If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

How can Protestants justify their belief in sola fide (salvation by faith alone) when it does not seem to be existent prior to the sixteenth century? How do Catholics explain their belief in the Assumption of Mary when it was not dogmatized until the twentieth century? How do Orthodox justify their under-developed and often unbiblical beliefs concerning the atonement? 

During the recording of Theology Unplugged today, Greg Cromartie (the ”muddying the water guy”) asked me a very difficult question that I have yet to make any definitive decision about. This should not surprise many of you knowing that there are many issues which I have yet to decide upon and many about which I assume that I, out of necessity, must be comfortable concerning my indecision until Christ comes. But the question touched on something that I feel is very important. Therefore, my indecision is an uncomfortable one. The issue has to do with the “doctrine of” the development of doctrine. Continue Reading »

Well, this is quite a question. Are you orthodox or a heretic? Let me offer you my thoughts and then open this up for some discussion.

The term orthodox can be defined in a few ways:

1. Historic Christian Orthodoxy: This refers to the sine qua non (the “without which not”) of Christian belief. This belief is held, to paraphrase Augustine, “by all Christians, of all time, everywhere.” In other words, it is not limited to time or geographical region. Therefore, it would be found very early in some sort of articulated fashion, though not necessarily in formal document, in the early church. Historic orthodoxy did take a few centuries to articulate in thought and word. It is unthinkable that in the first few centuries Christians would have developed in their understanding beyond a seed form of the basics below. They were too busy trying to stay alive, legitimize themselves to hostile Jews and Romans,  and encourage the local congregations. These basics were handed down in tradition (the regula fide) and Scripture. Continue Reading »

What does it mean to use the Lord’s name in vain? This is a question that might seem self-evident to most people in western society. Whether you are religious or not, you would not even hesitate with your answer, “It means to say G-D.” I am sure that there are more people that can answer this than there are who can list the ten commandments, name the Gospels, or tell you the difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament. With all the talk about cursing pastors and the evolution of swearing going on in the blogsphere, I thought that I would try to contribute once more to this discussion by asking the question “What does it really mean to take the Lord’s name in vain?”

Continue Reading »

I briefly covered the question “How bad can a Christian’s theology be?” in a previous post. While I admitted that we must be somewhat agnostic to this question, using the illustration of the Corinthian’s apparent polytheism as evidenced in 1 Cor. 8, I concluded that Christian’s can and do have bad theology. Now I want to deal with a different yet similar question. How sinful can a Christian be? Continue Reading »

Theology Unplugged Broadcast #63

 Question/Answers Segment: The unnecessary assumption of the Bible’s uniqueness in comparison to other ancient sources; Emerging dialogue: does it get anything accomplished?

One prominent objection that people often raise about the Christian faith concerns the radical idea of

I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. The claim goes something like this: All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the site of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore the punishment for all sin must be infinite. Continue Reading »

This is a question that I was asked and thought I would share with the blog world.

Outside of the Roman Catholic Church official bull (Humanae Vitae) prohibiting birth control, there is no official position that the church has taken with regards to this issue. While Roman Catholics believe that taking birth control can be a mortal sin (one which removes the justifying grace of God), Evangelicals have seen the use of birth control as permissible. Continue Reading »

How is one to define sin? If you think about it too long, it can easily become difficult to define. Pastors, theologians, and exegetes often bring up the philosophical and theological distinctions and nuances of sin. From mortal sins to venial sins. From sins of omission to sins of commission. Not only this, but we often distinguish between imputed sin, inherited sin, and personal sin. Continue Reading »