Reforming Rap or Hip-Hopping to Hell? (Part I)

Many of you are probably aware of the recent controversy concerning Christian Rap music that has swept across the evangelical blogosphere like a wildfire the last few weeks. The first sparks were lit at the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC) Worship of God conference a few weeks ago. During the conference, a panel including (from left to right): Dan Horn, Scott Aniol, Geoff Botkin, Joel Beeke, Jason Dohm, and Joe Morecraft were discussing what forms of music were appropriate for Christians in the worship of God. At one point during the discussion the panelists were asked what their thoughts were concerning the popular genre of Christian, and in particular, Reformed Rap. Here is their response: .

This video has gone viral and over the last few weeks there has been a tremendous backlash against these gentlemen by the Christian world in general. I feel that this is an important discussion; since music is very important to God it should be very important to us as well. If a particular musical genre can be utilized to communicate the gospel and important theological truths to people in their own cultural language, then by all means we should utilize it to the glory of God. However, if there are certain types of music that displease God, then we should avoid them entirely. As Christians we need to decide which one of these scenarios is the case with rap.

I plan to write this article in multiple parts: in this first article I will focus more on some of the basic principles that are relevant to this controversy. In my next article I will look more in depth at some of the particular arguments that were proposed by the NCFIC panel.

It should also be noted that some of the panelists have issued apologies or elucidations of their opinions over the last few weeks. Read Scott Brown’s apology here: , Joel Beeke’s apology here: , and Scott Aniol’s clarification of his statements here: . All of my arguments and statements regarding the panelists will be written in context of these clarifications and apologies.


Perhaps one of the things that concerned me the most about the NCFIC panel discussion was the utter lack of a Scriptural basis for their statements. It seemed to me that their arguments were based more on their opinions and perceptions concerning rap music than on the Word of God. It would be fine for them to have their own personal preferences concerning what musical genres they liked or disliked, but if they want to dictate to others what music God wants us to listen to then they better have the authority of God’s word behind them. As Christians, if we truly affirm the sufficiency of Scripture then the Bible will determine what music we listen to and worship God with, not the opinions of man.

The simple truth is that based on Scripture you cannot make the blanket statement that rap music in and of itself is ungodly. There is no verse in the Bible that says that a particular beat or instrument or musical style is sinful. Neither does the Bible mandate any particular instruments or musical styles that we must use to the exclusion of all others. To be truly consistent, people who claim that Scripture specifically and exclusively prescribes that we use a particular form of music must stop using pianos and pipe organs, since neither of those are mentioned in Scripture. Likewise, many common hymns such as “Amazing Grace” would be off limits because the form and style of the English poetry in which these hymns are written is very different from the Hebrew poetry used to worship God in the Psalms.

God has designed our universe in such a way that there is an endless variety of possible musical forms and instruments with which to worship Him. God is pleased when we use our creativity and use different forms of music, which ultimately He created, in order to bring Him glory. In Psalm 150 we are told to praise God with trumpets, lutes, harps, tambourines, (and yes, dancing), strings, pipes, and even loud, clashing cymbals!


We must also remember that in any song, our focus should be first and foremost on the words. The music may compliment and help us remember the words, but ultimately it is the words in a song that are used to praise God and instruct in sound doctrine, not the music itself. Human language, viz. the conveying of ideas, is a powerful thing and we must be careful about the words we use. Consider James 3:8-10:

“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.” [1]

Words carry great power, since with them we can either praise God or curse other people. However, no such power is ever ascribed to music by itself in Scripture. In any song, it is the words that carry unchristian or demonic themes, not the music itself.

In fact, the idea that music in and of itself can be evil is essentially Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that matter in and of itself was evil, and that spirit was good. The men on the panel fall into the same error of ascribing inherent evil to an inanimate and material object: rap music

While each one of us may have our own opinions about what types of music best compliment and deliver the words, and are most appropriate in worship (I prefer the musical style of traditional hymns), we must remember that those are only our opinions, not God’s commands.


Many opponents of Christian Rap music also claim that since it had ungodly origins then it is inherently evil. It is however, a logical fallacy, the genetic fallacy, to assume that something is automatically wrong just because of where it came from. We must look at rap music itself, and decide whether or not it is evil, not impute the evil of its origins upon it.

Furthermore, almost every instrument and musical style has been used for both good and evil at some point in history. For example, Clement of Alexandria actually forbade the use of flutes because of their association with pagan sensual practices:

“Let the pipe be resigned to the shepherds, and the flute to the superstitious who are engrossed in idolatry. For, in truth, such instruments are to be banished from the temperate banquet, being more suitable to beasts than men, and the more irrational portion of mankind.” [2]

In fact, the Bible even says that the inventor of pipes and lyres was Jubal, who was a descendant of the ungodly and wicked line of Cain!

“His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.” -Genesis 4:21

Does this mean that because the lyre and pipe came to us out of a violent and wicked culture that we cannot redeem both instruments to the worship of God? Certainly not, because we are specifically told in Psalm 150 to praise God “with harp and lyre” and “with stringed instruments and pipe.”

John Calvin remarked:

“It is truly wonderful, that this race, which had most deeply fallen from integrity, should have excelled the rest of the posterity of Adam in rare endowments… Let us then know, that the sons of Cain, though deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, were yet endued with gifts of no despicable kind; just as the experience of all ages teaches us how widely the rays of divine light have shone on unbelieving nations, for the benefit of the present life; and we see, at the present time, that the excellent gifts of the Spirit are diffused through the whole human race. Moreover, the liberal arts and sciences have descended to us from the heathen.” [3]

God has often used unbelievers to invent new medicines, machines, tools, etc. that have been a blessing to His people and the world. The same is true with musical styles, including rap.


Another theme that stood out to me in the panel’s response was that they made many blanket statements concerning rap music as a whole and tended to paint with a very broad brush. Rap is a very diverse genre, and even within Christian or Reformed rap circles there is much diversity. However, the NCFIC panel did not acknowledge the difference between different styles of rap or different rap artists. For example: one of the panelists said that “rap is about drawing attention to the rapper.” While this is certainly the case with many rappers, there are also some rappers whose focus is on drawing attention to God, rather than themselves. When dealing with a very diverse and complex field such as rap, it is very dangerous to make blanket statements and say that what may be true of most rappers is also true of all rappers.


To conclude, I would say that Scripture is our ultimate authority, and when Scripture is silent we also must be silent. The Bible should determine what music we listen to, not the opinions of man.

The words in a song are what communicate either holy or sinful ideas, not the music itself.

We cannot automatically assume that a style of music is evil just because of where it came from. We must look at the music and what message it is trying to communicate before deciding whether it is sinful or not.

We must avoid making blanket statements about a very diverse field and lumping together very different people and styles into one broad category.

These were just a few of my thoughts about the controversy. I thought it was best in this article to list out some general themes and concerns I had with the panel’s attitudes. In my next article I will go more in depth and address some of the specific arguments presented by the panelists.



[1] All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise indicated
[2] Clement of Alexandria: Paedegogus
[3] John Calvin: Commentary on Genesis 4:20


Psyche and Pneuma?

How many parts is a human being composed of?

This is a question that has puzzled philosophers, theologians, and anthropologists for as long as anyone can remember. Because of the many references in Scripture to a part of a person that lives on after their body dies, viz. Jesus telling the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day (Luke 23:43), and descriptions of the martyred saints’ activities in heaven (Rev. 6:9-11), to name a few, Christians agree that there is more to a person than just their physical body. Each person has a material side (body) and an immaterial side (soul/spirit) that will live on after their body dies. That is where the agreement ends however.

Among Christians there are two main positions on this subject:

Trichotomy is the belief that a person is composed of three parts: a body, a soul, and a spirit. The soul and spirit are said by the trichotomist to be completely different things. The soul is composed of the intellect, emotions, and will of a person. The spirit is the part of a person that communicates directly with God. The spirit is as different from the soul as the soul is from the body, making the man a three part being.[1]

Dichotomy is the belief that a person is composed of only two parts: a body and a soul/spirit. According to the dichotomist the words “soul” and “spirit” are synonyms and refer to the same thing: the immaterial part of a person.

In this article I will endeavor to (1) explain the origin and history of the two views, (2) examine what Scripture says on the subject, and (3) look at some of the specific arguments that are used.


Before I get into the history of the two views, I would like to make it very clear that I am by no means implying that a belief is automatically false just because of where it comes from. An idea can have a tenebrous history and still be perfectly true. However, by examining the history of a belief we can better understand how it was formed and why people believe it.

Though the origin of trichotomy is hotly debated, it is most probable that it traces its roots back to ancient Greek philosophy. As Kim Riddlbarger notes, “When viewed from the perspective of Christian reflection across the ages, there is no doubt that trichotomy has a very dubious pedigree. With its roots in Plato’s distinction between body and soul, and Aristotle’s further division of soul into ‘animal’ and ‘rational’ elements, the trichotomist notion of human nature as tripartite is unmistakably Greek and pagan, rather than Biblical.”[2] While the seeds of trichotomy were planted by the Greek philosophers, the Neo-Platonists and Gnostics had far more of an influence on the formation of what we now know as trichotomy. According to the Gnostics, the material world was evil, whereas the spiritual world was good. Since God was spirit, he was good, and could not create matter, which was evil. The Gnostics held that there had to be a series of emanations or aeons between God and the material creation. Eventually one of these emanations created matter, making the emanation responsible for bringing matter and evil into the world, not God. In Gnosticism there always has to be an intermediate substance or being between God and the material world. But what does this have to do with trichotomy? Louis Berkhof explains in his Systematic Theology:

“The tripartite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul.”[3]

Since the body was evil and the spirit was good, there had to be some sort of a third substance or mediator between the two so that the spirit would not be tainted by the body’s evil. Trichotomy was born. Considering that the origins of trichotomy are found in Greek philosophy and Gnosticism, it should be no surprise that the main venue by which trichotomy found its way into the early church was the school of Alexandria, the center of Gnostic and Neo-platonic influence in the church. Clement of Alexandria and Origen were some of the more prominent trichotomists there. The influence of trichotomy was felt elsewhere besides Alexandria however, and many of the Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Basil of Caesarea could be considered trichotomists.

Trichotomy fell out of favor however, when Apollinaris used it to argue against the complete humanity of Christ, and when the Pelagians used it to argue against original sin. In the course of battling against these heresies, the church as a whole generally accepted the view of dichotomy. Both Athanasius and Augustine held to a dichotomist view, and because of the latter’s great influence on western Christian thought, dichotomy remained the predominate view throughout the rest of the Middle Ages. The Reformation did not really change things, and although a few lesser known Reformers and Puritans advocated trichotomy, Reformed thought has generally been dichotomous. Calvin said, “Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part.”[4] There is no room for trichotomy within Reformed Confessions either. The Belgic Confession says this:

“For all the dead shall be raised out of the earth, and their souls joined and united with their proper bodies, in which they formerly lived.” (Chapter 37) [5]

No distinction between soul and spirit here. The Westminster Confession also assumes dichotomy:

“The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them” (Chapter 32.1) [6]

The Savoy declaration repeats this part of the Westminster Confession word for word, as does the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

Dichotomy remains the dominant view to this day and is held by the majority of evangelicals. Although trichotomy still has a sizable following among the masses, there are few evangelical scholars who defend it today.

So if trichotomy appears to come from Greek philosophy and Gnosticism, where did dichotomy come from?


Although understanding the history behind the two views is helpful, and hearing what the confessions say is important, ultimately we must look to the Scripture to determine what is true and what is false. So how are the words “soul” (Heb. nephesh and Gk. psyche) and “spirit” (Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma) used in the Bible? The fact is that the Scriptures often use the words “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably. In John 12:27, Christ says, “Now My soul has become troubled.”[7] However, under very similar circumstances in John 13:21, Jesus “became troubled in spirit.” Both terms are used of saints in heaven. In Hebrews 12:23 we read of the, “spirits of the righteous made perfect.” But in Revelation 6:9 we see the, “souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God.”

The trichotomists believe that a person’s soul is composed of their intellect, emotion, and will. The spirit is what they claim communicates most directly with God in prayer and worship. However, these distinctions are entirely foreign to the Biblical text. Everything that the trichotomists say the soul does the Bible says the spirit also does, and everything the trichotomists say the spirit does the Bible says the soul does as well!

The trichotomists teach that our intellect is part of our soul, but in Mark 2:8 we read about Jesus, “perceiving [Gk. epiginosko, literally ‘knowing’] in his spirit” [ESV] and Paul declares in I Corinthians 2:11, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?” The Bible says that the spirit can experience emotion just like the soul can. One can have a “downcast spirit”, which is the opposite of a “cheerful heart” (Proverbs 17:22). In Acts 17:16 Paul’s, “spirit was being provoked within him” and in John 13:21 Jesus,”became troubled in spirit.” A person’s will does not exclusively belong to the soul either. Deuteronomy 2:30 says, “But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate.” In Daniel 5:20 Nebuchadnezzar’s, “spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly.” [ESV]

Furthermore, the trichotomists believe that the spirit is the part of us that relates to God most directly in worship and prayer. In the Bible however, we see that our souls can pray and worship God as well: “To You, O Lord, I lift up my soul.” (Psalm 25:1) “My soul is crushed with longing after Your ordinances at all times.” (Psalm 119:20). Our souls can also pray directly to God, as when Hannah says, “I have poured out my soul before the Lord.”

We can conclude that not only is there no Scripture that teaches trichotomy, but the testimony of God’s word seems to affirm dichotomy. The terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably, and there is no verse that warrants splitting them into two different elements.

Even though man is composed of two parts, a material element and an immaterial element we must, however, emphasize the overall unity of man. As Wayne Grudem remarks, “In fact, we should not slip into the mistake of thinking that certain activities (such as thinking, feeling, or deciding things) are done by only one part of us. Rather, these activities are done by the whole person. When we think or feel things, certainly our physical bodies are involved at every point as well. Whenever we think we use the physical brain that God has given us. Similarly, our brain and our entire nervous system are involved when we feel emotions, and sometimes those emotions are involved in physical sensations in other parts of our bodies. This is just to reemphasize what was said at the beginning of our discussion, that the overall focus of Scripture is primarily on man as a unity, with our physical bodies and the nonphysical part of our persons functioning together as a unity.”[8]

This is why death is such a tragic and disturbing reminder of the fact that we live in a fallen world. A person’s body and soul/spirit were never meant to be separated, and one day God will join them back together.


Even though the testimony of Scripture is in favor of dichotomy, there are a couple of texts that the trichotomists use to try and prove their theory. We will now examine a few:

I Thessalonians 5:23

“Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Trichotomists insist that since body, soul, and spirit are all mentioned in this verse, this indicates that a man is composed of these three parts. However, if we apply the same hermeneutic to Matthew 22:37, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” [ESV] then we must believe that our heart and mind are different elements entirely from our soul. This is directly opposed to the trichotomist belief that a person’s emotions and mind are part of their soul! The problem is further complicated by Mark 12:30, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” [ESV] Should we now add strength to the list of man’s parts? If we interpret these two verses in the same way that the trichotomists interpret I Thessalonians 5:23, then we end up with five or six parts to a man: mind, heart, strength, soul, spirit, and body! Where do we draw the line? It is best to conclude then that in I Thessalonians 5:23 Paul is not dividing a man into three parts, but is rather piling up different synonyms for emphasis, the same way that Jesus did when he listed out heart, mind, strength, etc.

Hebrews 4:12

“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

This verse is not teaching that the Word of God can divide a person’s soul from their spirit, it is simply saying that God’s word can pierce the deepest part of our being. Whether we call it our soul or our spirit, God’s word can penetrate and divide it discovering our deepest thoughts and intentions. Furthermore, it is impossible to divide joints from marrow, because the two are not connected. This further reinforces the idea that the writer of Hebrews is not speaking of dividing soul from spirit anymore than he is about dividing joints from marrow.

Neither of these passages teach trichotomy, and in order for them to speak about trichotomy, a person has to take them way out of context, as well as make a lot of assumptions that simply cannot be found in Scripture.

So why does all of this matter? Is it important whether or not a person believes in trichotomy or dichotomy? While I do not believe that this is a salvation issue, and a person can be a trichotomist and still be a Christian, I believe that this is an important issue that has important implications for our daily lives. Trichotomy can have a dangerous anti-intellectual tendency. If, as the trichotomists say, our spirit is what communicates with God and is separate entirely from our intellect, then there is a tendency to put less emphasis on studying God’s word with our minds and instead rely on messages our spirit has received from God. J.I. Packer warns, “Moreover, [trichotomy] leads to a crippling anti-intellectualism, whereby spiritual insight and theological thought are separated to the impoverishing of both, theology being seen as ‘soulish’ and unspiritual while spiritual perception is thought of as unrelated to the teaching and learning of God’s revealed truth.”[9]

Wayne Grudem also notes, “If we think of our spirits as a distinct part of us that relates most directly to God, we can easily begin to neglect the role of Bible study and mature wisdom in making decisions, and place too much reliance on ‘spiritual’ discernment in the realm of guidance, an emphasis that has, through the history of the church, led many zealous Christians astray into false teaching and unwise practices.”[10]

To conclude:

(1)Trichotomy traces its roots back to Greek philosophy and Gnosticism, and its origins are primarily pagan rather than Christian. Reformed thought has historically affirmed dichotomy, as evidenced in the many Reformed Confessions.

(2)There is no clear evidence in Scripture for the theory of trichotomy, neither is a distinction between soul and spirit such as the trichotomists teach taught anywhere in the Bible, the terms “soul” and “spirit” being used interchangeably.

(3)Trichotomy has a dangerous anti-intellectual leaning, and can sometimes undermine the importance of sound doctrine and careful exegesis of God’s Word.

Contrary to what some people might insist, the debate between trichotomy and dichotomy is not theological hairsplitting. As demonstrated above, this doctrine has important implications for our lives, and a vigorous study of the Scriptures on this subject would be good for all of us.

[1]There is some variation among the sundry trichotomists. In this article I am merely arguing against the more general principles of trichotomy.
[2]Kim Riddlebarger: Trichotomy- A Beachhead for Gnostic Influences, you can read the full article here:,d.b2I
[3] Louis Berkhof: Systematic Theology
[4]John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.15.2
[5]Belgic Confession, Chapter 37
[6]Westminster Confession, Chapter 32.1
[7]All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise indicated
[8]Wayne Grudem: Systematic Theology, I would strongly recommend reading Grudem’s arguments against trichotomy, found in chapter 23
[9]J. I. Packer: Concise Theology
[10]Wayne Grudem: Systematic Theology

Introduction to this Blog

Welcome to Adversus Haereses [1] (Against Heresies)! My name is Reagan, and I have started this blog so that we can discuss and learn about theology, history, politics, etc. But why should the average person study theology? I myself am not a pastor or church officer, and am actually only seventeen years old. In Deuteronomy 6:4-9 we read:

“‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.'” [2]

God has revealed Himself to us through creation and more specifically through his Word, the Bible. As God’s people we are commanded to learn God’s commands and what they reveal to us about His nature, and to dwell upon them constantly all throughout the day, discussing them with one another and teaching them to those who are new to the faith.

“‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'” Matthew 28:19-20 (emphasis mine)

“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” Titus 1:9 ESV

“But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” Titus 2:1

“preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” II Timothy 4:2-4

Over and over again the importance of having sound doctrine is repeated in Scripture. Sadly, this aspect of the Christian life has been largely ignored by the church today and the culture at large. We live in an age where “there are no absolute truths” (except for the statement that there are no absolute truths, which is in fact an absolute truth, which are not supposed to exist…). But what is the cost of this philosophy? Do ideas really matter? I would like to answer that question with one of my favorite quotes from G. K. Chesterton (after all, is any article really complete without a G. K. Chesterton quote?…):

“At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, ‘life is not worth living.’ We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.” [3]

Ideas do matter. If we are convinced that human life is not important, then we will murder babies by the thousands and call it a “constitutional right”. If we believe that marriage is defined by culture and circumstances, then we will have no problem with allowing two men to “marry”, no matter what the ill effects on society will be. If we believe that there is no such thing as individual property rights, then socialism becomes an attractive political theory. Which brings us to our next topic: Politics.

Everyone lives out their theology, and politics is living out our theology with regards to government and the public sphere. The reason that our government is going in the wrong direction politically is because they have already gone in the wrong direction theologically. Now, I am not advocating that we should re-institute the Mosaic law (which was largely ceremonial) and enforce capital punishment for blasphemy, adultery, etc. or force everyone to agree with our religious beliefs. All those areas are outside of the government’s rightful authority [4]. However, I believe that as Christians we should vote and participate in politics in a way that is consistent with what God has commanded in the Bible: sound doctrine.

As for history, Mark Twain once said, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” It is very important to understand how we got where we are in order to understand where we are going. We must also avoid making the same mistakes that have been made in the past. As the Venerable Bede said, “For if history relates good things of good men, the attentive hearer is excited to imitate that which is good; or if it mentions evil things of wicked persons, nevertheless the religious and pious hearer or reader, shunning that which is hurtful and perverse, is the more earnestly excited to perform those things which he knows to be good, and worthy of God.” [5]

So to conclude, having a correct understanding of theology is critical because everything else flows from it. If a person is consistent in their worldview, then their views on politics, history, philosophy, ethics, science, etc. will reflect their views of theology. Politics is especially important since it is how we live out our theology in government and the public sphere, and history is also important to understanding how we got here and where we are going.

I would also like to add that I am not writing of these three subjects exclusively; these are just the main three areas that I will be focusing on for now. I will however branch out from these categories from time to time, as well as writing book reviews (the books being about theology, politics, and history).

Such is the purpose of this blog.


[1] The phrase “adversus haereses” is Latin for “against heresies” and is the title of Irenaeus’ great five volume theological refutation of the gnostic heresies
[2] All Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated
[3] G. K. Chesterton: Heretics (1905)
[4] There are actually some fringe groups known as theonomists or “dominionists” who believe that the Mosaic Law should still be enforced by the government, including capital punishment for adultery, blasphemy, etc. Their claims however are rejected by the majority of evangelical theologians.
[5] Venerable Bede: Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation (c.a. 731)