Andy Stanley Reaches Logical Conclusion of Dispensationalism

I know this is old news, but Andy Stanley, the mega-church pastor in Atlanta, GA., came out last year and said that Christians needed to unhitch themselves from the Old Testament. From what I understand, his reasoning is that the Old Testament is too much of a stumbling block for many people to come to know Christ. His logic is faulty because in the end, their stumbling block is not the Old Testament, but the Christ who gave us the Old Testament.

Michael Kruger gives a solid analysis of Stanley’s book that makes the case for unhitching ourselves from the Old Testament. You can read Kruger’s article here.

The point I’m trying to make is that Stanley is doing nothing more than coming to the logical conclusion of classical dispensationalism, which is what he was trained in while at Dallas Theological Seminary. The basic understanding of the Old Testament, for Dispensationalists, is that it was written for the Jews, and not for us Christians. They also have the belief that the Old Testament is to be used to interpret the New Testament, not the other way around.

Continue reading


Walvoord & Zuck Finally Got Cut!

One of the drawbacks to having to move a lot, besides having to move a lot, is the unending quest to lighten the load. Because of that, my library has been shrinking a lot over the past several years. The latest scuttling of books came a few weeks ago as I worked to move all of our extra goods out of our storage unit into two smaller closets here in the apartment complex in which we live.

Continue reading

Protestants Don’t Celebrate Ash Wednesday, or Lent. We Are Protestant For a Reason.

Author’s Note: Read my most recent post against Lent here

I’m truly saddened by the number of my friends on Facebook who are celebrating Ash Wednesday and Lent this year. The common denominator of course is that they were all educated theologically at Dallas Theological Seminary.  I have other friends who did not attend DTS who are celebrating. I give them a pass. But the ones that did attend DTS, should repent of this heinous revelry immediately.

Continue reading

Dallas Theological Seminary: Great At Teaching Moralism and Calvin Bashing

A friend wrote me this past week and asked me to listen to a recent sermon by her pastor. I typically only go to one place to listen to sermons,* because most sermons today are more inspirational chats from a qualified life coach and rarely resemble the preaching of God’s word. (Just the fact that pastors are referred to as life coaches and team members at all, shows us the desperate state of the church).

The reason my friend wanted me to listen is because at about minute 43, the man complained about suffering from making the Bible an idol. I know what he meant, but it really disturbed my friend. There are some times when we revere the Bible so much that we exalt it above the God it exalts. I have no reason to believe that this is a major sin in the church, given that most don’t even open their Bibles. But that is another post.

Continue reading

Do You Take the Bible Literally?

I don’t, and guess what? I’m still a Christian. I know many of my brothers from Dallas Theological Seminary are taught that if we do not take the Bible literally, then we are not true Christians. The problem is: what does “literal” actually mean? According to Charles Ryrie, it means the normal usage of the word in the text. The problem with this is: who gets to determine what “normal” means?

The True Church has always let Christ and the Apostles define the terms since that puts Christ and the text of Scripture at the center of defining terms as opposed to men being at the center of those definitions. What Ryrie, and the rest at DTS, fail to see, is that they have set themselves up as the final authority’s on what the Bible means. This is a man-centered hermeneutic instead of a Christ-centered hermeneutic. In other words, this type of Bible interpretation is Solo Scriptura instead of Sola Scriptura. It is man-centered instead of Word centered.

For more on this, watch the video below from Jerry Johnson and Against the World.

New Greek Manuscripts of the Bible Found

Seven new Greek Manuscripts of the Bible have been found over the past several months. According to Professor Dan Wallace, of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, the seven manuscripts are a great find because one of them, a part of the Gospel of Mark, dates to the first century.

A second, a part of the gospel of Luke, dates to the early second century, along with a piece of Matthew’s gospel, along with two manuscripts from the book of Hebrews, one from 1 Corinthians and another from the book of Romans.

What this means is that we have more evidence that the Bible is reliable and that the books were not written some 400 to 500 years after the fact, as the graduates of the DaVinci School for Ignorance typically attest.

We already had one manuscript from the gospel of John that dated to the second century and one from Paul that dated to the third century. These seven manuscripts predate all of them and shows us that we can trust the Bible that we have been given. It is reliable.

Watch the video as Dan Wallace explains how even these new manuscripts will not give us any new information, but confirm that the manuscripts we already had were and are reliable.

You can also refer to an article entitle Can We Trust the Bible? by Arthur Khachatryan. Here is a bit of what he writes:

So how sure are we that we can identify what the originals said? How certain can we be of their consistency? Some have made a cottage industry out of embellishing some of these inconsistencies by claiming that there are upwards of about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the NT. However, most of the differences, such as spelling errors, grammatical mistakes and inverted phrases, are inconsequential. A full comparison shows 98% agreement, and of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that the NT of today is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of roughly 30,000 verses, only 50 are in doubt and none affect any significant doctrine.

An often-cited apparent inconsistency is that there are copies that have errors and deviations from other copies, which make it difficult to trust the text altogether. However, when we take a deeper look at the deviations, we can see that these differences between the copies are expected and do not reduce the trustworthiness of the texts. To expect writings of its length to be copied without any errors is unrealistic. In fact, the text would be more subject to scrutiny if the copies matched too perfectly, as we could charge it with collusion. We need to always account for human error, no matter the topic. Spelling and grammatical errors should be expected. We also see differences in sentence structure, in order to more correctly relay the message. But the substance doesn’t change. What is also significant about the number of copies is that it bodes very well for the determining the exact content matter of the original writings. Ultimately, whatever errors and inconsistencies exist across copies do not matter that much, because we can clearly understand what was contained in the original writings.