Dr Paul Allen

The prophet Habakkuk was sorely distressed. His misery was provoked by the spectacle of the threat of the pagan nation of Babylon against Judah. To this prophet it was unthinkable that God would use an evil nation against His own people; after all, Habakkuk mused, "God is too holy even to look upon evil." So the prophet protested by mounting his watchtower and demanding an answer from God: "And the LORD answered me: "Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it. For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay. Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith" (Hab. 2:2–4). The final words of this utterance, "the righteous shall live by faith," are cited three times in the New Testament by the familiar words, "the just shall live by faith." In this phr

"A Calvinist evangelist? Isn't that an oxymoron? Calvinism undermines evangelism." This accusation has been repeated so many times that few make the effort to argue it. Instead, it is simply assumed. Never mind that some of the church's greatest evangelists have been Calvinists. One need only be reminded of men such as George Whitefield, David Brainerd, or "the father of modern missions," William Carey. "Yes," we are told, "these men were great evangelists and Calvinists, but that is because they were inconsistent." But is this true? The fact of the matter is that Calvinism is not inconsistent with evangelism; it is only inconsistent with certain evangelistic methods. It is inconsistent, for example, with the emotionally manipulative methods created by revivalists such as Charles Finney. But these manipulative methods are themselves inconsistent with Scripture, so it is no fault to reject them. In order for evangelism to be pleasing

Words (Photo credit: tempestuousseas ) In this series, we have been discussing  Dr. R.C. Sproul's answer  to a question about the age of the universe during the Q&A at Ligonier's 2012 National Conference.  In our last post , we looked at Calvin's distinction between knowledge of earthly things and heavenly things in order to understand why Dr. Sproul and other Reformed theologians say that the church can learn from unbelieving scientists . In this post, we need to look at what Christians should do when science and Scripture seem to conflict. In his concluding remarks, Dr. Sproul made the following important statements: However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without questioning, and somebody gives me a theory from natural revelation—that they think is based off of natural revelation—that contradicts the Word of God , I'm going to stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But again I have to repeat, I

Image via Wikipedia Written by RC Sproul.  I suppose there is no topic in Christian theology more difficult to deal with, particularly on an emotional level, than the doctrine of hell. In fact, the doctrine has become so controversial that it is almost never addressed. We seem to be allergic to any serious discussion of the doctrine of hell. In fact, there has probably never been a time in the history of the church when more people have challenged this doctrine than in our own day.  Liberal theologians completely dismiss it as part of the mythological worldview of primitive people, a concept unworthy of the love of God and of Jesus . Others, even within the professing evangelical camp, have created quite a stir by suggesting the doctrine of annihilationism, which says that the ultimate judgment of the sinner is not ongoing, eternal punishment in a place called hell, but simply the annihilation of the person’s existence, and that the great punishment, the great loss, that accom