The doctrine of the incarnation, that God became man, is an essential teaching of Christianity.   Beyond affirming the fact that Jesus is God made flesh, two questions are worth asking.   First, is there an Old Testament basis for such a teaching or is this a truly new doctrine in the New Testament for Christians?   In answering this, we should focus on what the New Testament authors said.   Did they believe that Jesus’ incarnation was ‘Biblical’ (Old Testament)?   Second, relatedly, what theological significance is there to the doctrine of the incarnation?   I would like to explore John’s answers to these questions in his Gospel, focussing on John’s prologue (1.1-18) and Jesus prayer in chapter 17. John affirms the preexistence of Jesus by declaring the divine identity of Jesus such that, in the beginning when all things were created, He was present and active (1.1-2).   In various other statements and ways, this Gospel continues to present Jesus as ‘one with the Father.’   To sta

 The following review by S. Donald Fortson and Rollin G. Grams of T wo Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church , edited by Preston Sprinkle, appeared in Reformed Faith and Practice.  It is available online at: https://journal.rts.edu/review/two-views-homosexuality-bible-church/.  The issue has only grown since we addressed this issue, and so I offer it on this blog as well.  One matter about which we were insufficiently critical in the review is the notion, represented by Wesley Hill in Two Views , that has come to be called 'Side B' Christians, or 'spiritual friendship.'  This view holds that 'gay' is a neutral or even positive identity rather than a distorted identity caused by sin and from which Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit would cleanse and sanctify and make righteous (1 Corinthians 6.9-11). Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church Preston Sprinkle, ed. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Grand Rapids: Zonderva

  As bishops in the Church of England emerge with statements promoting same-sex blessings or marriage in preparation for a change of view for the Church next year, I find it interesting that they point the faithful to relevant Biblical texts that uncover the truth despite their misuse of the texts.   Two weeks earlier we had the bishop of Oxford, Stephen Croft, try to apply Jesus’ comment about knowing a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7.15-23) to the alleged ‘good fruit’ that comes from homosexual partnerships. [1]   Jesus’ statement was actually about false prophets who misguide people by urging them to live against God’s will.   The passage actually spoke rather well to the misguidance the bishop of Oxford was giving as a false prophet teaching against Biblical sexuality and marriage. Now we have the statement by the bishop of Southwark that obliquely references only a single Biblical text, but a relevant one for orthodox Christians.  Bishop Christopher Chessun’s concern is for the Chu

Three challenges to traditional education--a residential, classroom-centred teaching for a well-defined constituency--come from the skyrocketing costs of education, the increasing age of the student population, and the development of technology.  Behind these practical changes or challenges are paedagogical considerations in theological education. One approach in the current context of changes in denominations and theological education has been to double down on what the seminary offers, even if it means a small student body.  Seminaries tending to weather some of the storms of theological, ethical, cultural, and financial change are those who provide what is needed for their particular tradition, whether the Westerminster Presbyterianism of a Reformed Theological Seminary or the Anglo-Catholic education with an intensely communal life and clearly defined spiritual formation of Nashotah House.  This approach still raises questions of the cost and the availability of theological educati

  The catalyst for the break-up of Protestant, mainline denominations in the past fifty years in the West has been the acceptance of non-Christian views on sexuality, particularly homosexuality and now transgenderism.   The United Methodist Church is drawing out their break-up as long as possible, apparently to allow time to reshuffle ministers so that the orthodox are removed from the prize churches.   The Church of England, it appears, will finally get off the fence on the issue of same-sex marriage, although it will certainly fall to the wrong side.   So, we are nearly through with the demise of the old mainline denominations, and, with that, there will be a division between orthodox Christianity and revisionist ‘Christianity.’   As this dust settles on the sexuality issues, four issues facing the church will come into focus: the doctrine of sex and marriage, the doctrine and interpretation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Church, and the doctrines of justification and sanctifica

  The Anglican bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, has this week produced an argument to extend marriage to same-sex couples. [1]   Whatever his reasons for this, his justification involves an appeal to Matthew 7.   Revisionists of orthodox Christianity ‘use’ Scripture, they do not interpret it, and so their Scriptural justifications are not their actual reasons for the views they advocate.   Be that as it may, consider his use of the following passage: Matt. 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Croft focusses on the notio

Evangelical and orthodox Anglicans continue to hold up Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the agreed teaching on homosexuality for the Anglican Communion.  They use this to push back revisionists who have no concern for the resolution, let alone Scripture, to achieve their agenda of inclusion in the Church of persons flaunting their internal disorders and sinful actions.  This brief post is a comment on this, not about how unorthodox and post-Christian Anglicans ignore the resolution and press ahead with Western culture's values, but about Resolution 1.10 itself. Of concern is the second part of resolution 1.10 that states that the Church assures 'homosexual persons that they are loved by God and ... that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.' The wording is too open-ended and permits various, heretical interpretations.  We know that orthodox Christians voicing these words mean something like, 

  One of the children's fairy stories that left me, as a child, quite disturbed was that of the Pied Piper.  I once read an interpretation of this that had to do with German immigration to Transylvania--maybe so--but to me it was about a man all dressed up in fancy clothes and with a magical pipe marching through the streets of Hamelin and stealing children.  What a fitting image for Western society in the 21st century.  Satan has revealed their (pronoun choice!) political platform, and it is to steal our children in heart, mind, and soul. On my mind are issues such as: Abortion, genetic engineering, transsexual sports, drag queen story hours, gay marches, enforced learning about gender and sexuality in schools, sexually perverted book in the libraries, pornography, puberty blockers, sex change operations, making counselling sexually troubled youth identifying as the wrong gender illegal (outlawing 'conversion therapy'), making prayer near abortion clinics (in England) ille

  A California court has ruled in favour of a Christian baker, Ms. Cathy Miller, who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding on the grounds that this involved compelled, tacit approval against her religious beliefs. [1]   The present reflection on this matter is intended to highlight several issues in this case, including but not limited to issues about the free exercise of religion. The problems with the plaintiff’s case are several and significant, and they need to be identified rather than rest on only one of the issues. The court’s decision turned on reckoning that the baker’s right to practice her religion was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.   This is, indeed, a point that needs to be and has often been asserted, thanks to the American protection of speech and the free exercise of religion.   The First Amendment protects both, stating: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abr