Dr Paul Allen

Modalism (also called Sabellianism or Modalistic Monarchianism) teaches that God is one Person who reveals himself in different modes or roles. It strictly affirms one God but completely denies three distinct Persons. A Modalist believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the exact same Person, only wearing different masks. According to this ancient heresy, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three co-existing divine Persons, but a single God with no threeness, only oneness. In contrast, Trinitarianism says God eternally co-exists as three Persons of one nature. Modalism holds that God is a single being who sometimes appears as the Father, the Son, or the Spirit. The big distinction here is that Modalism rejects three Persons. In Modalism, there’s one God, one essence, one Person. These three manifestations of God are not co-eternal or co-existing. According to Modalism, God reveals Himself in the Old Testament as the Father. God in the Old Testament does not reveal himself as the So...

Did Paul Silence Women? The Greeks say it’s More Complicated Than That.  What If Paul Never Said What We Think He Said About Women? Before you stop reading, let me be clear: This is not an attack on Scripture. Or even another denomination.  This is not an attack on the King James Version.  And this is not an attempt to make the Bible fit modern culture.  This is a challenge to do what faithful Christians have always been called to do: Go back to the text. Go back to the languages. Go back to the context. Some refuse to do so.  The Reformers called it ad fontes—“back to the sources.”  Ironically, some of the same Christians who celebrate the Reformation’s return to the original languages become uncomfortable when those original languages challenge long-held assumptions. Yet returning to the Greek and Hebrew is not liberalism.  It is Reformation Christianity at its best.  Translation matters. Not because Scripture changes. But our understanding of S...

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTION ASKED: What would have happened if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of the knowledge? Would there still be original sin? How would they have been able to have children without eating from the tree? DICK HARFIELD'S RESPONSE: In point of fact, Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of knowledge. I can say this with complete assurance because the story of the Garden of Eden is known to be a myth that was adapted from the much older Epic of Gilgamesh. The concept of original sin was developed by Augustine of Hippo in the Christian era, but was not fully adopted as doctrine by the Orthodox Church or by Judaism (the religion in which the story was originally written).  MY RESPONSE: The answer provided by Harfield contains a mix of solid points and some claims that warrant closer scrutiny. The answer provided by Harfield contains a mix of solid points and some claims that warrant closer scrutiny. What holds up well: Correctly noting that original sin as a formal doctri...

QUESTION:   The Book of Isaiah describes events of the Babylonian Exile and even mentions Cyrus by name. Given that the prophet Isaiah lived centuries before the Babylonian Exile, that ought to be surprising. Biblical scholars have looked at changes in style, vocabulary and historical interest to establish that the Book of Isaiah was originally three separate books written by three separate authors over a long period of time. Isaiah, son of Amoz, only wrote chapters 1–39, apart from some alterations and insertions within those chapters. Two other, anonymous authors wrote the remainder of the book. Another instance is the Book of Daniel, which appears to predict quite accurately the events immediately before 167 BCE. Still, neither mentions what happens immediately after that time nor is it at all accurate regarding the history of the Babylonian Exile, the time during which the story is set. Biblical scholars have established that the book must have been written around 167 BCE, as i...

Dick Harfield writes answers to theological questions on Quora. As a self-declared atheist, his responses follow a recognisable pattern: vague where precision is needed, occasionally accurate, but consistently thin on detail. He habitually invokes the phrase "most theologians today believe" without attribution, and on the rare occasions he does cite sources, they tend to be liberal, non-believing scholars who share his sceptical presuppositions — a kind of circular credentialing. His approach to engagement is equally revealing. He disables debate on his answers, insulating himself from challenge, and his followers tend to reinforce rather than interrogate his conclusions, often using his answers as a platform to sneer at orthodox Christianity rather than examine it seriously. The question below is a good illustration. It is a genuinely interesting theological question — but Harfield misreads its context entirely, arriving at a confident conclusion while missing the point th...

There are hundreds of passages in Scripture about abuse. Abuse is woven throughout Scripture, offering rich teaching on what abuse is, how it affects us, and how God responds to it. What is abuse? Abuse is a dark topic. But it can only be rightly understood against a positive backdrop: Abuse, at its core, involves the diabolical corruption of God’s very good creation. Genesis 1–2 recounts the magnificent way God made humans, male and female, in his image and likeness. That image gives us innate dignity and worth. Abuse attacks and distorts—though it does not eliminate—this. It strikes at the very essence of who we are as image bearers. God entrusts his image bearers with power. Abuse inverts this: Power is used to exploit and harm. Abuse is also always a misuse of our God-given power. In the creation account, the second command given to the man and woman involves having dominion over all of creation (Gen 1:28). God entrusts his image bearers with power—physical, relational, sexual, eco...