Dr Paul Allen

 That the Son of God assumed or took on human flesh in what we call the incarnation is beyond dispute in orthodox Christian belief. But what kind of “flesh” did the Son of God assume unto himself when he became human? Was it fallen, sinful flesh, like yours and mine? Or was it unfallen flesh, devoid of the inherent sinful impulses that we all experience? In other words, were the temptations that Jesus encountered (Heb. 4:15) entirely external to himself, or did he resist promptings and temptations that arose from a fallen human nature within? That it was a human nature or flesh susceptible to the ravages of sin is undeniable. Although it was a genuine human nature, with all its limitations, a nature that was subject to hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue, and ultimately physical death, I’m persuaded that it was a nature free from the taint of original sin, a nature that in no way was disposed to or prompted by internal sinful urges. What Did Paul Mean? So, what does Paul mean when he says th

Monothelitism was the sort of the last issue in the question of how the human and divine natures related to one another in Jesus. The church had reached this consensus at Chalcedon, 451, that Jesus was one person uniting in himself two full and complete natures – a complete divine nature and a complete human nature. So that he was fully human and fully divine; wasn’t half-human, half-divine. He's fully human and fully divine . And, that did leave the church with tensions amongst some who thought to talk about two complete nature's ran too much risk of leaving you with two persons in Jesus . And since that turmoil continued to trouble the Church, a theologian or several theologians suggested that maybe a way forward would be to say Jesus has two natures but he only has one will. Monothelitism is the teaching that Jesus has only one will. And the other position, of course, was, Dyothelitism that Jesus has two wills. Now, this led to a fair amount of controversy that

… what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ROMANS 1:19 Scripture assumes, and experience confirms, that human beings are naturally inclined to some form of religion, yet they fail to worship their Creator, whose general revelation of himself makes him universally known. Both theoretical atheism and moral monotheism are natural to no one: atheism is always a reaction against a pre-existing belief in God or gods, and moral monotheism has only ever appeared in the wake of special revelation . www.hopecollege.com Scripture explains this state of affairs by telling us that sinful egoism and aversion to our Creator’s claims drive humankind into idolatry, which means transferring worship and homage to some power or object other than God the Creator (Isa. 44:9–20; Rom. 1:21–23; Col. 3:5). In this way, apostate humans “suppress the truth” and have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and b

“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). The prevailing philosophy of our generation is on a collision course with Christianity . Humanism asserts that man evolved, that he is a cosmic accident with no purpose, destined for annihilation. Christianity teaches that man was purposely created in the image of God , with a meaning and purpose rooted in that eternal God , with a human soul that will live forever either in heaven or in hell. Humanism maintains that death is the only certainty in life. Christianity teaches that God is the only certainty in life. Humanism leads to despair, Christianity to hope. The conclusion of Ecclesiastes 1 is inevitable for the consistent humanist: “ ‘Meaningless! Meaningless!’ says the Teacher . ‘Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!’ ” ( NIV ). If everything is meaningless, as the humanists say, then what value can be put on human life since humanity would have to be meaningless too? If each of us has no meani

While commentators agree that God has cursed women with pain in childbearing, there is trouble and disagreement over the words of explanation that follow the curse.  Perhaps the most common view of this verse, has been that a wife will have a desire to dominate her husband. Recently, Crossway has decided to add this interpretation to their new update of the ESV , and they have decided to change the text from, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” to “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” We can completely grant that this is a minor issue and one that people can disagree with (although adding interpretation to a Bible translation can be a big problem). Despite the fact that the wife will have pain in childbearing, she will still desire to have intimacy with her husband and this will, of course, result in having children with him. Therefore, despite t he temptation, she w ill face in avoiding the curse b

Icon Apocalypse (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) In the garden of Eden , the man and the woman were naked but without shame until sin came into their lives. The very first psychological self-awareness of guilt and shame was an uncomfortable awareness of nudity. Since then, human beings have been the only creatures who have adorned and covered themselves with artificial garments , because it is built into our fallen humanity to equate shame and humiliation with nakedness. Throughout the pages of Scripture, when God speaks of bringing judgment against the guilty, He does it by exposing their sin and stripping them of their clothes. A prime example of this comes from the book of the prophet Amos. Amos gives the Lord's list of transgressions by Moab , Judah, Israel , and so on, then gives God's response: " Behold , I am weighed down by you, as a cart full of sheaves is weighed down." This is God's rebuke of His people. He then says: "Therefore flight shall peri

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Wikipedia ) Only a comprehensive and biblical view of the light of God ’s holiness can rescue us from the darkness.  As we recognize who God is, we will recognize who we are and what we have become, and the Holy Spirit will use that knowledge to revive in His people a renewed zeal for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and a boldness to proclaim that although human beings are great sinners, there is a greater Savior who can rescue us through the gospel. Related articles Rejection (bloggerneecy.com) Good News and the Holy Temple (betsybeadhead.com) Second Sunday after Christmas (emmanuelchatham.typepad.com) An Incredible Mystery! (josephelonlillie.com) Spiritus Sanctus: How the Holy Spirit Renews (slideshare.net) Christians urged to accept the holy spirit to tap God's blessings (spyghana.com) The Ministry of God the Holy Spirit (codybateman.org) What or Who is the Holy Spirit? (fifthmariandogma.wordpress.com )

Isaac Blessing Jacob (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) PROVERBS 11:24–26 “Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered” (v. 25). Divine blessings shape a person’s destiny, which is why Jacob conspired to lay hold of the better blessing from Isaac and why Esau mourned greatly when he did not receive it (Gen. 27:1–45). Yet Scripture also speaks of blessings that human beings may bring to one another, and it promises good things to those who use what they have to bless others, as we see in today’s passage. One commentator has noted that God ’s economy does not always work as we might expect it to operate. To become rich and successful according to the world’s standards, one is generally encouraged to invest every penny in himself. The Bible , on the other hand, tells us the one who “gives freely” actually “grows more blessed” ( Prov. 11:24). Paradoxically, the more a person gives away to needy people and the work of the kingdom, the more bless

Rembrandt's depiction of Samson's marriage feast (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) In the past few decades, the option of living together, rather than moving into a formal marriage contract, has proliferated in our culture. Christians must be careful not to establish their precepts of marriage (or any other ethical dimension of life) on the basis of contemporary community standards. The Christian 's conscience is to be governed not merely by what is socially acceptable or even by what is legal according to the law of the land, but rather by what God sanctions. Unfortunately, some Christians have rejected the legal and formal aspects of marriage, arguing that marriage is a matter of private and individual commitment between two people and has no legal or formal requirements. These view marriage as a matter of individual private decision apart from external ceremony. The question most frequently asked of clergymen on this matter reflects the so-called freedom in Christ : &q

Rev. Jonathan Edwards, a leader of the Great Awakening, is still remembered for his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Author: Cripplegate Jonathan Edwards ’ famous sermon, “ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God ,” since last Tuesday was the 273rd anniversary of the greatest sermon preached on American soil. The doctrine of hell as the eternal conscious torment of the wicked who die outside of Christ presents many objections and such objections are very common from our increasingly-secular, anti-biblical, and Christianity-intolerant culture. Let's respond to those objections. Two Disclaimers We know there are strenuous objections to this doctrine from the various corners of unbelief—both from those who do and do not claim to be Christians. Though I vigorously believe this to be the biblical teaching, it simply falls outside the scope of this post to make a full defense of the doctrine. Secondly,  the doctrine of eternal consci

Onion Skin ID (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) [This post is courtesy of Phillip Jensen , Dean of St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney .] The nature/nurture debate is as endless as the determinist/freedom dispute. The safe position to adopt combines both nature and nurture. Yet that doesn’t end the debate; it simply moves the discussion onto the character of the combination. Scientific research will not bring a resolution. Not simply because the question is large and complex and the research is narrow and detailed, but because the reason for the debate is the implications of its outcomes. The ‘nature people’ have a desire to demonstrate that behaviour, especially bad behaviour, is nobody’s fault because it is inbuilt into our very being. Chauvinists use this reasoning to argue for inherited sexual differences that will excuse their behaviour towards women, just as much as homosexuals use it to justify their behaviour towards men. The ‘nurture people’ are the cultural relativists who de

Matthias Flacius taught a strong view of what later theologians would call total depravity. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Paul raises in Romans 9:19, we cannot explain God’s sovereignty and man’s inability by appealing to conditional election or libertarian free will . This objection only makes sense if the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity , unconditional election, and irresistible grace are true. But how is that fair? How can God command that which is impossible, and still hold people accountable? How can He command people to be born again, even though the new birth depends entirely upon “God, who has mercy” (Rom 9:16)? Well, Paul’s answer is to rebuke the questioner who seeks to impugn the righteousness of God: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” (Rom 9:20). If you seek to find fault with God’s character, you have a skewed understanding of righteousness (Rom 9:14; cf. 3:5b–6) and better put your hand over your mouth fast. But there i