical approaches that people adopt. Questions such as Do faith and science conflict? What do we do when faith and science seem to be at odds? What has ultimate authority, faith or science? Can there be a Christian scientist? are all important here.

Let me start with some prolegomena with regards to terminology.

First, the very label of this issue, ”faith and science,” can be misleading. Faith should not be defined as a set of beliefs that is held to without regards to or contradictory to the evidence. This is especially the situation with regards to the historic Christian faith. This is the subject of a different blog, but suffice it to say that Christians do not believe that their faith is a blind leap into the dark that disregards evidence as a suitable guide to the truth. The Christian faith is a faith that his held to, from a human perspective, because of the evidence.

Second, science is not immune to the label of faith. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I don’t know about you, but the copyright date on my Bible is 2002. What does that mean? It means that the Bible that I read from, study from, and teach from is nearly 2000 years newer than the original. How do we know that errors have not crept in after 2000 years. You may have a older version. If you use an NASB or NIV, your Bible will not be much better off. Thirty years closer to the original is not saying much. Even if you are a hard core KJV advocate, using an “original” 1611 version, your Bible is still over fifteen hundred years past the original New Testament and over two thousand years newer than the Old Testament. More than that, these Bible’s are all in English and the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament was mostly written in Hebrew. More than that, the Greek and Hebrew of the Scriptures are both dead languages, meaning that they are not spoken anymore.

With all this time and change, doesn’t it seem likely that there have been many errors in transcription that have crept into the text, corrupting the original beyond repair? How can we know our Bible is reliable? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This problem is the single greatest apologetic issue that Christians face today. In a postmodern world, people’s questions, objections, and problems with the Christian worldview are usually connected to the reality of evil in the world and their attempts to harmonize this reality with the seemingly contradictory notion of an all-powerful, all-good God. So valid is this issue that Ronald Nash, the late evangelical philosopher, said a few years ago (and I quote him loosely), “It is absurd to reject Christianity for any reason other than the problem of evil.” Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!