Apologetical Articles

This is one episode from a series called "the church (that meets in my home)",  the one below is possible one of the most important ones as it deals with a subject that I have been looking into, the place-- if there is truly any-- for expositional preaching from the standpoint of the bible.    listen and think on what is being said very carefully with an open bible; and more importantly mind willing to learn: Thanks Doug for all that you have done. 

Video:   Here is a great exploration of the topic "all body ministry" from this great work on the Priesthood of all believers. 

In the last post, I  spoke of a usurpation that took place in the post-apostolic period of the early church; and this action was to put in place a partly Old Testament; partly worldly system in place: Clergy/Laity" division.  These terms are both biblical terms but they do not and cannot speak to what we are informed by Christendom-- they speak to one group. that is, God people (Laos) as God's inheritance (Kleros). And this is the great tragedy. Now what does this all mean? how does it effect the biblical portrayal of the universal all-body ministry as seen in the many 'one another' passages. Below I have selected one of the great passages on this truth. Let us consider its words: "Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,   bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.   And above al

  What is the primary thing that is consistently destroying the life of the ecclesia?   It is the institutional usurpation of the way things were meant to be carried out in the body of Christ. Let me make this point clear-- for much of the last 1800 years (but more so, from 325ad onwards) everything that we assume to be the correct manner is not only error; it is a danger to the health of the church.  In other words, the hierarchical system has no scriptural bearing.  The church as it was brought into existence through Christ and His Spirit by means of His apostles was an organic reality and not an institutional system. Take note of the following passages and tell me that what we have today in Evangelicalism (Today: institutional Christendom)  is what Christ put in place.  Paul teaches us that the function of the church is an internal all body dynamic-- and that all believers are to be participants and not spectators of some grand show: "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the

    This is a brilliant book on a rather thorny issue:  the Pastor.  And I agree with the contention of this book that the  scriptures do not give us a warrant for this institutional position known as a Pastor. Let us stand back from the traditions we have enbibed from the church and scrutinise them from the biblical data.  The chapters (or videos) that are crucial for us to understand on this matter are as follows: (1) The New Testament pattern for church life and rule (chapter 2 in the book; video 2) (2) The System Corrupted (chapter 3 in the book; video 3) (3) Four New Testament Words Misused  (Chapter 5 in the book; video 5)  (4) The all-body Ministry of believers (Chapter 7 in the book; video 7). And this one chapter alone is worth the price of the book.  All in all, this book is a great expose of this false position which has mangled the church. I know a whole lot more has taken place in order for this all to take place as the book documents. But we need to recognise the main iss

   A brief understand of this monumental passage concerning the New Covenant from a New Covenant Theology.  He has an extended treatment on this in many of his writings such as the one I am currently read which is New Covenant Articles vol. 1.

Preliminary point Recently I was listening to the latest news on the climate change and how it went from being "global warming"  to "global boiling"  status.  And it got me thinking somewhat deeply about the issue that is not being discussed in this one-sided narrative.  What am I am speaking of?  Let me spell it out with clarity:  if there was such a thing as climate change or global warning you would not expect it to be sporadic due to where on earth you are; therefore, it being burning in place but freezing in another. Rather, what you should find is a more identical in every area; so this would mean that either burning over all in every place; or freezing in every place. Do you see my point?  we are not being told the full truth on the matter but only being told a narrative that has been stitched together to fit someone pre-conceived idea.  Let us think for a moment-- with a clear heads and minds. The people in power have always been out there spinning false nar

In society today, there are two basic points that are out-there as to how a woman should act in life-- let us note them:  first there is the anti-woman feminist; and second, there is what is called the traditional wife role.   The Anti-women feminist: this is a person who is adamant on what they class as equality of the sexes; and yet at the same time, they are so gung-ho for tearing down any woman who disagrees with their vision for various reasons. But this position gets worse when you include intersectional issue to the debate as it leads to the ultimate position of denying the existence and complete erasure of women as they can no longer define what one is (I spoke on this last week under the Gnosticism in Feminism). This position, however it is painted is at the detriment of all women-- sad really.  The Traditional house wife:  while this is a noble thing and great to see as it seems to have a sort of biblical emphasis. It is my position that it still is not what the bible teaches

Here is a good video. I would just like to exhort Christian to listen and think about what is said; and compare it to scriptures. For the Law of Christ is what we Christian are under; and not the Law of Moses-- for the matter of Sanctification.

 It seems that no matter where one turns these days some kind of depravity is being held up as a  morally accepted virtue. There is no escaping it: it is being put forward in every avenue; and if one disagrees with it, they will find themselves on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the law. It is a clear testimony to this reversed pattern: 'calling good evil; and evil good' and we face a world that is bent on 'bad company corrupting good morals' .  The world is all the more willing to be led by the hand into this anarchy; but I tell you the church must take a stand; and stand firmly against this ever growing disease and parasite that is destroying society.  In assessing the question of whether there is an advantage in having transgender "women" competing with real women. Albert Mohler states:  Again, Christians look at this, operating out of a biblical worldview, and understand there is no right answer to this question because what has been rej

This title may be a little confusing because it is strange concept; yet I believe it is correct.  Now what Do I mean?  Let me explain:  Preliminary thought While what can be called "classical feminism" had an aim; no matter how misguided it may have been as what it was trying to fight for was a good thing just that it never needed to do such a thing; in the first place.  There had always been equality for the sexes due to the Christian faith-- just not identical rights-- for both men and women were equal before God in all thing pertaining to the faith. However, this equality did not rule  distinctive trait that defined each sex rather worked to enhance those wonderful points.  let me ask this:  did women gaining the vote ever do any good to society?  my answer is simple: NO.  the good it may have done was far overshadowed by the evils that were to seep through because of it being a slippery slope. for example: the vote was the catalyst to the dysfunction and utter break-down

Here are two audio files on the massive error of following the three uses of the Law as if they have any biblical foundation. It is important for us to always be bereans on everything we hear or are told-- study everything with reference to whether the scriptures actually give us any basis to accept and adhere to something. 

  This video is a short essay video on this great passage from Matthew 5 where David gives us a biblical position on it; and not a tradition based on from C.T.  For a more expanded discourse, he has released a book dealing with this passage in the context of the whole chapter and the whole bible called "clearing the smoke."  Matthew 5 is not about one covenant with two administrations; but two distinct covenants which the whole bible teaches; it is not about the Mosaic law either; it is actually about Christ giving his new law (not laws).  This new law or principle is expressed in many different way through our being sanctified by the Spirit who lives in  each and every Christian. let us come back to scriptures:  Christ says  "you have heard"  and "but I say to you" showing that he is going to law and showing us that these laws no longer apply; but only his law does. (Matthew 5:21-48). Sure, many will dispute this-- but it only shows how far this false tea

So the Cross does not merely tell us that God forgives, it tells us that that is God’s way of making forgiveness possible. It is the way in which we understand how God forgives. I will go further: How can God forgive and still remain God? – That is the question. The Cross is the vindication of God. The Cross is the vindication of the character of God. The Cross not only shows the love of God more gloriously than anything else, it shows His righteousness, His justice, His holiness, and all the glory of His eternal attributes. They are all to be seen shining together there. If you do not see them all you have not seen the Cross. The Cross, The Vindication of God, p. 17,

This will not be our usual posting on this theme: On the matter of interpretation of secondary matters, the bible gives a little more freedom for different interpretations to be held.  Let us be sure to allow this thought to stand: the Christian church should united on the foundational doctrine-- the core truth;  but there can be some room for difference of understanding of secondary and tertiary issues based on sound method of  hermeneutics.   I would poses the following questions which Wayne Grudem posed (or variants thereof) (1)  Are you certain that it is wrong? (2) Will it bring significant erosion to the core doctrines? (3) Does it bring harm to the church? (4) Is there any historical precedence for it? (Only if necessary) (5) What is the consensus opinion on the matter?  (Only if necessary) (6) Can you see any way in which it poses a threat to the church? (7) Are there any personal bias's at play? (8) How does the teacher come across with regards to their attitude? 

 How would you best explain Election? Election:  there are two competing views of election which come from the two main camps of Christian theology.  the first is the non-reformed view which essential can be called conditional election-- this speaks of the fact that God choice in who will be saved rests ultimately on man free choices. The second is the reformed view which speaks of God independent action to chose someone for salvation in order to bring himself glory. (now I  was a Calvinist; but no longer feel it is the best biblical position on this matter).  Let me pose a simple question:  is election central to salvation or not?  My answer now is no. Because i believe that the bible uses election in several different fashion and we must not deny them. (1) eternal election (this has to do with his judgements) (2) positional election (this deals with the result of our union with Christ)  (3) occupational election (this deals with church order and function) (4) patriarchal election (th

 Can women be pastors? Now this is a vital issue for us to consider-- and in doing so, let us take note of a common objection against the biblical mandate which state that it is forbidden. It goes something like this: "Those passages and verse where Paul speaks in such negative are to be understood culturally; and therefore, should not be enforced today." Is this the correct interpretation?  I submit that it is a blatant misrepresentation of the biblical passages-- both 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2: 11-12 are in reality as binding as anything else that the Apostle has to tell us in those letters. Now granted in some chapters there maybe some cultural connection but this does not have any baring on our two text at all. Let us deal with the passage in the 1st epistle to Timothy to demonstrate a more biblically based and contextual faithful application that the one that is offered by the liberal mindset. And we shall do so by consider the key statement found in verses

 Courtesy of R. Albert Mohler-- his answer to the following question:   "Would You Explain Why Many Evangelicals Were Confused About Abortion When Roe Was Handed Down? " Finally, a question coming from Malachi, who in this context is a grand old man in his mid-40s, according to the email. He's looking at the fact that in the United States, before Roe v. Wade, and for that matter, in the years immediately following Roe v. Wade, it was clear that many Protestant Christians, many evangelical Christians hadn't thought through the abortion issue at all. He's asking, "Why? What made the change?" Well, I think I can answer this pretty quickly. You're right, Roman Catholics, given Roman Catholic teaching and struggle with this issue, frankly, in other cultural contexts have prepared them to deal with this issue, when most evangelicals were unprepared. Furthermore, the issue of abortion, as you're looking at the United States, before Roe v. Wade was reall