2009 Photo by Lambert Wolterbeek Muller, flickr

Written by Sam Logan Thursday, 16 May 2013 00:00

Well, the answer to this question is like the answers to so many similar questions – no, there is no hierarchy of sins and yes, there certainly is a hierarchy of sins.

My previous blog explored briefly the “no” answer while this blog and the next one will explore the “yes” answer.

We must admit that there is no direct and specific Scriptural evidence in support of answering “yes” to this question.   But that, of course, is true of many doctrines which we regard as clear Scriptural teaching.  One example of this would be the doctrine of the Trinity.  That doctrine is, correctly in my judgment, deduced from numerous Scriptural passages such as Genesis 1:26  [“Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”], where the “us” and the “our” are grounds for deducing, at the very least, plurality in God.

Further, many of the historic orthodox statements of faith specifically provide warrant for using deduction in the formation of doctrine.  The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture “ (emphasis added).  Of course, all churches, including (perhaps especially) those for which the Westminster Confession is regarded as authoritative, provide numerous examples of in-fighting over just what is and what is not “good and necessary consequence,” but my point is that all churches do, at some point, utilize deduction in reaching doctrinal conclusions. 

So we must “deduce” a “yes” answer from Scripture.  But can we?  If so, which specific Scripture passages?

1. The Book of Leviticus

The Book of Leviticus is full of God’s commandments to His people.  Chapter and chapter after chapter provides direct and infallible instruction with regard to what God’s people are to do, what they are not to do, and what happens if they disobey.  And over and over again, God Himself makes distinctions among the sins in terms of what is needed to “pay for” each of the sins.  Chapter Five is particularly specific in indicating that different sins warrant different sacrifices.  There seems to be a clear hierarchy here.

2.  Acts 15

The entirety of this chapter seems to deal specifically with the question of what ceremonial laws are SO IMPORTANT that even the Gentiles must keep them.  And the conclusion is equally clear:  “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”  Whatever the reason for this particular distinction, there can be no question that a very specific distinction is being made.  There seems to be a clear hierarchy here.

3. I Timothy 3

The same is true on the “positive” side.  As Paul outlines the qualifications of “overseers,” he mentions numerous spiritual characteristics that are required of such persons.  He could simply have told Timothy that overseers must conform to all the commands mentioned in Scripture; instead, he identifies certain qualities which must be present in those who would lead Christ’s church.  Of course, overseers should obey the whole law of Christ but they must have these specific qualities.  There seems to be a clear hierarchy here.

So there does seem to be Scriptural grounds on which to deduce that there is a hierarchy of sins. 

But one final point needs to be made before moving, as I will do in my next blog, to discuss what sins seem to be “worst.”

That final point picks up on my argument in the previous blog that ANY sin renders an individual personally disqualified for eternal life in the presence of the Triune God.  If that is the case, what difference does it make if some sins are more “serious” than others.  All three of the above-cited passages help us to answer this question.

Eternal punishment for sin is not the only punishment about which the Bible speaks.  Some sins, whether committed by the regenerate or by the unregenerate, bring temporal judgment on the sinner.  Take, for example, the story of Ananias and Sapphirain Acts 5 (which I will discuss more fully in my next blog).  They sinned by lying to God’s representative and, by inference, to God Himself.  And they received temporal punishment for that sin – they both were killed.  Scripture does not comment on their eternal destiny and we should not either.  But it is clear that this particular sin produced particular immediate temporal judgment.

Similarly, as in the I Timothy passage quoted above, certain forms of obedient behavior are regarded as essential for temporal offices and/or activities.  Paul is not telling Timothy in I Timothy 3 that only those possessing the qualities he names will go to heaven.  He is simply saying that those qualities are necessary for the office of an overseer.  Therefore, we should, I believe, regard those specific forms of obedience as related to temporal, not eternal, realities. 

So arguing that there is, in one sense, a hierarchy of sins does not involve us in any form of “salvation by works” theology.  It simply reflects accurately Scriptural teaching.

But what are the “worst” sins?  I will try to address this question in my next blog.


Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical. He also serves as the International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship (www.wrfnet.org). He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is President Emeritus of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)..  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also  http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Sam Logan Wednesday, 15 May 2013 00:00

Well, the answer to this question is like the answers to so many similar questions – no, there is absolutely no hierarchy of sins and yes, there certainly is a hierarchy of sins. 

This blog will explore briefly the “no” answer while my next two blogs will explore the “yes” answer.

So – in defense of answering “no,” to our question, here are a few points:

1.  The nature of God

Here is where all discussions of subjects such as these must begin, with the character of the Lord God.  He is not “largely good.”  He is not even “mostly good.”  He is, in His very nature, absolute perfection.  Part of that perfection is His holiness, His purity, His righteousness.  J. I. Packer’s Knowing God is the best book I know in terms of giving a clear picture both of who God is and what this means. 

Isaiah gives a clear picture:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!”

4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

In light of who God is, even the slightest sin is an abomination.  Any sin is sufficient to separate us from God precisely because the Lord of hosts is holy, holy, holy.  No hierarchy here!

2.  The need for absolute and constant obedience

Jonathan Edwards, in his treatise on “Original Sin” provides two superb examples in response to theoretical claims that a “preponderance” of obedience is adequate.

Therefore how absurd must it be for Christians to object, against the depravity of man’s nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to talk of a prevailing innocence, good nature, industry, and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind! Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist, that the domestic of a prince was not a bad servant, because though sometimes he contemned and affronted his master to a great degree, yet he did not spit in his master’s face so often as he performed acts of service. More absurd, than it would be to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to him, because, although she committed adultery, and that with the slaves and scoundrels sometimes, yet she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. These notions would be absurd, because the crimes are too heinous to be atoned for, by many honest actions of the servant or spouse of the prince; there being a vast disproportion between the merit of the one, and the ill desert of the other: but infinitely less, than that between the demerit of our offenses  against God, and the value of our acts of obedience.   

No hierarchy here!

3.  The need for active internal as well as external obedience

Because of who God is, it is required that His creatures not only avoid those behaviors which He proscribes; it is equally required that they perform every single one of the duties which He commands.  And even THAT is not all – it is further required that God’s creatures do all that He commands out of a heart’s disposition which “relishes” His glory most of all.

In his discussion of “Original Sin,” Jonathan Edwards makes this point:

The sum of our duty to God, required in his law, is LOVE; taking love in a large sense, for the true regard of our hearts to GOD, implying esteem, honor, benevolence, gratitude, complacence, etc. . . .  But it is manifest, that obedience is nothing, any otherwise than as a testimony of the respect of our hearts to God: without the heart, man’s external acts are no more than the motions of the limbs of a wooden image; have no more of the nature of either sin or righteousness. It must therefore needs be that love to God, the respect of the heart, must be the sum of the duty required in his law. It therefore appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect of heart from God, which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than righteousness.  [Emphasis added] 

Whoever, therefore, does not love God as much as God should be loved is a living offense in the sight of God.  The slightest “want” of love to God is, in itself, sin.  No hierarchy here!

4.  The necessity of Jesus

Because of items #1 and #2,

“None is righteous, no, not one;no one understands; no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Romans 3: 10 – 12)

And Paul’s argument through the rest of Romans 3, 4, and 5, is that precisely because ANY sin condemns the sinner,  Jesus’s life and death and resurrection were all necessary if anyone was to be saved: 

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.  (Romans 5: 18) 

Just as the very character of God demands perfect obedience and just as that demand includes positive action and motivation, so the redemptive work of Jesus Christ makes it clear that the price He paid is both essential and adequate for every single sinner who turns to Him.  No hierarchy here!

Therefore, it seems completely clear that, in one sense, the answer to our question must be, “No, there is no hierarchy of sins.”

And yet, . . . 

Check back tomorrow to see if there might be another way in which this question should be answered.



Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical. He also serves as the International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship (www.wrfnet.org). He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is President Emeritus of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)..  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also  http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Written by Phil Monroe Monday, 13 May 2013 00:00

A few years ago, in a meeting of a few Christian prosecutors, I learned that these individuals (from 5 different states) had never remembered a pastor attending court with a victim of sexual abuse. However, these individuals remember numerous times when pastors attended hearings in support of the alleged offender. One of the prosecutors recalled one sad conversation while sitting in court with a young victim. This child said, “Does this mean that God is on his side?” (since her pastor was sitting with the offender).

You can understand how this kind of thing happens. The offender is in dire need of character witnesses to mitigate the evidence of their abuse. They need others to stand up for them and swear that such things could never be true of an upstanding person such as this offender. The victim usually makes no such demand/request and so, often fails to be supported.

Think this is just something that happened in the past? At a sentencing hearing for Rev. Jack Schaap, it was noted by the DA that the courts had received more than 100 letters asking for leniency and providing excuses (e.g., work, medical problems) for why he sexually abused a teen girl.  

Ways Pastors Can Support Victims

I want to commend this document for you to consider 12 ways a pastor/theologian can participate on a multidisciplinary team to care for victims. What are some of these ways?

  1. Clergy support to victims during criminal proceedings
  2. Supporting the work and purpose of abuse protection officials to the congregation
  3. Empowering victims to divulge; empowering offenders to confess
  4. Educating the larger world as to how offenders use distortions of faith to abuse
  5. Presiding over prevention strategies for churches and communities.

This paper does a great job illustrating many ways church leaders and theologians can be deeply involved in the healing and preventing of sexual abuse of children.

It is time for us to improve the image of the church in the protection and care of victims of abuse.


Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychologyand Director of the Masters of Arts in Counseling Program at Biblical and the Seminary’s newest initiative, Global Trauma Recovery Institute. He maintains a private practice at Diane Langberg & Associates. He blogs regularly at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.com.

 

   

Written by Phil Monroe Friday, 10 May 2013 00:00

I’m an anxious person. It is a common trait, especially in grad school—professors as well as students. Anxious people tend to spend considerable time ruminating through “What if…” questions along with shoulda, coulda, woulda thinking. We worry about our past failures coming to light and whether we’ll be up to the challenge the future presents.

Sound pretty negative way to live? It is. The only way we differ from depressed people is that we still hope our worry will save us from disaster. As you can imagine, such worry robs us of joy. It keeps us from enjoying the present or seeing God’s gracious hand on our lives. And we compound our problems by then shaming ourselves for failing to follow God’s command, “Do not be afraid.”

The Five Minute Antidote

Part of the problem with anxiety is that we are trying to control/manage every possible outcome in order to avoid future disaster(s). Fearful people know that the answer to their anxiety will not include,

  • Just not caring anymore. We’ve tried that…it doesn’t work.
  • Making sure we get it RIGHT. Tried that too. Didn’t work.

So, what might work? Try this on for size,

What is God’s plan for me for the next five minutes?

Most of us have no clue what God is planning for us next year or even next week. But, I suspect most of us can discern what we need to do right now…for the next five minutes,

  • I need to make dinner
  • I need to read this assignment for school
  • I need to attend to my child’s homework
  • I can call a friend who is grieving

Do the one thing you can do for the next five minutes. Do that with as much focus as you can.

Here’s what you are likely to discover: your anxiety decreases, or at least does not increase. When we stop ruminating and the internal conversations, our anxieties decrease and our ability to be present increases. So, when you find yourself in an anxious stew, try to ask yourself, What is one thing I can do for the next five minutes or What does God want me to do for the next five minutes? Consider this your method of living out Psalm 131, where you are stilled and quieted like a weaned child, content with what He has for you for the next five minutes.

Oh, did you think this will solve all your anxiety problems? No, of course not. But where God does give you something to focus your attention, call that a success. Part of the Christian life is repetition–repeated worship, repeated repentance, repeated obedience, repeated trust. So, do pray for God to remove your “thorn” but look for five minute relief. Notice when it works and then ask God for another five minute focus on the thing he has for you RIGHT NOW.


Phil Monroe is Professor of Counseling & Psychology and Director of the Masters of Arts in Counseling Program at Biblical. He also directs Biblical’s new trauma recovery project. You can find his personal blog at www.wisecounsel.wordpress.com.

 

   

Written by Todd Mangum Wednesday, 08 May 2013 00:00

One exercise I’ve had students do in theology class is to read through Hebrews 11 and describe what characterizes the faith described. Try it — here are a couple of samples:

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. (v. 7)

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.  By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (vv. 8-10)

By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.  By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin;  considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen. (vv. 23-27)

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been encircled for seven days. (v. 30)

By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace. (v. 31)

If you were to list some of the qualities of faith from what Hebrews 11 describes, what would be on your list? 

I’m struck by the qualities implicitly and explicitly emphasized: qualities like risk; sacrifice and commitment — to what is not yet seen; courage; trusting and acting on that trust — sometimes against overwhelming odds of what seems empirically to make sense.

I’m also struck by what is not here, what is conspicuously not emphasized. There is precious little mention of anything having to do with “doctrinal correctness,” or “understanding of the atonement.” Now, I know, Romans’ explanations are still in the Bible and are important. But if “understanding the atonement” is so central to what faith is, then why is there nary a mention of such in the chapter in the Bible that gives more attention to what faith is than any other throughout the entire Bible?

The late-16th-century Puritan, Richard Hooker, wrote, “We are justified by Jesus through faith, not by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith.” It’s an important clarification; one that Hebrews 11 reinforces.

If the faith that Jesus and the Bible describes is fuller and richer than affirming Protestant nuances of atonement and justification doctrine, then how does our understanding of the gospel need to likewise be adjusted?  And how does our approach to spreading — and living — the gospel likewise need to be adjusted?


Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.

   

Written by Todd Mangum Monday, 06 May 2013 00:00

Hebrews 11 is the “hall of fame of faith” — and it just so happens that not only are we going through this chapter at Breakfast with Biblical, but also in Sunday School at my church. (I guess the Lord is really trying to teach me something from this chapter!) It’s worth the next blog or two, anyway, noting a couple of points from this chapter — the chapter that devotes more attention than any other in the Bible to what exactly faith is.  (Lots of passages talk about what faith does and why it’s important; but Hebrews 11 actually defines and illustrates what faith is.)

Noah is among those mentioned (v. 7).  We’re told in Genesis that Noah lived at a very wicked time, so wicked and evil that God is said to have regretted that He ever even made human beings (Gen 6:6), because “every intent of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8); in fact, God told him, “you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time” (Gen. 7:1).

We know the rest of the story; or at least we think we do.  Did you ever see any children’s Sunday School material portraying Noah and the ark? Noah beaming all smiles with all the happy animals getting on the ark like they’re going for a cruise.  The reality, I’m surmising, was very different.

It took 100 years to build the ark — the work crew consisting of Noah and his family. Through that 100 years, did the sons of Noah ever get to hear the voice of God?  Or did they have to just take their father’s word for it that this investment of all their lives was really a wise one?  And once the ark was built, there were the animals.

Did Noah even like animals? I’ve never had more than a dog and, though I did come to consider that stupid hound something like a member of the family, sometimes the walks and feedings and poop scooping would just get old. Imagine having so much of your life devoted to the rescue, feeding, and care of animals.

We’re never told that Noah was chosen for this job because he loved animals so much. He was rescued (and became the rescuer) in part because he loved God so much.

I was studying about Noah when Joni Eareckson Tada was here speaking at Biblical. Her testimony is truly remarkable; her spirit is both sweet and indomitable. She told the group gathered for the conference on ministering to the disabled that she is today thankful for her wheelchair, thankful that God has put her through over 40 years of living as a paraplegic because of the relationship that He has cultivated with her through the pain and suffering, aggravation and inconvenience. She is grateful, as well, she says, for what God has taught her by making her so dependent on the care and kindness of other people. (Click here for Joni's story, and her most recent book).

I was gripped by her testimony.  It occurred to me that God never came to Joni when she was seventeen years of age to tell her, “Hey, Joni — you like sitting, don’t you? I’ve got a plan for your life that I think you’re going to really like; it involves doing quite a bit of sitting and I know you like that so you’re really going to like this.” No . . . He never discussed it with Joni; and Joni didn’t get to pick.  And, had she been given the choice, she probably wouldn’t have chosen what God had for her as a young woman. Only in hindsight, now as a full grown woman approaching senior citizenship, does she see the benefits of God’s plan; only after a lifetime is she able to convey the preciousness of what God has taught her through the hard road God has brought her through.

And Noah didn’t get to pick either. We don’t know how he felt about animals. He did the whole building of the ark and rescue and care of the animals because that is what God chose for him, not what he chose for God. It is, in the end, God’s mission, not Noah’s. 

We don’t get to pick either. I have to say: none of my trials and travails come close to those of any of these people.  Yet sometimes I get frustrated.  Sometimes I wonder why my good plans, my good vision for how things should work and work out, don’t come to fruition like I’d hoped or thought.  It’s in those times I have to be reminded that it’s not because Noah was so fond of animals that his life calling was what it was. It wasn’t because Joni desired to be a paraplegic that God chose her to be the spokesperson for ministry to the disabled for our generation. It’s God’s mission, not ours.  We are minor players in the plotline of history, not the main character.

It’s God’s mission, not mine; I’m forwarding HIS story (not He mine).  I need to be reminded of that more often than I’d like to admit. How about you?     


Todd Mangum is the Academic Dean and Professor of Theology at Biblical.  He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Todd is the author of The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift, and of several articles seeking to bridge divides among Bible-believing Christians. He is married to Linda and they have three sons.  See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/todd-mangum.

   

Written by Dave Dunbar Friday, 03 May 2013 00:00

In an earlier blog I introduced the important new book by David Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw, Prodigal Christianity.  The authors challenge the American church to follow the Prodigal God into the far country of missional engagement.  In today’s blog I will examine the first “signpost” directing us to the frontier of mission, the signpost of Post-Christendom.

Successful missionary endeavor always requires careful attention to context.  Most Christians recognize this principle as applicable to “foreign” missions—new languages must be learned, different customs and religious ideas understood, etc.  But we have been much slower to realize the importance of context in our own circumstances because for centuries we have lived under a form of Christendom, which is simply a term describing a culture in which Christianity is dominant. In Christendom the church feels little need for culture-crossing; Christians are relatively comfortable because they own much of the culture.

But now that has changed.  In many places in America Christendom is rapidly dying off, and other places it has already passed.  Many of us feel this.  Some Christians engage in culture wars “to take back the culture.” The authors view this as a lost cause.

Others basically ignore the changing context and press on with the message and methods that used to work. Often this strategy is one that preaches to convince people of their sinfulness and guilt so that they will see their need for forgiveness and trust in Jesus. The authors are thinking here of the Neo-Reformed movement, but the basic approach is widespread in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. The problem is that the success of this approach depends on a culture of Christian “memory” that grows weaker by the year. “Arguing people back to the truth or back to guilt is merely a retreat to a lost modern mind-set and forgotten Christian culture where we can still assume that everyone is basically a Christian” (p. 5).

What do you think?  Does the loss of Christian memory change the way the gospel is heard? And should it,  therefore,  change the way we communicate?

On the other hand, Brian McLaren and others of the emerging church propose a strategy of relevance and revision. The collapse of modernity suggests that the church should embrace post modernity. A rationalist approach to faith should be replaced by a relational approach. Orthodoxy (right belief) is less important than orthopraxy (right practice).

Fitch and Holsclaw want to take the best from the Neo-Reformed and from Emergents. But they want something more:  “We need a way to engage the cultural dynamics of day-to-day life while compromising nothing of what God has done in Christ for the world or his very presence in the world.  We need to journey deep into people’s everyday lives, trials, hurts, and desires” (pp. 5-6).

The first sign post for this journey is Post-Christendom.  By understanding this cultural shift we may find clues to greater missional effectiveness.  The authors elaborate this shift by three other posts:  postattractional, postpositional, and postuniversal. The first refers to the decreased “pull” of church buildings and programs, especially for non-Christians. The second refers to the church’s loss of authority and influence in the broader culture. The third speaks to the loss of a common universe of language, concepts, values, worldview, etc.

Fitch and Holsclaw encourage us to follow Jesus deeply into this “post” world:  “These days, when our compasses are spinning and all the street lights are out, when our familiar routes are blocked and our maps are torn, this first signpost of post-Christendom directs us toward a prodigal Christianity that does not stand still in order to attract, does not sit in the seat of authority, and does not walk in the ways of the universal, but instead delights in the paths of the prodigal God” (p. 15).

What do you think about this “post” world? Do you agree that Christendom is dead or dying? Is this a big problem? Should this significantly impact our understanding of church and our practice of mission?

 

Dave Dunbar is president of Biblical Seminary.  He has been married to Sharon for (almost) 44 years.  They have four grown children and (almost) seven grand children.

   

Page 11 of 25

Blog Mission

The purpose of this blog will be to expand the influence of our faculty, maintain contact with our graduates, and invite other friends to think with us about important biblical and theological ideas.

Biblical's Faculty

Biblical’s Faculty:

We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the Gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.

Latest Blog Entries

Written on 17 December 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 15 December 2014 - by David Lamb
Written on 12 December 2014 - by Dr. Kyuboem Lee
Written on 08 December 2014 - by Dr. David Dunbar
Written on 01 December 2014 - by Manuel Ortiz
Written on 25 November 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 19 November 2014 - by Steve Taylor
Written on 17 November 2014 - by Stephen Taylor
Written on 14 November 2014 - by Charles Zimmerman
Written on 07 November 2014 - by Susan Disston and Jennifer Zuck

Previous Blog Entries

Follow Biblical

Follow us on the following sites and receive notifications on upcoming events and blog entries:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on Twitterg+_64_black

Contact Admissions

800.235.4021 x146

215.368.5000 x146

215.368.4913 (fax)

 

admissions@biblical.edu

Stay Connected with Biblical

Follow us on the following sites:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on TwitterFollow Biblical on YouTubeg+_64_black
Or simply call us at...
800.235.4021 x146 or 215.368.5000 x146

Support Biblical by Giving

800.235.4021 x162

215.368.5000 x162

215.368.7002 (fax)

 

development@biblical.edu

Home