My very first book “True for You, But Not for Me”—the one with the purple cover—came out in 1998. The reason I wrote the book was that no one was really offering an accessible, practical step-by-step guide to commonly-heard relativistic and pluralistic slogans. Thankfully, the book found its niche and has done very well, and it is used as a textbook in Christian colleges and universities as well as a book study for many small-group discussions and adult Sunday school classes. Moreover, I have been heartened and encouraged by many letters and people, informing me how instrumental the book has been in their own lives.

Ten years later, I started working on a second edition (the one with the white cover), not realizing how much effort would be required to pull this off. “True” 2.0 has been significantly expanded (half a dozen or so new chapters) and completely overhauled; I left very few sentences unrevised. The result is, in my estimation, a much stronger, updated book that more effectively cuts through today’s thickening relativistic and pluralistic haze, offering a defense of objective truth and morality as well as of the uniqueness of Christ in the face of the world’s religions. I have posted an study guide online for small-group discussion at my website, www.paulcopan.com.

I hope you’ll help spread the word and put in a good word for the book in places like Amazon.com. To make the job easier, I’ve included the new table of contents as well as endorsements from Lee Strobel, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas, Mark Mittelberg, and Kenneth Samples. Thanks to many of you for contributing to the success of the first edition. May God’s Spirit use the second edition as well for the advancement of His kingdom! Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

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

        

Do any of you know where to get very large pictures, either in print or electronic of these two pictures? We are trying to have large sizes of them made for the Credo House and no matter what I do in Photoshop, I can’t get them to look good blown up to a very large picutre (poster size at least).

If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Luther at worms.

Or, better, this one.

Christian Martyrdom

Someone please make these work! Help!

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Now open for business.

Check out the grand opening special.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

The longer I am in ministry, the longer I teach theology, the more I see that some things are not quite as clear as they used to be. At one time, I had pretty much everything figured out. Ministry was just about transferring this information effectively. That is the peril of theology. If you want to have it all figured out, don’t get into this business!

At the same time, there are many things that I have believed and about which I continue to grow in conviction. One of these, ironically, is the simplicity of the Christian life. The center point is really not too difficult. God wants us to believe him. Trust, belief, conviction, assurance. These are all words we use to describe this act of the will – faith.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines faith this way:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Each one of these, in the right context, could describe some aspect of the Christian faith. But we need to go one step further in understanding this term “faith” in a particularly Christian way.

The Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The battle cry of sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.

As started by Luther and developed further by Melancthon and others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word “content.” Faith, according to the Reformers, must have content or substance. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential, propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave” or “God loves you” for example, provide a necessary information base or notitia that Christians must have.

2. Assensus: This is the assent, confidence, or assurance that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information, affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convinced that it is really true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon some degree of critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”

But these two alone are not enough, according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon, for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life.

Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company… a church… a home.

The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude… I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it.

And so it is with you… we are in charge of our attitudes.”

-Chuck Swindoll

Send post as PDF to

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

        

View PDF here.

Part 1: Introduction

I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was a charismatic. I would pick up a commentary and turn immediately to 1 Cor. 12 (the section on spiritual gifts). If the author believed that the spiritual gifts were for today, I would put it back on the shelf in disbelief that the store would carry such misleading material. If they did not believe that the gifts were for today – if the author was a “cessationist” – I would consider purchasing the book.

Such was the time when I believed that all those who believed that – i.e., all charismatics – were practicing a different Christianity, at best, or demon possessed, at worst.

I am not a charismatic, and I have my reasons, but I do not feel the same way today as I used to. Let me first define the terms and set up the field of play.

The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader).” Many would say that Barack Obama has charisma in such a way. Charisma is taken from the Greek charisma which means “gift.” Its root, charis, means “grace.”

In Christianity, “charismatic” refers to those who believe that certain “spiritual gifts” such as tongues, prophecy, and gifts of healings, are normative for the church. In the Scriptures, we are told that God gives certain gifts to everyone in the body of Christ. Representative gift lists are mentioned in 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 4, and Eph. 4. Some of these gifts seem to be natural extensions of the recipients personality (leadership, teaching, encouragement) while others distinguish themselves by their extra-ordinary nature. A charismatic is one who believes that God still gifts people in the church with the extra-ordinary or supernatural gifts and that these gifts are normative in the body of Christ for the extension of God’s message, glory, and grace.

Charismatic is not a denomination, but a trans-denominational theological stance or tradition which can find representation in any denomination or tradition, including Evangelicalism. In fact, I think that the charismatic position (or some variation thereof) is the fastest growing tradition within Evangelicalism.

A cessationist (taken from “cease”), on the other hand, is one who believes that the extra-ordinary gifts ceased in the first century, either at the completion of the New Testament or at the death of the last Apostle. Cessationists believe that the supernatural gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings were “sign gifts” that were given for the establishment of the church and then passed away due to a fulfillment of their purpose. They served as a supernatural “sign” from God that the Gospel message being proclaimed was unique and authoritative. Since the Gospel message has been proclaimed and established in the New Testament, cessationists believe that these type of gifts ceased due to an exhaustion of purpose. Therefore, with regards to the “gifts of the Spirit,” there are “permanent gifts” and there are “temporary gifts.”

What would a post be without a chart?

If you can see this (!), you will notice that certain “sign gifts” are revelatory while others are confirmatory. The revelatory gifts are those that reveal God’s message in some way. They are prophetic in nature. Not everyone would agree which gifts belong in this category. Some would not place “word of wisdom” or “word of knowledge” here and one’s placement of tongues will depend on how it is defined (prayer language? prophetic revelation in another language? Gospel proclamation in another language?). Either way, the category describes those gifts which involve a supernatural revelation from God.

The “confirmatory gifts” are those which confirm or provide evidence for the revelatory gifts. In other words, someone cannot just claim to be speaking prophetically on behalf of God. Their message must be confirmed by some undeniable act of extraordinary power. Otherwise, anyone could claim to speak on behalf of God.

Of course the gift of healings have a benevolent purpose as the benefits of such gifts affect people in a wonderful way, but, according to most cessationists (and even some charismatics), the result that a person is healed is the secondary purpose. The primary purpose is to legitimize the message of the healer.

A very important point need to be made (if you don’t get this, don’t even bother engaging in this conversation.): Whether one is a charismatic or a cessationist, all Christians believe in God’s supernatural intervention. Only a deist would claim that God has a “hand-off” approach to history and our lives. It is not that the cessationist does not believe in healings or miracles, it is that they don’t believe in the gifts of healing, miracles, etc. being given to a certain people. Both charismatics and cessationists (should) pray for God’s supernatural intervention, can believe in stories of healings, and can expect God to direct their lives through some sort of divine guidance. In other words, just because someone prayed for healing and believes it happened, this does not make one a charismatic (properly speaking).

However, there does seem to be a higher level of expectation for divine intervention among charismatics than with cessationists. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. Expectation of the power of God can both motivate a Christian’s life or be a cause for great disillusionment. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is finalizing the details about a new nine week course that will be offered on the relationship between Science and the Bible (taught by Robert Bowman). I am really excited about this seeing that there is not much out there that is available that is fair and balanced.

Question for you: We are either going to teach this as a Summer course or a Fall course. The summer would on Monday or Tuesday nights starting the first week July going for nine straight weeks. The Fall would begin the first week of September and also be on Monday or Tuesday evening. For those of you who might enroll, which would you prefer?

(The cost to take this with Rob in a live online setting going for a certificate will be the usual $100. We will probably have many scholarships available depending on donations.

It will also be available for free on MP3 at the usual places when the course is complete.)

Here is the tentative schedule:

1. History of science (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking)

2. Revelation and the philosophy of science (general v. special revelation; realism v. nonrealism in science; how science changes; models for relating science and theology; naturalism)

3. Models of creation and evolution (young-earth and old-earth creationism, theistic evolution, atheistic and pantheistic evolution)

4. Genesis 1-3 and creation (Genesis 1:1 and creation ex nihilo; age of the earth and universe; origin of life and its diversity; origin of the human race; historicity of the Fall)

5. Genesis 4-9 and creation (the genealogies and the antiquity of the human race; the nature, extent, and universality of the Flood; interpretations of the Flood and of geology)

6. Creation in the rest of the Bible (wisdom literature [Psalms, Proverbs, Job]; Romans 5 and 8; creation and its consummation in biblical eschatology)

7. Physical sciences and creation (origin of the universe, fine-tuning and design arguments)

8. Biological sciences and creation (origin of life, arguments for and against macroevolution, ID)

9. Human sciences and creation (origin of human race; mind-body problem and modern brain science)

Help us out!

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Here is the full post (second edition) of my life until seminary (1998). Soon I will fill it in with the rest since seminary.

Part 1

Martin Luther spoke about the doctrine of justification saying that Christians are simul iustus et peccator, “The same time righteous and sinner.” I think this phrase sums up my life very well.

When did I first trust in Christ? That is what a testimony is about, right? I don’t really know. I was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma, September 22, 1972. I remember when I was four years old swinging with Todd, my best friend at the time, asking him if he believed in Jesus. He said “No.” I then told him he was going to hell. He responded, “Then I do believe in Jesus.” Ahhh, my first convert! You do have to be a Christian to make a convert don’t you? Well, either way, that is one of my earliest memories and at the time I believe I knew Christ the best a four-year-old could.

My mother and father were “unequally yoked.” My mother was a Christian, while my father . . . well, he just did not talk much about his beliefs (he did not talk much about anything). I can remember from an early age sitting in my mother’s bed while I listened to her read the Bible. She knew the Gospel and loved Christ. She was not overbearing, but was very outreach minded. I had three sisters, two older and one younger. She loved us and gave us all her attention. Her greatest desire was for all her children to love the Lord. Because of my mom, we were a very close family.

My father was different. Stern, disciplined, and, at times, terrifying. Those are the best adjectives that I can think of to describe him as I grew up. He always provided for the family and, even though he rarely would give up terms of endearment, we all knew that he loved us. I looked up to him like any son does a father. He was my hero. I wanted him to be proud of me. The problem was that I just did not know what would make him proud. He never mentioned Christ, did not read his Bible, and was prone to spend his nights at the bars. I remember praying for his salvation every night, having great hopes about what the Lord would do. My mother and father went through many separations and nearly divorced a time or two. But my father would always come back on his knees with promises to change. I think he really wanted to, but just could not sustain the motivation. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

I forgot to link to this when it came out: Go Ye Therefore Into the World-Wide-Web. (NOTE: I did not create the title. I don’t use “ye” y’all.)

Also see Michael Spencer’s article on Patheos. It is very good.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

I have had a few people ask me if they were Calvinists. So . . . considering my weekend of creating quizes on Facebook, I thought I should make a quiz so you could find out for certian. So, here it is. (Note: I know this does not cover all the options, but just answer the best you can). BTW: I will soon start a series on understanding and defending Calvinism. Oh yeah . . . get ready.

You can also take my theology quiz. It is pretty hard, but if you get just a few right, you will pass (that is the limitations of this quiz).

And you can find out what Apostle you are!

And, if you don’t already know:

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Are you a Fundamentalist, Emerger, Evangelical, or Liberal.

Click on this picture and post your results here. (Or, in the words of Biff Tannen—Chicken?).

(P.S. I don’t want to hear anything about how we should not label ourselves! Lighten up!)

(P.P.S. Yes, you do have to have a Facebook account. Quit putting it off, you will have one within a year anyway.)

Send post as PDF to

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

        

The Theology Program: Spring (2) 2009 Semester

Please note, this is online students only. To find more about the online program, go here. Everyone is welcome to join!
Scholarships are available. Contact carrie@reclaimingthemind.org to request.

Bibliology & Hermeneutics

Instructor: C. Michael Patton ThM.
Online meeting dates: Tuesdays 9pm – 10pm (GMT-5 Hours) May 5 – July 6, 2009
Course Time Requirements: About 3 hours per week.
Enroll now

Course description
This course focuses on the authority, nature, and interpretation (hermeneutics) of the Scriptures. It is designed to help students work through issues that concern the trust they place in the Bible and its interpretation. We will compare the various Christian traditions’ views of authority, examining the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. The Scripture will be studied as an ancient text focusing on its transmission and canonization. We will also ask tough questions concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. We will then look at how the Church has interpreted the Scriptures throughout history, ending our time by looking at current trends in Evangelical hermeneutics.

This course will meet Tuesday nights, 9-10 p.m. Eastern time, for 10 weeks beginning on May 5th 2009, and finishing on July 7th, 2009. Course cost $100.00 USD.

Humanity & Sin

Instructor: C. Michael Patton ThM.
Online meeting dates: Tuesdays 10pm – 11pm (GMT-5 Hours) May 5 – July 6th, 2009
Course Time Requirements: About 3 hours per week.
Enroll now

Course description

Why did God create man? What is man anyway? What is the Fall? How can people be condemned for a sin they did not commit? Do we have a free will? Is there such a thing? Men and women: what is the big difference? Hard questions that affect the way we view and relate to one another. This course is a study the nature of humanity and sin. We will look at the nature of humanity from a biblical perspective examining the what and why of man. We will spend time understanding the different theories about the composition of man and attempt to understand what it means to be in the image of God. The issue of free will shall be covered with sensitivity and conviction, tracing the debate through the centuries. We will also wrestle with issues pertaining to the nature, purpose, and design of the sexes, understanding that our stance will ultimately affect our view of marriage and society.

This course will meet Tuesday nights, 10-11 p.m. Eastern time, for 10 weeks beginning on May 5th 2009, and finishing on July 7th, 2009. Course cost $100.00 USD.

To find more about the online program, go here.

Help us spread the word. Here are some graphics to post.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Ok, not the real John Rylands (P52), but a facsimile.

Use this collectors item for your library, office, school, or to aid you in teaching theology and the Bible.

You won’t find these any where else.

And to top it all of, you support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries when you purchase one (or two, or three).

Purchase here.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Here are seven more points about The Shack to amend to my review a couple of days ago. (I did not really want to do this, but I should have known this was coming!)

1. Concerning the supposed bad attitude toward Christians and the church: First off, there is no problem being critical of the church. If I remember correctly, Christ was pretty critical of it in the book of Revelation. Also, if we rejected everyone who does such, then we better take another look at the reformers. Besides, (and most importantly) the bad attitude expressed in the book was BEFORE his encounter with God. At that time he also hated God!!!! Things changed…that is the point of the book! We have no knowledge of Mack’s attitude of Christians and the church after his “recovery.”
2. Statements in the book may indicate that Young is an inclusivist (i.e. Christ is the only way to God, but the Gospel is not the only way to Christ). If so, I would think that this is the closest position that he holds to that pushes the orthodox line. In doing so he would join C.S. Lewis, the whole Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas, Gregory Boyd, and others. I am not an inclusivist, but there are some very good people who lean in that direction.
3. Concerning the charge of modalism: this concept could not be denied any more clearly in the book. From the book: “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely one.” It does not get any better than that! Then it says that “we were all in Jesus” during the incarnation. Then people forget that he has clearly just denied modalism and go ahead and make the charge. This is silly folks. We have to be more responsible when evaluating such things, at the pain of tarnishing reputation in a completely ill-founded way. This statement “we are all in Jesus” is very orthodox considering the context in which he has denied modalism. He is just being more Eastern in his expression here, following the Great Cappidocian Father (whom I am sure people could take out of context and blast as modalists too—sigh . . .). We need to understand a concept called perichoresis or mutual indwelling (look it up). In this very orthodox way of describing things, there is a very real sense in which the person of the Trinity mutually indwell one another—they are all in each other while remaining separate persons. In fact, if you were to deny this, you would be unorthodox!! Ironically, I think that Young’s orthodox theological astuteness might have caught many people off guard.
4. Remember, anytime one tries to personify God there are going to be issues with those who want to take it too literally. We don’t get a free pass by simply saying it is fiction, I know (and advocates of the book need to quite using the “its fiction” card to liberally). But you try to write a fictional about the Trinity. Better, just think too long about the Trinity. You will end up with some type of unorthodox nuance. That is why I said in my original review, I wish he would have been a little more apophatic about things. However, I don’t have any suggestions on how to present the Trinity and stay out of danger. The only ultimate solution is not to describe the Trinity at all!
5. We should never be relying on books such as this to educate the church in basic theology. If we have gotten to that point where someone is in danger of misreading this and becoming a modalist, shame on us. But let us not simply attack these type of books. Let’s just use them to illustrate and stretch us. There will never be a perfect analogy of God—ever!
6. Let’s face it, people just get uptight when something gets too popular, ala Left Behind. If it is too popular, Satan must have inspired it. I get tired of this mentality. I say lay off Left Behind and lay off The Shack. Both present a certain theology, both have elements that good Christians are going to disagree with, but neither are THAT dangerous. Just make sure that people are properly discipled. If they are relying on either of these books for their discipleship, again, we have big problems.
7. I would have loved to have seen more of the fear of God in this book. I know Christ came to sinners with a message of love and forgiveness. Yet when Isaiah saw God he fell apart. He could have (should have) included both, but focusing on one is not necessarily heresy.

Look, I am not saying I agree with all of this dude’s theology. I could take him apart piece by piece with the significance of his Arminianism assumptions and make it sound as if what he is teaching is going to topple the faith, but that would be dishonest and lack wisdom and perspective. All I am saying is that I don’t see any major line being crossed.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Most people’s understanding of God’s omnipresence is a belief that God is everywhere. But I don’t think this does justice to the Christian theistic worldview as it implies that God’s ontological presence (his essence) is everywhere. What is the problem with this? Glad you asked.

When we talk about the essence of God, we are talking about a necessary existence that does not have a relationship to time, space, and matter. In other words, God created everything (time, space, and matter) out of nothing and does not share in its essence. He does not have an extension in space. Of course his relational presence manifests itself in many ways. Each member of the Trinity are engaged in time, space, and matter in a very real way. But we save our understanding of God’s essence for a “simple” existence which remains transcendent, necessarily beyond creation.

God is omnipresent. But his omnipresence does not have to do with his extension in space but space’s relationship to him. God is not everywhere if you are talking about his essence.

Here is what I believe to be a better definition of God’s omnipresence:

“God is Everywhere.”

“Everywhere is in God’s immediate presence.”

I write this because I see many Christians describing God in such a way that toys with pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God is essentially (ontologically) present everywhere and in every thing. Often our definition of God’s omnipresence suggests that God is some extremely large being, taking up a vast amount of space, or that he is somehow evenly spread out across the entire universe. This is very close to pantheism. We are not pantheists. We believe in a God who stands in a transcendent relationship with all his creation, yet is actively and relationally engaged in it. This is a great mystery to be sure, but it is a mysterious necessity and should not yield to descriptions that do more harm than good.

There is no where that can flee from God’s immediate presence.

Send post as PDF to

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

        

Dear blog readers.

I try to keep these type of announcements to a minimum here are the blog, but the need is significant right now.

We are coming very close to the completion of the Credo House of Theology (find out more here), the Evangelical training hub, fellowship, and headquarters for Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. But we need many more people to step up to help us complete this project. Right now we need $20,000 to complete the build out (up $10,000 from initial estimates) and another $30,000 to furnish. This is a total of $50,000.

This means that we need 50 people to give $1000.

Or, one person can give the full $50,000.

We will take it either way.

We are a 501c3 not-for-profit. All donations are tax-deductible.

Please prayerfully consider how you might contribute. If you would like to discuss this with me, you can contact me at michaelp at reclaiminghtemind dot org.

You can donate here.

Either way, please be in prayer for us.

Send post as PDF to

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.  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?

This is an odd question. In one sense the answer is absolutely yes. Christianity denies physicalism (the belief that the physical comprises the sum total of reality). We believe that once a person dies, their spirit leaves their body. Therefore, there are disembodied spirits. The problem comes when the claims are made that these disembodied spirits remain on earth in some form and “haunt” or communicate with others.

There are three primary views or perspectives that Christians take concerning this issue:

1. No there are no ghosts. Any supposed paranormal experience, if authentic, should be labeled as demonic activity.

This view would argue that the Christian worldview does not allow for disembodied spirits to roam the earth. When people die, their spirit enters into an intermediate state of existence, either going to the presence of God (heaven) or a waiting place to be judged (hell; see the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus—Lk. 16:19-31). In other words, there is no intermediate state of the intermediate state. Demons, however, do roam the earth as does Satan. Demons will often manifest themselves in ways that will confuse people’s worldview and undermines the Christian message. If a person were to believe in ghosts, this is, at the very least, a compromise with regards to proper Christian eschatology (beliefs in the here-after). Demons may appear as those who have previously died—even animals—in order to disenchant people about the afterlife, making the Christian worldview conflict with personal experience. These demons may communicate with a knowledge of the lives of those whom they are impersonating, giving the definite impression that they must be identified with that person.

Therefore, according to this view, it is unbiblical and destructive to believe in ghosts in the popular sense. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

We have had so many people who missed the special and are asking for a special dispensation that we have decided to open up this special again for the next 24 hours.

The Theology Program will not be offered again at this price for some time. Take advantage now.

1. The Theology Program Special Continues

NOTE TO HOMESCOOLERS: The Theology Program is the perfect addition to your curriculum. Get your kids solidified in Christian theology early.

This is our biggest special ever. The entire Theology Program for $359! That is over 50% savings when sold separately. Homeschoolers, don’t miss this. Seminary level theological training from your own home. For everyone! Included: Introduction to Theology: Ten 1.2 hour DVDs and Student Workbook. Bibliology and Hermeneutics: Ten 1.2 hour DVDs and Student Workbook. Trinitarianism: Ten 1.2 hour DVDs and Student Workbook. Humanity and Sin: Ten 1.2 hour DVDs and Student Workbook. Soteriology: Ten 1.2 hour DVDs and Student Workbook. Ecclesiology and Eschatology: Ten 1.2 hour DVDs and Student Workbook. That is more than 70 hours of high quality theological education. Get what J.P. Moreland calls, “The Theology Program is the best thing I have seen to date.” Chuck Swindoll says, “If it is your desire to understand what you believe and why you believe it, then The Theology Program is for you. Here you will learn the basic principles of how to think biblically. TTP takes theology from the top shelf and places it where it belongs–where everyone can reach it.” Bob says, “I grew up in a Christian home, attended college on a Christian campus, have attended church all of my life, and have been a subscriber and reader of Christianity Today and Christian History for a decade and an half and no where have I been exposed to the level of teaching that we are experiencing in the TTP. It is unique. I have been blessed.” Purchase now. Or Donate.

Purchase your now! First 15 orders receive a Theology Program cap! (That is all we have left!)

2. Donate $300 or more and we will send you this collectors item. (Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.) If the response is good, we will start on another (Bodmer II p66 A.D. 200, John 1). These are also wonderful teaching aids.

Find out more about the p52

Send post as PDF to

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

        

A couple of weeks ago I was asked by a friend from out of state to look at a book, Under Cover by John Bevere, although the book is not new it is just now making the rounds among the leadership of his church. This friend is a layman who has been a Christian for many years and has seen many fads and movements come and go, as have I. He reacted quite strongly to the teaching as it is being explained around his church noting that those who are reading the book are insisting that God speaks to our pastor and our pastor speaks to us. We have no right to question what the pastor says. We are bound to submit and obey. He saw great similarity between this teaching, on spiritual authority and covering=spiritual protection with the Shepherding Movement/Discipleship Movement of the 1970’s and 80’s which was founded by Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Charles Simpson and Don Basham as a result of moral failure in a charismatic ministry in South Florida.

The teachings of the movement focused upon accountability, obedience and submission to spiritual authority. From the idea of submission to authority, to the equating of the authority of the leader to the authority of God, has proven historically to be a short step. What happens is that the leader’s voice is equated with the voice of God and those who disagree are seen as in rebellion. In the Shepherding Movement, this step was taken and the movement became controlling and abusive. Ultimately both Mumford and Prince repented of their errors in teaching and left the movement.

Another movement with similar practices founded in 1979 was the Boston Movement. (renamed :International Churches of Christ (ICC)). New members are required to meet with older members daily. New members who disagree with older members are told they are rebelling against God. Submission to church leaders is demanded. New members are told whom to date, how to spend their money and how to spend their free time. In 2003 Kip McKean founder of the Boston Movement resigned confessing that the church leaders “[had] engaged in financial mismanagement, legalism, dishonest statistical reporting, and abusive teachings, and have ignored critics.”

Last week I talked to my pastor, who although he is solidly Reformed in his theology now, comes out of a Pentecostal background. He shared that this type of teaching is common in Pentecostal circles noting that within Pentecostalism there is a love of invoking OT imagery and drawing theological conclusions from that imagery without taking into account a substantial discontinuity between the ways God established for Israel and the fact that there has been a tremendous change under the New Covenant inaugurated by the “Christ Event” (the death, resurrection & ascension) followed by the inauguration of the church at Pentecost. Drawing upon OT imagery Pentecostalism stresses particularly the authority/power/rights of the minister as God’s anointed one.

Bevere’s thesis is that submission to spiritual authority gives covering and protection. Conversly, to disobey spiritual authority is to place oneself in the arena of Satan with the clear implication that one who disobeys by failing to submit to spiritual authority is open to demonic attack. The same is true if the spiritual authority is challenged. He says:

“If those under authority take the yoke of judgment upon themselves as judges over their established leaders, they no longer are submitted to established authority, but have elevated themselves as judges over their leaders. Their hearts are lifted up in pride above the ones God placed over them. They have exalted themselves over the ordinance and counsel of God.” (116)

Bevere makes many good, right and true points. We do not live in a spiritual democracy and authority is something with which we as twenty-first century Americans have great problems with. Living less than 20 miles from UC Berkeley I regularly see bumper stickers with the slogan “Question Authority” boldly emblazoned on them. But although I recognize this as a problem I have serious problems with Bevere’s approach and his whole thesis on several different levels, some methodological, some exegetical, some theological. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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

        

This refers to the method of conducting a Sunday morning church service where all the events surrounding the service are tailored with the unchurched in mind. The goal of this model is to attempt to make the “seeker” feel comfortable by making the service understandable and enjoyable. In this sense, the church is attempting to build a bridge with the unbeliever with the ultimate goal that they will hear the Gospel and be saved. The preaching model in the seeker churches follows suit. Every sermon is simply another way to present the Gospel. Deeper learning, fellowship, and discipleship are encouraged but are not normally part of the Sunday service. They are commonly found in mid-week small groups and studies. Opponents of the seeker model will argue that the Sunday service is not meant to be for the unbelievers, but for believers. There is a wide range within the spectrum of how seeker-sensitive a church might be. One end might be thought of as “seeker-friendly” and the other “seeker-driven.”

(also: “seeker-friendly,” “seeker churches,” and “seeker-driven”)

Just in case you missed my post about this at iMonk.com, here is what I said:

How has the “seeker” emphasis affected your perception of your congregation’s worship services?

I am from a tradition (Dallas Seminary-type Bible/Community Church) that is not too friendly toward the idea of “seeker friendly.” When Rick Warren’s book Purpose Driven Church first came out, it was critiqued very heavily in these parts (boarding on anathema!), and it was very moderately seeker sensitive compared to much of what is now going on in Evangelicalism! My tradition believes that the actual church service on Sunday Morning is for the believer, not so much for the unbeliever (this is key). Believers are to go out into the world with the message of Jesus Christ. Therefore, our purpose is not to attract the world to the church building or Sunday Service. For example, the church service itself is not the church, it is a particular function of the church. Christians do not go to church, we are the church. People themselves are to be seeker friendly, not the church service. Church service is to perform a particular function of covenant renewal among believers. This comes through discipleship, fellowship, and worship. To make the church service seeker friendly is like trying to make a court room seeker friendly in order to attract the outside world. There is a particular purpose of the court. Outsiders are welcome, but their presence will not detract or manipulate the main objective. The ultimate evangelistic goal is not to make people come to church, but for the church to be salt and light as the people of God in every situation. Yet, at the same time, we are not naïve enough to think that all those who come to the church or are members of the church are all truly Christian. The church is filled with non-Christian members. As well, we welcome anyone to come, therefore there will be seekers in attendance. For this reason, the essence of the Gospel will often be communicated during every church service. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

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