Back to Top

Category: New Reformation

Many people in our culture, both within and without the church, have trouble with the idea of an angry God. Many secular people look at Bible passages where God gets angry and judges people and think, That’s precisely why religion is so primitive and dangerous. And many Christians seem to want to tone down, or even excise completely from our creed, the doctrine of divine wrath. It is seen as an embarrassment—something to be ameliorated, qualified, explained, reconfigured.

Many, for example, feel more comfortable with the view C. H. Dodd popularized in the early 20th century, that God’s wrath refers not to God’s attitude toward persons, but to the inevitable cause-and-effect process of a moral universe. Similarly, others point to passages like Romans 1:18–32 to argue that God’s wrath is simply a passive response of letting sin reap its consequences.

This whole development is not a theological sidebar, irrelevant to church life and worship. The doctrine of divine wrath is an integral piece of the gospel message, and therefore, moving away from it will inevitably have far-reaching consequences for the church’s faith and life.

Vital to the Gospel

For example, I believe the driving impetus behind most revisionist atonement theologies is discomfort with the traditional doctrine of divine wrath. George Smeaton claimed all the way back in 1870, “The question of divine wrath is at present the great point in debate on the subject of the atonement.” I think his comment remains apt in today’s atonement discussions. As goes our view of divine wrath, so generally goes our view of the atonement.

The doctrine of divine wrath is an integral piece of the gospel message, and  therefore, moving away from it will inevitably have far-reaching consequences for the church’s faith and life.

I think movements away from the doctrine of hell are also often connected to discomfort with divine wrath. For example, I remember Rob Bell’s question in the promotional video for Love Wins: “What kind of God would need to save us from himself? And how could that possibly be good news?” The root issue for Bell was not just hell per se, but the more general notion of divine wrath and judgment.

My heart goes out to those who might struggle with this doctrine, especially those who struggle because they’ve seen it caricatured or associate it with their experience of sinful human anger. As an effort to help, here are four problems with downplaying divine wrath (or denying its active, personal dimensions).

1. The Bible

If we want to move away from the notion of an angry God while retaining an authoritative Bible, we have some pretty heavy revisionist lifting to do. I would say the effort is roughly comparable to Thomas Jefferson’s attempt to scissor-cut the supernatural out of the Bible. Just type in “Lord wrath” or “God angry” to a Bible Gateway search. There are more than 600 references to divine wrath in Scripture.

In the Bible, God’s wrath is not the problem but the solution, not the offensive doctrine needing defense but the long-awaited vindication of justice after the tension of the prophets’ ‘How long, O Lord?’

What strikes me most, however, is not how frequently God’s Word speaks of God’s wrath, but the absence of the embarrassment or hesitation or shuffling of the feet so often present in contemporary attitudes toward this doctrine. In the Bible, God’s wrath is not the problem but the solution, not the offensive doctrine needing defense but the long-awaited vindication of justice after the tension of the prophets’ “How long, O Lord?” Hence God’s wrath is expressed in the strongest metaphors, and with the firmest language. Note, for example, the metaphor of fire (implicit in the words “burning” and “kindled”) employed by the narrator of 2 Kings 23:26 after recording Manasseh’s sin:

Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him.

Or consider the opening verse of Nahum (1:2):

The LORD is a jealous and avenging God;

the LORD is avenging and wrathful;

the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries

and keeps wrath for his enemies.

Some think the Old Testament emphasizes God’s wrath, while the New Testament emphasizes God’s love. It’s more accurate to say both God’s love and God’s wrath are present strongly in the Old Testament, and both are ratcheted up even more intensely in the New. Revelation, for instance, envisions the kings of the earth calling for the mountains to fall on them because they cannot stand the wrath of the Lamb (6:15–17). Later, it champions a warrior Christ with a sword and an army coming to judge the nations and “tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty” (19:15). This doesn’t sound like an impersonal, passive process of simply letting evil reap its own consequences.

J. I. Packer devoted a chapter of his classic Knowing God to the wrath of God, and in it he asked a worthy question:

Clearly, the theme of God’s wrath is one about which the biblical writers feel no inhibitions whatever. Why, then, should we? Why, when the Bible is vocal about it, should we feel obliged to be silent?

2. Church History

Discomfort with the doctrine of God’s wrath appears to be primarily a recent, Western development. By and large, pre-modern Christians didn’t have a problem with the notion of an angry God. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to find any major theologian before 1750 who would regard current objections to divine wrath as anything other than strange, alarming, and highly eccentric.

The doctrine of divine judgment, a sister teaching to divine wrath, even achieved creedal status. The earliest and most ecumenical creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene) both affirmed that Christ “shall come to judge the quick and the dead,” and the Athanasian Creed (also ecumenical) ratcheted up divine judgment to include a sentencing to “everlasting fire.”

A God who judges evil was an assumed norm of orthodox, creedal Christianity for centuries. Nor did this point really distinguish Christianity from the other monotheistic religions. Maimonides, Muhammad, and Martin Luther were all agreed on this point.

3. Cultural Considerations

Why did the idea of God’s wrath (like God’s judgment) not even require a defense to most Christians throughout church history? Why does it tend to flourish, instead, in the most affluent and comfortable societies? Perhaps because it’s hard to appreciate the righteousness and appropriateness and even desirableness of God’s wrath when we have fairly cushy lives. When we come face to face with brutal evil—when we sit with a rape victim or walk the halls of Auschwitz—the idea of an angry God rarely strikes us as offensive. Instead, we see why the biblical writers viewed God’s wrath as a good thing—a righteous and fitting part of the world’s governance. Miroslav Volf makes this point with devastating force:

My thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the West. To the person who is inclined to dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone (which is where a paper that underlies this chapter was originally delivered). Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: a Christian attitude toward violence. The thesis: we should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God’s refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die. And as one watches it die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind.

4. The Psychology of Anger

Apart from any theological or even religious considerations, the idea that love and wrath are at odds is hard to square with basic human psychology. We all know good, loving people who get angry precisely because they are good and loving. What good parent is not angry, for example, at the mistreatment of his children? Do any of us not feel anger when we see real evil in the world—runaway greed, for instance, or blatant hypocrisy? Does this anger reveal lack of charity in us? No, just the opposite: we feel anger at injustice and wrong because we care about people. Anger is how goodness responds to evil, just as squinting is how eyes respond to bright lights or recoiling is how hands respond to hot surfaces.

Anger is how goodness responds to evil.

I would go so far as to say a God who never gets angry—a God who leaves the cry of the victim and the downtrodden echoing without answer for eternity—such a God would not be good, and therefore would not be God. Its difficult to worship, or believe in, or even imagine, such a God. As Tim Keller puts it in The Reason for God:

The belief in a God of pure love—who accepts everyone and judges no one—is a powerful act of faith. Not only is there no evidence for it in the natural order, but there is almost no historical, religious textual support for it. . . . The more one looks at it, the less justified it appears.

Offensive Gospel  

We might intuitively assume that an impersonal, “evil is its own punishment” process is a more moderate and humane way to achieve justice in this world. But an impersonal process cannot forgive us, whereas a God who has anger can. In whatever places we might be tempted to deny the notion of divine anger, we’ll find more freedom and comfort in acknowledging it, and seeing its solution at Calvary.

It might sound harsh to modern sensibilities to look at the bloodied body of Jesus on the cross and say, “I helped put him there; that is how God feels about my sin.” To say this is to humble yourself under the offense of the gospel; it is the last surrender, the death of the ego, the eye of the needle through which the camel of human pride must shrink and squeeze. But it is also freedom, because the person who can say, “Jesus faced the wrath I deserved” can also say, “I now have the love and favor Jesus deserved.” Only the person who submits the offense of the gospel can be lifted up to fully see its glory.

Reasons why Van Wert needs a Reformation

Before we get started, I would like to let you know this article has been something I was hesitant about for some time. Struggling with the concept of coming off as being unloving, judgmental and all the other accusations which will come to your mind as you read. The purpose of this article is not as some sort of spiritual attack on the individuals or ministries mentioned but as a concern for the Christian faith. The Christian is called to love (agape) others in the same manner that God loves His creation. But not at the expense of ignoring or twisting the biblical truth. To the Christian, the Lord's word must be first on our hearts. 

This article is not just for Van Wert, but for the entire Christian faith all together.

Now before we get into accusing this guy here of being unloving, inconsiderate, danger to the Christian faith etc, keep in mind that I have been in a number of churches as well that have had a very solid doctrine. Churches in which the Lord does actively work in. A Baptist church in Fort Wayne IN, Apostolic in Paulding OH. And even a church in Chicago that has recently went viral when the pastor played a social experiment on his congregation by dressing up as a homeless man outside of the church doors. Even today, I am "attending" out of state by listening to their sermons online.

I was speaking to my girlfriend this evening on a certain issue, and God spoke through her saying

I was thinking that your area is lacking in true biblical teaching”.

This really hit me hard, both in concern for my own town, the churches and more specifically the people involved with these churches, and a command from God, this one though was something I have been running from for a while. Please keep in mind, this is not an article of personal opinion, if that were the case, my opinion is not to speak but hope God would find other means. But just as He did with Moses when he tried coming up with excuses, the Father gave Moses all the necessary resources for him to accomplish what was asked of him. This article is something heavy on my heart that desperately needs to be addressed.

As Christians, we must be willing to call out a biblical error. But we must do so in a loving manner a love for the Lord's word, and a love for the believer/followers so that may consider the error and act accordingly, Now that's not to say we must call out the error on every Christian who makes a mistake. In fact, if we did then there would be no church today. In human nature, we screw up. But in regards to godly ministry, it is very important that we do our best to represent the God of scriptures in the proper lighting.

With all that being said, in my own experiences, I have noticed a few concerns. A few churches which appear to be in desperate need for a Reformation, or perhaps maybe stumbling away from “Their first Love” as Jesus put it in Revelation 2:4 and are at risk of leading into false doctrine and need to be warned. More specifically, churches within the country or perhaps further.

Below is a short list of some concerns I have noticed within the churches in the surrounding area, this is not an exhaustive list, of ministries or even the issues within the walls. I have tried to provide the concerns to the best of my ability, as well as the thoughts on why it is an issue. For further details please read each section in complete.

Trinity United Methodist

This was the first church I was able to call home. The church in which I had family. But as I began to grow further in the faith, I also felt the lack of spiritual movement within the church. Yes there was fun entertainment, yes there was the occasional potluck among other things. But during my time there I noticed something. Worship for the Lord was based on an emotional response within the music. There was a lack of Zeal for the word of God, and a lack of properly teaching the people (adults and children) the Word. Most importantly, there was a lack of people, over the years the numbers appeared to get smaller. This last portion is not inherently bad, Jesus did go from a couple thousand to only 12 followers. But it can still be a sign of the lack of spiritual movement.

After being away for about 2 years, I heard they had a new pastor as well as a new youth pastor. Now I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, to this point, I have not listened to one of the Senior Pastors sermons. But as I looked over their website, I noticed they have a female as their Associate Pastor. I know, what your thinking, that shouldn't be a big deal right? I totally agree with you, in fact I was speaking to a gentleman the other day on this very issue. He attends this church and is an active participant and has agreed with me on this issue.) but my/our own opinion doesn't matter. What is important is God's word, and He was the one who designed pastoral leadership within the church to be for men only.

See more here: Can women be pastors?

Why is this an issue?

This may seem like something subtle that doesn't need to be brought into the light, but the reality is that it should be addressed. Now I personally don't have an issue with women preaching. But when we begin to undermine what God has already said, especially since this was stated in New Testament, and say that certain things do not matter (this is true, unless stated otherwise in NT). We will ultimately end up with a faith that is far from the Christian faith the Lord has laid out before us. Down the road, we can get to a point from saying "This doesnt matter, as long as you follow Jesus"  (which by the way is a bit of an unbiblical cliche, more on this in a future article) to a time where we are all saying "The bible doesn't matter, as long as you believe there is a God somewhere."

I am not arguing that women should not be or cannot be ministers of the word. In fact, i stronger encourage it. My only argument is that biblically speaking, women are not permitted (by God) to be in a pastoral leadership position within the church.

LifeHouse Church

This was an interesting experience, some time ago I left a review on their Facebook Page, this review actually took me well over a year before I felt moved to publish my thoughts. Here is the review, after which further insight...

“This has taken a great deal of time in deciding to provide this review on Lifehouse or not. I am quite honestly deeply concerned with how Lifehouse ministry presents themselves.

Some time ago I decided to visit Lifehouse and was there for a good month, getting a feel for the sermons if you wish. All seemed well but I had trouble sensing the Spirit working, i didn't think anything of it until the sermon closed with Andy Stanley video... "Wait a minute, this sermon I am hearing was piggybacked from another evangelist?"

I immediately left for another church, which at the time appeared to be on fire for the Lord. The biggest turn off in a sermon is one that's essentially an echo. As John Piper said, "It is unthinkable to me that authentic preaching would be the echo of another person’s encounter with God’s word." Another... "A preacher must understand the Scriptures specifically in relation to the needs of his own flock." This last quote is very important. It is very difficult, if not impossible for a minister to tend to the needs of the flock, and providing the food that they need when he is taking food from another person table.

I had hoped for so long that it was just a fluke, and for some time I have monitored the sermon series you guys share on your website... All of which appear to be the teachings of Andy Stanley, not the appointed pastor you have.

On top of this, another great concern is the means of "advertising" the ministry. As I scroll through promotional videos you have posted, as well as a couple a friend has shared, I have not found a single promotional video that gives any hint to the scriptures, Nor do I see anything related on your Facebook page. It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, if i was new to the Christian faith and looking for a solid doctrine church. Basing judgment on if I should step foot inside the door or not from what sort of inspirational, or educational scripture I find online, there is none. Sad to say but i would have to keep on moving by.

Though the plus side is, if all I wanted was a place that promoted how awesome their worship service is, with such great songs, and fun events for the kids, then this would be the place to be. As Charles Spurgeon once said, "If you have to give a carnival to get people to come back to church, then you will have to keep giving carnivals to keep them coming back."

What is more important, feeding the flock the food they need that comes from their table instead of another's platter, or the carnival entertainment to appeal to the eye of the people?

While there is potential in every ministry for the Lord, this potential only becomes reality when we focus on presenting the Word before we present the entertainment.”

Since the publishing of this review, Lifehouse has chosen to remove the option for people to leave a review (With Facebook, admins cannot delete the reviews, its an all or nothing deal.) There appears to be no change within the ministry, and the only thing you will continue to see online is the promotion of their worship music.

 

Living Truth Ministries

This one in particular I don't want to be too hard on. This was a church I once called a family. In fact, there was a number of things I have learned from being a part of this ministry. If anything they opened me up to further understanding of the scriptures or at least helped me begin this journey. It was because of my time here (positive experience) that I began my studies in theology and am now going for my Associates in Divinity.

April 2018 I shared something on social media which raised some questions from the “Elders” of this ministry and concluded with the Pastor (Anthony Perry) presenting a sermon that was contradicting to what my own claim was. This lead me in a spiral, for a couple weeks, I felt torn apart, one of my biggest fears is presenting the Word of God inaccurately, which is exactly what I thought I was at. So I began to dig into studies, trying to find some sort of solid biblical evidence to prove I was wrong on this issue but found nothing.

Study Sources: John MacArthur, GTY.org, Chris Braun, Bible.org, Got Questions, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Tozer, and a few others

I came to the conclusion that the church was in error on their understanding and my original plan was to walk away from the church. But once God spoke to me in a number of ways, I had no choice but to confront the issue. After the event, that same day signs were blowing up everywhere, in my reading, social media, I was seeing another pastors articles/videos online which I have never seen before. And to this day I still have no idea who this pastor I saw was.

Tuesday came around and I messaged the Pastor (Anthony Perry) on messenger to inform him how sorry I was that things turned out how they did, this leads me to offer to draw up a list of concerns (no payment desired) for the board to take under consideration.

For some reason this lead to the same pastor blocking me online, I was also blocked from interacting on their social media page, To make matters worse, this same pastor chose to explain what happened that previous Sunday online what happened, sort of...

Without dissecting his post too much, my concern was that he not only provided some misleading information but also lied about what I said to him by informing the congregation that I demanded to be paid to "fix" the church, as well as the demand for leadership position (there was an interest, but classes were something I was willing and attempted to take). There was no such claim. After trying to contact him through 3rd parties on multiple occasions he refused to talk at all.

My concern about this is the idea that this pastor had to concoct a lie to his congregation in order to keep things in check for whatever reason, as well as leaving the option available to resolve the issue, all the while blocking and refusing to discuss it with me.

Why is this an issue?

I would like to remind you all, this specific ministry had a good impact on my faith, and I had people I could at one point call my family. But the concern that a pastor would lie to his congregation about specific things said is very concerning to me, among other things.

Should a pastor lie? Why would a pastor need to formulate a lie? This action to actively do concerns me not just because he is a man in a pastoral position, the question we could ask is why does anyone need to lie? The only reason we do lie is to justify our self, protect our image, or keep us from getting into trouble. So in human nature, we act to put that barrier of protection. But as a minister of the flock, it is the duty to honestly lead the sheep, be open to the truth no matter how hard it is. This shows the righteous character of a person, who they truly are and the strong desire to honestly follow the Lord's guidance no matter how faulted we are. 

Moses for example, he didn't want to lead. David was guilty of adultery and murder. Peter denied Jesus at His trial. Yet all of these men are considered great men within the Christian faith. Why? Because while they may not have told everybody of their failures. They still mentioned them. And because of that, today we can see the righteousness of them in the Word of God.

#4

This one I have chosen to leave anonymous because my experience was limited and not yet complete.

A week or 2 ago I chose to look into another local church to see how things ran, are they sound in their doctrine and in the faith?

Unfortunately, on this week they had a guest speaker delivering the message, my concern on this was that the gentleman chose to replace the name of Zerubbabel with "Z-man". Most likely because of the complexity of the name. This I can understand, but at the same time is can be a dangerous thing to do. and here is why...

There are over 60 men in the scriptures that have their name start with a Z. So by calling Zerubbabel Z-man, while the speaker and the immediate audience may know who he is talking about. If this continued, it could perhaps become a habit and down the line, people would refer to any other prophet, priest, king or any others as Z man, this would leave some very heavy confusion about what is going on in scripture.

Could you imagine calling Jesus "J-Dog"? Don't even get me started on how many men with J type names there are, I lost count even before i began counting.

Needless to say, that was a poor first experience, though I do plan on going back in hopes to hear their pastor preach.

In the past 8-9 months from the time this article is published, I have spent a great deal in the study of the Christian faith, and doing what I can to live it out. I have been studying under a theologian named John MacArthur and would consider him as a mentor through his sermons, teachings, and books. I am currently pursuing a theological degree and by this time next year hope to have my associates in Divinity and hope to put that to use in a full-time career serving the Lord.

I'm sure there will be those who may disagree with this article, and I do know a few who may scrub it as some sort of attack against the faith. But as I have said, that is by no means the intention. Rather see the church (as a whole) come back into right relationship with God the Father. And be unified under one doctrine of faith.

This article is the first of many that need to be addressed within the Church today. If you have found the work of this ministry moving, please join us as we continue this journey through a new reformation.

Find More HERE

The order of events of creation recorded in Genesis 1 contradicts (at very many points) the order of events according to the evolution story.

Many Christians think that if we just take each of the days of creation as being figurative of long ages (hundreds of millions of years or more), we can harmonize the Bible with the big bang and the geological evidence for a very old earth. But this only seems reasonable to those who pay insufficient attention to the order of events according to Genesis chapter 1 and the order of events according to evolution theory.

This old-earth view of the days is often called the “day-age” view and is an aspect of both progressive creationism and theistic evolution. There are many strong biblical objections to the day-age view. First, the Bible gives us abundant evidence that the days were intended by God (the divine author) and Moses (the human author) to be understood as literal 24-hour days (see Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?).

Second, along with the gap theoryframework hypothesis (PDF) and other old-earth positions, the day-age view postulates millions of years of death, disease, violence and extinction in the animal world long before man was created. But this absolutely contradicts the Bible’s teaching about sin and death occurring after man was created (see Two histories of death).

Furthermore, like these other old-earth views, the day-age view is based on the false assumption that science has proven long ages through such things as (1) radiometric dating methods (see Thousands . . . Not Billions), (2) distant starlight (Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang and Distant Starlight) and (3) how long it supposedly takes for rock layers to form (Rapid Rocks). These old-earth views developed about 200 years ago as Christians abandoned the orthodox young-earth view that dominated the first 1,800 years of church history (see Historical Setting and Millions of Years: Where Did the Idea Come From?).

Here in this article, I want to discuss another problem for the day-age view: the order of events of creation recorded in Genesis 1 contradicts (at very many points) the order of events according to the evolution story. That means that even if you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of living things, the only way you can harmonize Genesis with the idea of millions of years is by rearranging the order of events in Genesis.

Consider these examples of contradictions of order.

 

By Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis

 

EvolutionGenesis
Sun before EarthEarth before Sun
Dry land before seaSea before dry land
Atmosphere before seasSea before atmosphere
Sun before light on EarthLight on Earth before Sun
Stars before EarthEarth before stars
Earth at the same time as planetsEarth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plantsLand plants before Sea Creatures
Earthworms before starfishStarfish before earthworms
Land animals before treesTrees before land animals
Death before manMan before death
Thorns and Thistles before manMan before thorns and thistles
TB pathogens & cancer before man (Dinosaurs had TB and cancer)Man before TB pathogens and cancer
Reptiles before birdsBirds before reptiles
Land mammals before whalesWhales before land animals
Simple plants before fruit treesFruit trees before other plants*
Insects before mammalsMammals (Cattle or domestic animals) before “creeping things”*
Land mammals before batsBats before land animals
Dinosaurs before birdsBirds before dinosaurs
Insects before flowering plantsFlowering plants before insects
Sun before plantsPlants before sun
Dinosaurs before dolphinsDolphins before dinosaurs
Land reptiles before pterosaursPterosaurs before land reptiles
Land insects before flying insectsFlying insects before land insects

To put it pictorially, you can see the contradictions here:

order

We need to be aware of one more important point of contradiction. The Bible says that the earth was completely covered with water twice in its history—the first two days of creation (before dry land first appeared) and then about 1,600 years later during Noah’s Flood.

But evolution says that there has never been a global ocean on this planet. Evolution says that the earth was originally a hot, molten lava ball which over millions of years cooled to develop a hard crust and an atmosphere. Eventually the earth developed an irregular topography (hills and valleys) and rainfall gradually filled in some of the low spots to form localized seas.

Just so there is no confusion about this, look at this series of pictures from a geology book produced by the Institute of Geological Sciences in London, England (an evolutionist institution).

order_geology

Next to these pictures on the same page the author writes:

Condensation of part of the vast cloud of cold dust and gas that gave rise to the Solar System initially formed a molten Earth surrounded by a thick and dense atmosphere of cosmic gases . . . made up largely of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide . . . As the globe slowly cooled, crystallisation of minerals . . . began to make a crust . . . to build a new atmosphere . . . water vapour condensed and fell as rain . . . the first oceans collected in low-lying areas . . . 1

Dr. Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, was badly uninformed when he told viewers of TV program seven of The Great Debate on the John Ankerberg Show (aired in March 2006) that in the standard big bang cosmology: “the earth begins with water over the whole surface.” Dr. Ross is simply wrong.

For all these reasons and more, you cannot harmonize the Bible with millions of years, no matter where you try to wedge in the time into Genesis—unless you rearrange the text by moving verses and phrases around to radically change the order of events in Genesis 1. But that is not the way to treat the Bible. That is not Bible interpretation—rather it is Bible mutilation, to make it say what “evolutionized” Christians want it to say.

The Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation a few thousand years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah. The Bible firmly resists any attempts to marry it with evolution and millions of years. Rather than playing fast and loose with the sacred text, we ought to heed the words of Isaiah 66:2, where God says:

For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord. “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Footnotes:

Footnotes

  1. John Thackray, The Age of the Earth (London: Institute of Geological Sciences, 1980), 21.
  2. Article by: Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis. Original article HERE

In recent years a new movement within the evangelical church has come into vogue, commonly referred to as "seeker sensitive." Generally, this movement has seen a great deal of growth. Many “seeker” churches are now mega-churches with well-known pastors who are riding a wave of popularity in the evangelical world. The seeker-sensitive movement claims millions of conversions, commands vast resources, continues to gain popularity, and seems to be attracting millions of un-churched people into its fold. Continue Reading

Over the past couple of months, I have been studying under a well-known pastor. Before this, I was getting my sermons from a local Christian which preached topically. From this, you couldn't really grasp the full context of what is going on within the scriptures. But after leaving that church and studying under this new gentlemen I can honestly say I have learned a lot more regarding the scriptures and the Christian faith in the past 8 months than I did in my previous 2 years under the local minister. This alone is concerning to me. Which has lead me to look into others thoughts.

Continue Reading