Dr Paul Allen

Anthony Costello A dead Christian is of no value to the Devil. Only a Christian still alive is worth Satan’s time and efforts. This is an obvious truth, assuming the particular, physically deceased person was indeed an actual man or woman of God. Upon the physical death of the truly faithful and genuinely regenerated person, they enter Christ's presence and are forever secure from Satan’s attacks.  But for those who still live, they are in the Devil’s crosshairs and ever susceptible to his attrition. The Devil’s plan of attack is always twofold: to discourage the true believer from being effective for God’s kingdom and to use the false convert to destroy the Church from within. As to the latter aim, the Devil realizes that the best and most effective way to attack God’s Church on earth is through those who consider themselves “Christians” but who deep down know they are not (Acts 5:1-8).  Or, the Devil can work through those who are so self-deluded, they genuinely believe themselve

With all respect to the responsibilities carried by the leadership of the Church of England, and in recognition of the history of this branch of the universal Body, I make this heartfelt appeal. Just as Elijah the prophet urged the people of Israel to stop wavering between two opinions, I urge you to stop wavering between the Word of God and the spirit of this age. As Elijah said, “If Yahweh is God, serve Him. If Baal is God, serve him.” (1 Kings 18:21) It can only be one or the other. A Hopeless Compromise Your current decision to “bless” same-sex unions while at the same time forbidding your churches from hosting same-sex weddings is not just a deep and fundamental departure from the biblical faith. It is also a hopeless compromise, seeking to play both ends against the middle in a way that can only frustrate, if not infuriate, the principal parties involved. How can you bless something that you will not sanctify? How can you invoke God’s favour on something at which you cannot offi

SAMUEL G. PARKISON “It’s a shame he was an adulterous and unfaithful husband, but he sure was a great theologian and a gift to the church.” Is this sentence intelligible? Might it be regarded as capturing the complex reality of indwelling and ongoing sin for theologians, or is it simply oxymoronic? Part of how we answer the question depends on additional information. Was this adultery a single occasion or a persistent reality? Does this theologian out himself in broken and contrite confession and repentance, or does he justify his actions and remain habitually unrepentant? I’d imagine most of us would instinctively conclude that if the “theologian” in our thought experiment engaged in high-handed and unrepentant habitual adultery, the descriptor “adulterous and unfaithful husband but splendid theologian” is nothing more than an oxymoron. And we haven’t been thinking about a hypothetical figure; we’ve been thinking about Karl Barth, who is regarded by many as one of the most important t

Moses dishonored God before the Israelites because he struck the rock, in direct disobedience to God. Moses’ actions drew the attention of the people to himself, perhaps to make them think he had something to do with the miracle. But by stealing the glory from God and failing to honor Him, both Moses and Aaron were not allowed to enter the Promised Land. The catalog of others who dishonored God is numerous. The following is only a small sampling:   •      Saul did not submit himself to God , but in impatience and self-styled disobedience he failed to follow all of God’s instructions (1 Sam. 15:11). So God removed him from the throne.   •      Uzzah failed to recognize the majesty of God’s holiness by daring to defy God’s instructions (Num. 4:15, 19–20). God struck him down for his irreverence (2 Sam. 6:7).   •      Uzziah became proud, acted in a corrupt manner, was unfaithful to the Lord, and in an affront to God’s holiness, entered the temple to burn incense. God struck him with le