Dr Paul Allen

“Excuse me, can you repeat what you just said?” I was certain I heard him wrong. “ . . . ” “So you’re saying that if we are struggling consistently with sexual sin, we should wean ourselves off of it by sinning in moderation? If we do said sin six times a week, you’re telling us to limit it to five per week for a time, then to four, three, two, until zero?” The leader of a highly recommended program for male Christian purity reiterated the sentiment as everyone around me nodded at the sage’s words. After all, we just heard Jimmy’s video testimony about how he went from sinning several times a day to only sinning, well, several times a month. The strategy must work. The friend who brought me braced himself. “With all due respect, you can’t be serious.  Do you know what sin is? ” As he continued to talk, it was evident that he did not. To him, making provision for the flesh several times a week was, in the end,  beneficial  to our holiness. To him, a couple of s

One of the most devastating attacks on the life and health of the church throughout all of church history has been what is known as the ecumenical movement—the downplaying of doctrine in order to foster partnership in ministry between (a) genuine Christians and (b) people who were willing to call themselves Christians but who rejected fundamental Christian doctrines. In the latter half of the 19 th  century, theological liberalism fundamentally redefined what it meant to be a Christian. It had nothing to do, they said, with believing in doctrine. It didn’t matter if you believed in an inerrant Bible; the scholarship of the day had debunked that! It didn’t matter if you believed in the virgin birth and the deity of Christ ; modern science disproved that! It didn’t matter if you embraced penal substitutionary atonement; blood sacrifice and a wrathful God are just primitive and obscene, and besides, man is not fundamentally sinful but basically good! What mattered was one’s exp

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Does it matter whether the Bible is errant or inerrant, fallible or infallible, inspired or uninspired? What's all the fuss about the doctrine of inerrancy? Why do Christians debate this issue? What difference does an inerrant Bible make? Before answering that question, we should consider in what way inerrancy doesn't make a difference. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states: We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith . We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ . We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the church ( Article 19 ). The statement strikes a delicate balance. It affirms that the doctrine of i

J.F. Rutherford (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy , led by Dr. Jim Boice, was a milestone in the history of the church. Out of the incredible array of people who gathered there, came the ‘Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.’ We have a whole generation now who have not really fought the battle for inerrancy. Therefore, it is time for us to raise the standard again.  1) First, the Bible is attacked and we are called to defend it. The New Testament repeatedly warns of the threat of false teachers. The greatest threat comes not from hostile forces outside but from hostile forces inside. There is no greater offense (stumbling block) than to cause people to question the veracity, inerrancy, or authority of Scripture. We expect offenses against the Scripture from the world. There is in the heart of every sinner a natural hatred toward the Word of God. It is serious to offend by causing people to doubt the veracity of Scripture. This is where Satan