Dr Paul Allen

Richard Simmons III Previously, I have written a blog on the universe's fine-tuning. Since then, I have done more research on this subject and have concluded that in the realm of modern science, this is theism’s most potent argument for God fact; two of the most celebrated atheists to ever live, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins both acknowledged that the fine-tuning of the universe is the most troubling argument that atheists have to deal with. What is fine-tuning? Fine-tuning, as it applies to the universe, is the idea that the conditions allow life to exist only when certain universal constants lie within a narrow range of values. If any of the several constants were only slightly different, the universe would unlikely be conducive to establishing life. All modern scientists agree that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. There are so many aspects of the universe that, even if only minutely altered, life could not exist. The universe we live in appears to have be

  Ecclesiastes 12:7 There is great confusion about the meaning of Ecclesiastes 12:7 because many readers do not understand that the book of Ecclesiastes is written from the perspective of a man without God. So,  statements in the book are often inaccurate for a believer. For example, Ecclesiastes 2:24 says, There is nothing better for a man than to eat, drink and tell himself that his labour is good. Ecclesiastes 2:24 (NASB) That is an accurate statement for the unbeliever because life on this earth is their heaven. After the unbeliever dies, he or she is going to hell (Romans 6:23). For in 1 Corinthians 15:32, the apostle Paul tells us that if there is no resurrection for believers, then we should give ourselves to eating and drinking. We believe that when King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, he did not fully love God with all his heart (1 Kings 11:6-10). Eventually, he repented and loved the Lord with all his heart near the end of his life (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). So, we must understand

Christian life as a life lived between two worlds. The New Testament tells us that believers are citizens of a heavenly country, having received a kingdom that cannot be shaken (Phil. 3:20; Heb. 12:28–29).  At the same time, the New Testament also tells us that until the return of Christ, we retain a citizenship on earth, having responsibilities in this world even as we live as strangers and exiles in the present era (Rom. 13:1–7; Heb. 11:13).  Living as Christians in a manner pleasing to God, therefore, entails paying attention to both worlds in which we live, confident in our standing in Christ and in our future while not disdaining the present. Believers must explore various facets of what it means to live between these two worlds faithfully in service to the Lord, helping believers to act responsibly on earth even as their true home is in heaven.

Imagine a circle that represents the character of mankind. Now imagine that if someone sins, a spot—a moral blemish of sorts—appears in the circle, marring the character of man. If other sins occur, more blemishes appear in the circle. Well, if sins continue to multiply, eventually the entire circle will be filled with spots and blemishes. But have things reached that point? Human character is clearly tainted by sin, but the debate is about the extent of that taint. The Roman Catholic Church holds the position that man's character is not completely tainted, but that he retains a little island of righteousness. However, the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century affirmed that the sinful pollution and corruption of fallen man is complete, rendering us totally corrupt. There's a lot of misunderstanding about just what the Reformers meant by that affirmation. The term that is often used for the human predicament in classical Reformed theology is total depravity . Peop

“Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?” ( Job 4:18-19 ) This was the strange message delivered to Eliphaz , the first of the three friends who proved such “miserable comforters” to Job in his sufferings, by “a spirit” that “stood still, . . . an image . . . before mine eyes” (vv. 15-16). This “thing was secretly [literally ‘stealthily’] brought to me,” said Eliphaz (v. 12), and there is little doubt that its original source was Satan himself, in his efforts to discredit and destroy Job. The “spirit” who instructed Eliphaz was not sent from God , as he may have thought, but was one of those angelic servants who had been “charged with folly” when they followed Lucifer in his primeval rebellion. Still smarting with wounded pride that God would make His angels mere “ministering spirits” ( Hebrews 1:14 ) to Adam and his

Since the letter to the Hebrews specifically urges Christians to "fix your thoughts on Jesus " (Heb. 3:1, NIV ; cf. 12:2), it should not surprise us that the author describes Him in more than a dozen different ways. Jesus is "Son" (Heb. 1:2); "Lord" (Heb. 2:3); "Apostle and High Priest " (Heb. 3:1); "Christ" (Heb. 5:5); "source of eternal salvation " (Heb. 5:9, NIV); a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek " (Heb . 7: 11); a descendent of Judah (Heb . 7: 14); "a Minister ... of the true tabernacle" (Heb. 8:2); "the Mediator of the new covenant" (Heb . 9: 15 ; 12: 24); "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8); and the "great Shepherd of the sheep" (He b.13: 20). But perhaps the most intriguing title for Jesus in the letter is "author." He is called the "author of ... salvation" and the "author ... of our faith" (Heb .

I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.” ( Jeremiah 27:5 ) “The earth, the man and the beast” are the three entities which God is said to have “created” (Hebrew bara—note Genesis 1:1 , 21, 27) in the Genesis account of creation. However, they are also said in Genesis to have been “made” (Hebrew asah—note Genesis 1:25-26 ; 2:4), and that is the emphasis in our text above. Of course, both aspects were accomplished in the six days of creation week, after which God “rested from all his work which God created and made” ( Genesis 2:3 ). This statement makes it abundantly plain that the present processes of nature do not “create” (call into existence out of nothing) or “make” (build up into more complex forms) anything, as our modern theistic evolutionists and evangelical uniformitarians allege. God has rested from both of these works, except in occasional mira

Many professing evangelicals today believe the kingdom of God is strictly in the future, although there is no biblical foundation for that. This view robs the church of important teachings concerning the kingdom that are clearly set forth in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament opens with John the Baptist's announcement of the kingdom: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). The Old Testament prophets spoke of the kingdom to come at some point in the future, but at the time of John the Baptist, it was about to burst onto the scene. It was "at hand." If we examine John's message carefully, we see that his announcement of the kingdom contained urgent warnings: "Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees" (Matt. 3:10) and "His winnowing fork is in his hand" (Luke 3:17). Time was running out, and people were not ready. Christ came on the scene just a short time later with the same message: "The ti

English: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil עברית: חטא עץ הדעת - ד"ר לידיה קוזניצקי (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) There were two trees standing side by side in the garden of Eden which had a peculiar symbolical or sacramental character. The one was called the Tree of Life , the other the Tree of Knowledge.  The former was the symbol of life, and its fruit was not to be eaten except on the condition of man’s retaining his integrity. Whether the fruit of that tree had inherent virtue to impart life, i.e., to sustain the body of man in its youthful vigour and beauty, or gradually to refine it until it should become like to what the glorified body of Christ now is, or whether the connection between eating its fruit and immortality was simply conventional and sacramental, we cannot determine. It is enough to know that partaking of that tree secured in some way the enjoyment of eternal life .  That this was the fact is plain, not only because man after his transgression was d

One of the greatest difficulties in the Bible to many a student is found in the story contained in Joshua 10:12–14: “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel , and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun , stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon . And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.” Bishop Colenso wrote: “The miracle of Joshua is the most striking incident of Scripture and science being at variance.” It is said by destructive critics and infidels that this story cannot possibly be true; that if the sun were to stand still in the way here recorded

“And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.” ( Genesis 7:16 ) Many stirring books have been written on the general subject of the names of God. Most of the names make use of one or two of the three primary names. The first is Elohim , meaning “mighty one.” It is a uni-plural name—plural in form but singular in meaning and verb usage, suggesting the uni-plural nature of the triune Godhead , appearing in most English translations as “God.” It most often is used when worldwide events or attributes are discussed, including creation, judgment, sovereignty, transcendence, and salvation. The second is Jehovah , meaning “the self-existent one,” which appears as “LORD” in English translations. It stresses God’s holiness, nearness, concern for man (especially Israel ), hatred of sin, love of sinners, and His revelatory nature and communication. The third is Adonai , a more general term meaning master and used of both men

First, if it’s really true that Jesus is the way to Father and that no one comes to the Father except through him, ( Jn 14:6) then it seems that no other religious leader or religious doctrine can bring us to the Father. “The” is a definite article, and it implies singularity. “A dog” could refer to one of any number of dogs. But “the dog” can only refer to one particular dog. If Jesus is the Lord and Savior and the way to the Father, he’s the only one there is. This isn’t what most people in our relativistic, post-modern age want to hear. Debates in secular environments on issues related to the historical Jesus will always be cause a stir. Whenever you stand by the claim that Jesus is the only way to God you will be confronted with a certain amount of hostility.  To think there’s only one way to God, I am often told, is arrogant, ignorant, intolerant and dangerous. Everyone knows these days that there are many ways to God, at least for people who are sincere in what they be