Dr Paul Allen

Has the glory of God become a cliché? The vocabulary of glory is on the rise, but certain misunderstandings and imbalances linger. Will "the glory of God" become a cliché, much like "the love of God " to the previous generation, which too often reduced love to sentimentality? It is encouraging to hear much about God's glory as his ultimate end. I rejoice that many are captured by God's glory as the ultimate end, as it is the goal of creation; the exodus; Israel ; Jesus' ministry , life, death, resurrection, and reign; our salvation; the church; the consummation; all of salvation history; and even God himself.  Paul often highlights this cosmic goal: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" ( Rom. 8:29 ); "all things were created through him and for him" ( Col. 1:16 ; cf.  Rom. 11:33-36 ;  Heb. 2:10 ). While there is a

Baptism of Christ. Jesus is baptized in the Jordan River by John. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) What should I do if I become convinced that I might have been born again  after  my baptism? That can be a tricky question (for baptists, at least). There are a lot of people who end up being baptized two, three or four times. The Gospel Coalition recently shared two answers to the question, one from a  credobaptist  (a person who holds that baptism should follow conversion) and one from a  paedobaptist  (who holds that infants should be baptized). Have you read J.D. Greear’s book  Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart  and found his answer to the question very helpful? What do you do about baptism if you think that you might have been “born again” after  your first one? There are several answers to this question, depending on your particular situation. If your baptism occurred as an infant, I think the answer is clear: you should be baptized again. Your infant baptism was more a symb

That question is not just a matter of moral theory — it also informs our most urgent political and cultural debates. Back in May, columnist Eric Zorn of The Chicago Tribune asserted: “To me, immoral conduct is that which harms others, period.” That seems to be a straightforward statement, especially in light of its context. Zorn was writing a column in which he dismissed common arguments against same-sex marriage. In his concluding section he argued, “I will not debate the morality of various forms of private sexual conduct between consenting adults and neither should our lawmakers.” Since no one is harmed, Zorn argues, there is no real moral issue with respect to the sexual activities of consenting adults. In truth, a good many people agree with him. His logic is encapsulated in the 2003 U. S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that invalidated all laws against homosexuality. I am fairly confident that the vast majority would be tempted to accept Zorn’s argument. My gues