I recently heard that depression is greater today than any other time in history. It is said that today we have more depression—ten times as much—than during the “Great Depression” of the 1940s. Are we living in the “Greater Depression”?

Here are some stats:

• Depressive disorders affect approximately 18.8 million American adults or about 9.5% of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year. This includes major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, and bipolar disorder. (NIMH. “The Numbers Count: Mental Illness in America,” Science on Our Minds Fact Sheet Series.)
• Everyone, will at some time in their life be affected by depression—their own or someone else’s, according to Australian Government statistics. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1998. “National Health Priority Areas Mental Health: A Report Focusing on Depression.” Depression statistics in Australia are comparable to those of the US and UK.)
• Pre-schoolers are the fastest-growing market for antidepressants. At least four percent of preschoolers—over a million—are clinically depressed. (Study published in Psychiatric Services, April 2004. Reported in our health news archive: Pill-Popping Pre-Schoolers, Even Toddlers Get the Blues)
• The rate of increase of depression among children is an astounding 23% p.a. (Harvard University study reported in Harvard Mental Health Newsletter, February 2002.)
• 15% of the population of most developed countries suffers severe depression. (World Health Organization (WHO) report quoted in BBC-Online January 9, 2001.)
• 30% of women are depressed. Men’s figures were previously thought to be half that of women, but new estimates are higher. (National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). “The Numbers Count: Mental Illness in America,” Science on Our Minds Fact Sheet Series.)
• 54% of people believe depression is a personal weakness. (National Mental Health Association (NMHA) study reported in MSNBC Health Today, March 10, 2004.)
• 41% of depressed women are too embarrassed to seek help. (NMHA Survey, 1996. NMHA factsheet on women and depression.)
• 80% of depressed people are not currently having any treatment. (“National Healthcare Quality Report”, 2003.)
• 92% of depressed African-American males do not seek treatment. (D F Bailey, and J L Moore, III. “Emotional Isolation, Depression, and Suicide Among African American Men: Reasons for Concern.” In C Rubin (Ed), Linking Lives Across Borders: Gender-Sensitive Practice in International Perspective, [Pacific Grove, CA Books/Cole].)
• 15% of depressed people will commit suicide. (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2003. “National Healthcare Quality Report.” This is a widely quoted statistic, though some experts such as Dr Christopher L Summerville, Executive Director of the Manitoba Schizophrenia Society, member of the Board of Directors of Mood Disorders of Canada, have cited higher figures.)
• Depression will be the second largest killer after heart disease by 2020 — and studies show depression is a contributory factor to fatal coronary disease. (WHO report on mental illness released October 4, 2001. Health news stories: Depression Link to Heart Disease, Hostility, Depression May Boost Heart Diseases)
• Depression results in more absenteeism than almost any other physical disorder and costs employers more than $51 billion per year in absenteeism and lost productivity, not including high medical and pharmaceutical bills. (According to a 2004 Rand Corporation report.)

Now, I’m confused. Continue Reading »

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is in financial need. Please consider a small (or large!) tax-deductable donation. Thanks for visiting!

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

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

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is known as the father of British utilitarianism, the belief that an act is good if it contributes to the happiness and welfare of the public. He is also associated with the foundation of the University of London. However, he is most famous today for the strange events after his death. When he died in 1832, his body was preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet called his Auto-icon. For the 100th and 150th anniversaries of the college, the Auto-icon was brought to the meeting of the College Council, where he was listed as “present but not voting.” The desires of Jeremy Bentham may seem strange to us but men have always tried to figure out the best way to leave this world or leave their mark on it. While it is doubtful that any of us will choose to be “stuffed,” there are other options out there that many are considering.

The two most common methods of handling the deceased are burial and cremation. Is cremation a viable alternative for a Christian concerned with properly picturing the hope of the gospel even in death? As with all issues, we must first go to the Scriptures. What does the Bible say about cremation? Not surprisingly, there are very few references to the practice. All are found in the Old Testament. Continue Reading »

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

The famous codex from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai, Egypt has begun to show up on the Internet. A joint project between the British Library, the University of Leipzig, the National Library in St. Petersburg, and St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai, Egypt, has been underway for some time now. All four institutes own portions of this manuscript (with the BL owning the largest section, the complete New Testament—which, incidentally, is the oldest complete New Testament by half a millennium!). The project to post these images on-line has involved new digital photography and some slick search-capable tools.

One can see the images already posted by going to this site: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/

Unfortunately, only selections from the codex are on-line currently. The entire codex should be up by July 2009.

CSNTM has the complete NT on its site, but our images are digital photographs from the 1911 black-and-white folio photographs (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/). Continue Reading »

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

Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #3 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

#3 If I become a Christian, it will make me happy.

Is this true? Listen to what they we have to say. (Forget Lindsey’s comments at the end )

 

 Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because it will make me happy [26:59m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1206)

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

In his book Almighty Over All (Baker, 1999), R.C. Sproul Jr. makes some controversial statements—ones that appear to be sub-biblical. What tipped me off to this was hearing a paper presentation at a conference in April in New Orleans. R.C. Sproul Jr. was being quoted, and I shocked at what I heard. Though the paper presentation came from a reliable source (Dr. Ken Keathley of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest), I wanted be like the Bereans of Acts 17 and check out Sproul Jr.’s work myself—especially if I wanted to offer some reflections on this topic.

As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:

Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know (Chosen by God [1986], p. 30).

Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.

Sproul Jr., however, wants to get to the bottom of the matter and weigh in on what he takes to be the source of evil: God! Continue Reading »

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

I’m in England right now, photographing ancient New Testament manuscripts housed at various colleges of Cambridge University. The name ‘Cambridge’ evokes respect, wonder, even a certain awe. It’s a conglomerate of 31 colleges, spreading out from the 13th century on, and sprawling out from the center of town (which is, technically, Great St Mary’s Church, across from King’s College). (One of the most recent, Darwin College, is shaped like Noah’s ark to mock the biblical story of the flood and creation. But Trinity College, where Isaac Newton taught, allows no Trinitarians into its halls; I understand that one has to be an atheist, or at least an agnostic to be a part of that college, whose focus is mostly on mathematics and the sciences.) The street names change every block—a most irritating feature for those of us who are already directionally challenged. (When I was living here during one of my sabbaticals, when walking home from the grocery store one day I got so lost that the milk soured by the time I got home!) But the street names also have a certain logic for they are often named after the most prominent institute on that street. Thus, King’s Parade is named after King’s College; Queens’ Lane after Queens’ College, etc.

Well, after a terribly busy week shooting manuscripts, we decided to take a break on Saturday and visit the Orchard in Grantchester, just a couple miles from Cambridge. The Orchard is on a spot that has been frequented by Cambridge students and alumni for over seven hundred years. But in the early twentieth century, it took on a new significance. A shack was bought by an entrepreneurial litterateur (Rupert Brooke, poet) who shared it with his colleages. Seven friends would come here frequently to talk about life, love, logic, and literature. Famous friends, too: Forster and Virginia Woolf, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maynard Keynes (economist), and Augustus John (artist).

These were not your normal pillars of the community. They were wild, creative, energetic, passionate, troubled, deeply feeling individuals. Wittgenstein, the brilliant logician-philosopher, came from a family full of musicians and artists, and full of inner turmoil. Three of his four brothers had committed suicide. Virginia Woolf, the novelist, was in many ways a free spirit—freedom that bore deep and passionate literary fruit. She later committed suicide because of the challenges of facing depression. Bertrand Russell, a genius in math, logic, and philosophy, and a social activist whose views anticipated the great social revolutions of the 60s, fit in well with this group. Augustus John lived with two wives and ten naked children who ran wild in the woods near Cambridge. And the list goes on. But my point is simple: these were creative geniuses, social odd-balls, comrades in countercultural values. But they weren’t just that; they also changed the world in which we live. They changed the way we think and talk about life, love, logic, and literature.

So here we were, sitting at a table having tea and crumpets at the world-famous Orchard, thinking about the great thinkers who had gone before. And we wrestled with the thread that seemed to bind them all together: they were not normal. They were troubled souls, in deep turmoil, social outcasts to some degree, yet with such innate qualities that society could not ignore them. In the end, society embraced their views and their lifestyles and those of others like them in other orchards in other parts of the world.

It got me to thinking: First Continue Reading »

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

This came from one of our readers. I thought it was worth sharing considering my last post.

Let me give you a brief back ground of myself. I was raised in an extremely fundamentalist Baptist home where everything was cut and dry and very dogmatic. Doubt and questions of theology were generally met with a polemic attitude. The King James Bible was the only bible allowed in the home and my dad was a firm believer in spare the rod spoil the child. I did not necessarily see the love of God in our home only a dogmatic system of living.

Needless to say my teenage and young adult years brought about swift rebellion to God and everything I was “told” to believe. I DO NOT blame my dad for this rebellion but I do partially blame the system in which my sisters and I were taught our theology. It seemed everything from smoking, drinking, gambling, wearing anything but a suit to church would send one straight to hell.

I was blessed to have a family who worship God and one who tried to raise their children in a Godly manner. This is what I believe brought me back to my knees in search of my Lord and Savior. Sadly, my younger sister is still in rebellion. Continue Reading »

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

The central motivating factor in my ministry over the last ten years has been the need for Christians to engage the intellectual side of the faith with more confidence, hope, and joy. I began The Theology Program in 2001 which now is in hundreds of churches and has effected tens of thousands of people. I can barely keep up with the demands of this ministry as its need and potential becomes more evident each and every day.

The intellectual side of Christianity.

With all of this success, one inevitably finds those who continue to place much needed anchors in my mission. While I believe what I am doing has been given to me by God, I also understand that the intellect is not all there is. In fact, while I want to produce more confidence, hope, and joy in the lives of believers, I also want to instill a deep sense of humility. Theology done right should always produce a confident humility. Theology done wrong produces an ironically insecure emotional confidence that is made up of what I call “cut-and-paste” theology and apologetics (”just give me the answers, I don’t care how we get them”). Continue Reading »

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

I know that the title is provocative, but please understand that I am serious in this question. At this point, I believe that it is very difficult for Roman Catholics who hold to Transubstantiation (is there any other kind of Roman Catholic!) to find harmony with a basic principle in the Definition of Chalcedon. In other words, I believe that Catholics are at odds with some essential elements of orthodox Christology.

Having said that, it may be that I am misunderstanding things (this would not be a first).  So I write this post with the intention of informing my audience of a very intriguing issue, giving them a better look at Chalcedonian Christology, and giving an opportunity to Catholics to give an answer to this issue (if there are any that happen by—and there usually are).

I am going to explain the issue and I want all of you to hang with me through some deep waters. I will try to navigate you to a point where you understand why I believe (tentatively) that Catholics deny Chalcedon because of their view of Mass.

Component #1:

Orthodoxy has historically claimed that Christ is fully God and fully man. This is not an arbitrary pronouncement or belief, but is one that is central to an understanding of the Gospel.

Short history lesson. Continue Reading »

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

In the beginning, God created man. When he was created, he was pure and holy. He was created for a purpose. God, the one true sovereign and benevolent being, created man in order to give of His loving nature. But man was deceived by evil and fell into sin. This sin affected man and all of his offspring to the point that he was no longer able to serve God as he was created to. He hated God by nature. . .

But God did not abandon man. Nor did He abandon all the hopes and plans that He had for man. Instead, He made a promise. This promise involved a covenant to redeem man from his fall into sin and restore him to the dignity and hopes that He had originally desired. He told Eve (the first woman) that, despite the fall, He would send One who would crush the head of the serpent, even as the serpent crushed his heel (Gen. 3:15). This promise was to send a Redeemer who would, essentially, clean up the mess by undoing what they had done.

In order to accomplish this, many years later, He made another promise to an idol worshiper named Abraham. He promised Abraham that he was going to bless the world through him. He said that kings and rulers would come from him. Most importantly, He said that the Redeemer would come through his line. Through Abraham, God created a nation and called it Israel. To this nation, God made a covenant to be their God and to spread His Word through them. They were the entrusted vessels of God’s message. Through the nation of Israel, God further confirmed and extended His promise through a young shepherd boy named David. To David, God gave the kingdom of Israel. He also covenanted to send the Redeemer through David’s line.

In spite of the rebellion and constant betrayal of His chosen people, Israel, God covenanted yet again, and, again, further extended the blessing that began in the Garden. This time He said that He was going to change people’s hearts by making them become more like Him. In His words, “I will write my law upon their heart and I will be their God” (Jer. 31:31-33).

Five hundred years later, God sent the One whom He had covenanted to send, and this One, as it turned out, was His own Son. He was both everything that God is and everything that man was, yet without sin. To the dismay of many, He did not set up the Kingdom as they thought He came to do, but He first set up a Kingdom in the hearts of His people by dying on a cross and purchasing their redemption from sin and betrayal. After His death, He rose again, showing that the redemption was accomplished. He undid what Adam had done.

After His resurrection, He sent the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, who is also everything that God is, to indwell all those who believed and followed the Redeemer, so that they would have power to spread the message of redemption. He entrusted to them the Gospel message, as it came to be known, and called them the Church.

The Church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is now the bearer of the Good News of God’s covenanted redemption. They are His representatives here on the earth. God the Son told the Church to tell others about Him until He comes back. When He comes back, He will then set up His Kingdom and destroy all evil and death, the final foe. The Church now eagerly awaits His coming, as they fight for the Kingdom.

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

A guest post by Daniel Eaton at Theologica. Being from Dallas Seminary, we were breed to loath seeker churches. Yet I do have my thoughts as well that I will follow this up with. I look forward to your interaction.

I think there is a growing schism in the American church. The schism isn’t over theology, but methodology. A growing number of “seeker friendly” churches are on one side, and a firmly entrenched group of traditional churches are on the other. The increasing shrillness about the “seeker friendly” format somehow reminds me of church splits over what kind of music or musical instruments in the church. I think a lot of it comes down to a view that if it worked for my Grandad’s generation, then three hymns, a choir number, a sermon about the dangers in our society, and 27-stanzas of Just As I Am should be sufficient today. It’s the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.

But the problem is that it *is* broke. That format no longer appeals to the masses. That method is becoming harder and harder to use in order to get the message out. The sad truth is that the average tattooed or pierced unsaved person does not feel welcome or accepted if they attend the traditional church. It is an atmosphere of condemnation of those that don’t dress or look like everyone else there. This unsaved Seeker isn’t going to stick around. Instead, he is going to leave with a sense that the Christian church is full of a bunch of condemning hypocrites. Continue Reading »

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

Fall 2008 Semester
please note, this is online students only

to find out more about the online program, go here

Spread the word!

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

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 by 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.

I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the site of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain. Continue Reading »

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

I know that it is very common within popular evangelicalism to say that all sins are equal in the sight of God. Most find this theological concept very appealing and accept it, I am afraid to say, without doing much homework. I think this tendency comes by means of two influences.

1) A reaction by Protestants against the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal sins (sins that kill justifying grace) and venial sin (sins of a lesser nature that do not kill justifying grace) and

2) a tendency within our church culture to find a way to say that we are all equally in need of God’s grace and that all sin is extremely serious in God’s eyes (which is true).

However, I don’t believe that all sin is equal in God’s sight. I also believe that telling people that it is does great damage to the character of God and the seriousness of certain sins. There are many reasons for this, but let me start with a reductio ad absurdum and them move to a biblical argument. Continue Reading »

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

If you are like me, you are concerned about the future of the church and its ability to define and distinguish itself (most particularly, the Evangelical church). While God is in control of all things, we have a responsibility as Christians to see to it that we are doing everything we can to discharge the Gospel in a faithful way. We are to make disciples, not simply converts.

We are suffering from the dumbing down of truth in favor of entertainment, professionalism, and a general apathy toward truth and intellectual discipleship. Being so concerned with what the outside world thinks the moment they enter the church, we have lost site of who they are years later.

We are scared of big words, concepts, and intellectual challenges because we fear that those who hear them will cry “arrogance” or will simply leave our gathering in favor of one that plays the game at a elementary level. We fear our passions believing that they will facilitate a separatist mentality that will not be accepted among our postmodern youth who value a pluralistic approach to truth rather than the previous generation’s exclusivism.

I am not saying that there is not value in entertainment. I like to laugh and have fun. I am not saying that we should not value the excellence of professionalism. We should do all things to the best of our ability to the glory of God. And I am not saying that we should not be sensitive to the culture and its general suspicion of all truth claims. We all have been burnt in the past. But when we live in fear of those whom we are supposed to lead, the leader becomes the follower and the follower becomes the leader.

more to come…

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

How does one determine if someone is a heretic? Is this a word that should be used today when Christianity seems to be so pluralistic with regards to levels of commitment, beliefs, and practices?

Today’s theological word of the day (which I write ) says this about heresy:

“An opinion, belief, or doctrine that is in variance to an established belief of a particular tradition. In Christianity, a heresy can have a historic value (more serious) or traditional value. In other words, a belief can be considered heretical to Baptists (e.g. paedeobaptism), but is not heretical in the historic sense. To be a historic heresy, it would have to be in variance to that which has been believed by the majority of Christians of all time (e.g. the deity of Christ).”

Because many of us use the word heresy in such a cavalier or domineering way, it has begun to lose its value. At least once a day, it seems, I hear someone calling someone else a heretic for something that is not really deserving of the term. These will say someone is a heretic for being too strong of a Calvinist, for believing theistic evolution, for saying that drinking alcohol is not a sin, for denying inerrancy, or for denying their version of free will. Soon, I am sure I will hear that jumping too high on the trampoline will be considered heresy. Continue Reading »

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

Here is the Apologetics course that Rob Bowman taught last semester. Please feel free to listen or download. It is the entire course! (here is the syllabus if you want it)

Enroll in the Methods of Apologetics online course taught by Rob Bowman that starts next week.

 

 Introduction to Apologetics Session 1a [47:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (415)

 

 Introduction to Apologetics Session 1b [38:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (231)

 

 Introduction to Apologetics Session 2a [46:43m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (225)

 

 Introduction to Apologetics Session 2b [45:13m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (191)

 

 Introduction to Apologetics Session 3a [50:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (220)

For some reason the podpress plugin will not let me post them all the same way so the rest are just links here: (right-click to download) Continue Reading »

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

1. Strong teaching of Scripture: This is of first importance. If the seminary does not graduate students who know the Bible and know it well, then they don’t emphasis its importance or do not have a competent faculty to do so. This usually involves the combined effort of three departments: Biblical Studies, New Testament, and Old Testament. The Biblical Studies department will take one though the entire Bible, book by book. You will not only read through the entirety of Scripture, but you will learn each books purpose, structure, genre characteristics, and argument. In the New and Old Testament departments you will learn how to do “exegesis.” Exegesis involves more detailed interpretive issues including a study of the text in the original languages (Greek for the New Testament, Hebrew for the Old Testament). Without these, can it even be called a seminary?

2. Balanced Theology Department: One of the biggest problems with many seminaries is that they don’t have balance in their presentation of theology. Their agenda is to make you a particular type of theologian. I don’t have too much of a problem with a seminary having a confession or reputation of holding to a particular tradition or sub-tradition (e.g. Reformed, Baptist, Dispensational). The problem arises when their passions for this tradition cause them to skew the theological landscape to their favor. This type of intellectual dishonesty has no place in the training of leaders. The theology department must be confident enough to give people a balanced perspective, representing all relevant views with the clarity of its adherents. By doing so the seminary creates an atmosphere where true learning and true conviction can take place. It also keeps its graduates from becoming unnecessarily divisive over non-essential issues, keeping the focus on the Gospel. The Holy Spirit will create the convictions for his purpose when truth is taught with balance. The seminary needs to trust him enough to do so. Continue Reading »

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

For those of you who want to take the Online Introduction to Theology course but don’t have the money to enroll ($100), we have scholarships that have been donated by some generous donors. These are available on a first-come-first-serve basis. Tell your friends or anyone you know that might be interested. Classes start next week!

To find out more about this course, go here.

Contact Carrie Hunter to inquire.

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

Earlier this summer, Brian Burgess, our Minister of Outreach, taught a two-part series on “Things God Never Said About Evangelism.” He did an outstanding job and I encourage you to listen to his remarks from both messages. In last night’s Equipping University, we learned that one of the things God never said is “Since I am sovereign, I don’t need your help in evangelism.” Of course, this raised a few issues and probably not a few hackles. One question was asked early and any reformed theologian worth his salt knows exactly which question it was:  “Well, if God is sovereign and He has already chosen who will be saved, then why should I bother to witness?”

When Brian and I discussed this over lunch prior to the class, I told him that no orthodox believer is really going to think God ever said such a thing. Now, a hyper-Calvinist will believe that ridiculous statement but Hyper-calvinism is not Christian. By the way, a hyper-Calvinist is not a Calvinist who really believes the doctrines of Calvinism. With that in mind, we must note that believers will fall into different categories as to WHY they think God would never utter that sentence. Some would say that God is sovereign but has freely “given up” (not the best choice of words) part of that sovereignty to ensure that man engages Him of man’s own libertarian free will. I, on the other hand, would reject that sentence because while God is sovereign He gives up none of it. Yet that same extensive sovereignty in no way interferes with that fact that man is responsible for his sins. Let these three statements be true: God is sovereign in all of salvation, man is responsible, and Christians are to witness and pray. Continue Reading »

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