Obviously the most important benefit of following Christ is spiritual; salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16). However, even those who do not accept Christ can benefit socially from the presence of authentic Christianity. This article seeks to highlight one area in which this is true. That is the area of keeping down healthcare costs. This is because today, as in the past, much of the cost of healthcare is related to behavior and is therefore preventable. Continue reading →
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
This is the most well-known, awe-inspiring, humbling, and most beautiful verse regarding God’s loving plan and offer of salvation to any and all. Calvinists must ultimately reduce it to meaning God salvifically loves the elect only! Continue reading →
I am assuming that your post is in some way, either a response to or prompted by my article on June 4th entitled A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course. If not, please forgive my unfortunate assumption and therefore my response to your article.
Your title “Is the Day-Age View of Genesis Synonymous with Evolution?” and some of your article’s content seems to make a point that I did not make. To wit, I did not argue that the Day-Age theory was synonymous with evolution. In my second paragraph I state, “In this article, I am only addressing the two perspectives mentioned, and I use the term “evolution” to encompass such approaches that undermine interpreting the days in Genesis as a normal day.” Continue reading →
This is a response to my article published on sbctoday.com, 6/4/14 entitled, A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course: Unless That Day Challenges Evolution! Part I. I also posted this article on this blog, December 22, 2014. I am sorry about the disconnect. This should have been published sooner. I have a couple more of the responses to this series that I will publish in the next two post.
The blogger wrote:
“My seminary Old Testament prof used to say, ‘The Bible was never meant to be a book of science. For instance, most writers of the Biblical revelation believed the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. Instead, the Bible is the record of God’s revelation to mankind. There is more truth in the Bible in that reality than we can ever digest, understand, believe, and live.’ We invite all manner of problems when we try to turn it into a book of science.”’ Continue reading →
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
Because of man’s sin, man is separated from God and destined to eternal hell. Because God is love and loving (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8), He provides man with the real opportunity to return unto Him by faith. Although man has not lost all sensibilities of God (Genesis 3:8-13; Romans 8:18-23), subsequent to the fall he is incapable, from within himself, to rectify his sin problem by coming back to God.
This is my latest book. The following is from the flap on the hardcover followed from an excerpt from the forward.
To the traditionalist, the present contemporary church model appears irreverently trendy and unacceptably shallow, more influenced by culture than influencing culture. To the ecclesiastically avant-garde—often known as the church growth movement, emergent, or simply contemporary—traditional methods and ideas seem to be out of touch, purposeless, and anachronistic.
In The Equipping Church, author and pastor Ronnie W. Rogers demonstrates that the New Testament church model—neither pragmatic fluff nor sterile traditionalism—is an equipping, engaging, and evangelistic church, which is primarily based upon Matthew 28:18-20 and Ephesians 4:11-16. Rogers believes the contemporary vs. traditional debate should be replaced by asking whether or not a church is substantively equipping believers to honor God with their lives and to advance the kingdom by engaging and evangelizing their world as prescribed by the New Testament.
Rogers sets forth the elements necessary to transition a church from stifling, dead traditionalism or the shallowness often associated with the contemporary model to an equipping church and speaks to those who desire to build New Testament churches that honor God first.
“On rare occasions I read a book that I simply can’t put down until the last page. This is such a book…From his fertile mind, gifted pen, and more than thirty years of pastoral experience, comes a work that everyone in Christian ministry must read. Rogers cuts through the murk of all the discussions and debates about traditional and contemporary ministry approaches.”
David L. Allen, Ph.D.
Dean of the School of Theology
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Copies are available from the author, contact firstname.lastname@example.org, as well as online at Amazon (click the book) and Crossbooks.com, a division of Lifeway.
This is the last article in this series, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day and answers objections to this normal reading of the text. The first three considered strengths of such a reading and this final article considers some problem verses. Continue reading →
This is the third part of this series of articles, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day. The fourth and final article answers objections to this normal reading of the text. As mentioned in a previous post, any evidence or arguments I make that are not relevant to a particular position should not be considered a misrepresentation of the position, but rather my attempt to consider various views that in one way or another view the days as long periods of time. Continue reading →
This is the second part of this series of articles, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day. The fourth and final article answers objections to this normal reading of the text. All four parts are numbered consecutively. Continue reading →
Genesis has been a battleground for some time, and today is no different. This is particularly true of Genesis 1-3, which is the account of the creation and the fall. When I first began studying the Scripture, I recognized the importance of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but in retrospect I did not fully appreciate the magnitude of their significance. As I studied other areas of the Scripture and began learning the breadth and depth of God’s revelation, I saw that without the truthfulness and perspicuity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, every major theme of Scripture lay in jeopardy.
Probably the most hotly debated issue is whether or not the days of Genesis 1 are lunar days or indefinite periods of time or even actual days that are representative of longer periods of time. In other words, did God create the world in six days (closely approximating our days) or is the simple language of Genesis concealing a deeper esoteric meaning only fully revealed to scientists quite apart from the Scripture? Even some evangelical scientists like Hugh Ross, who describes himself as a “progressive creationist,” still accept certain cosmological theories as fact and seek to interpret Genesis through that prism”. Continue reading →