All Resources

The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of redemption—both for mankind and for the earth. Indeed, without Christ’s resurrection and what it means—an eternal future for fully restored human beings dwelling on a fully restored Earth—there is no Christianity.

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: Any attack on hell is ultimately an attack on the God who created it, and the Scriptures that describe it. Attacking hell, though popular and seemingly compassionate, is not a parlor game; it is a full frontal assault on God's goodness, sovereignty, lordship and love. That's why I hope you become just as big a fan of hell as I am.

I’ll begin with some important prefacing remarks. I am absolutely committed to the centrality of local churches in God’s kingdom agenda. 

The only obedience that is necessary for salvation is yielding to the requirements of the gospel (John 3:16, Acts 16:30,31). 

As for your concern about addressing too many moral issues, that's fine. It's just a matter of taste. 

Justice is the foundation of God’s throne, and justice was the motivation for our redemptive process. 

It’s true that the ascension is a neglected doctrine. It was considered more important to earlier generations of Christians than it is today.
 One remarkable thing about the ascension is that it affirms Christ’s physical body went into Heaven following his resurrection. This is what the creeds call his “self-same body,” stating that likewise our self-same bodies will be restored in our resurrection.  

I don’t mean to be trite or cute, but after having considered who God is, the answer to this question is “because God didn’t want to.” 

Satan labors to give people an inaccurate view of heaven. Jesus said of the devil, “When he lies he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

In Heaven, we’ll see clearly (1 Cor. 13:12), but won’t know everything. If we knew everything, we’d be God.

I think what Randy is addressing in the article is the inevitable outcome of a philosophy taken to its logical conclusions. 

There is (at least in my mind and many others) an inconsistency in our position statement. I believe that there is considerable evidence that so-called birth control pills (BCPs) do have a significant post-ovulatory (abortifacient) effect. 

I am a newer believer and sometimes get frustrated over all of the different doctrines in various churches. Can you help me sort these out?  

Wolfe has raised some valid observations about the American religious environment; many of which true Christian believers should carefully take note. I do not agree with his conclusion that evangelical Christianity is not much of a threat to secularists.