1. Here is a nice new blog that I found that looks promising: “Evangelical Monk

2. The house church movement makes headlines in Denver.

What do you think of house churches?

3. Here is a good post by Joe Carter on the different views concerning the End Times.

Although he did not include Progressive Dispensationalism which is the majority at Dallas Seminary now.

4. Went and saw “Salt” with Angelina Jolie today.

Ummm…the story sounded good. Is was much better than I expected. Clean good time. Thumbs up.

5. Note to self: Don’t rub eyes while gardening.

6. Go to “sensitivity training” about homosexuals or get expelled from school.

7. Kevin Jackson answers the Calvinist’s common objections to Arminianism.

Though I am not Arminian, this is worth a read. I find it interesting that he would admit that the Arminian believes choices are made “ex nihilo” (“out of nothing”).

8. How to witness to postmodern western atheists.

9. Are Mormons Christian?

Its that whole many gods thing that makes me say, “Ummm…why are we asking this question?” But I guess that many of them are trying to supress the more divergent teachings.

10. June 17, 2011 cannot come soon enough!

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    7 replies to "Theology Around the Web in 60 Seconds, 7.23.10"

    • Chuck

      The last line of the article about house churches confirmed what I always suspected. That said, apart from the obvious difference in the number of people “gathered” at any one place, at any one time, it is hard to see a great deal of difference between what was described at the Brighton House Church and Doug Pagitt’s Solomon’s Porch.

      I can imagine that the prevailing hermeneutic in many house churches is that of reader-response.

    • GoldCityDance

      4. Went and saw “Salt” with Angelina Jolie today.

      Michael, you’re friends with Angelina Jolie? Did your wife know about this?

    • Ed Kratz


    • Teluog

      Regarding house churches, I like the idea of having a small gathering of Christians because it creates more closeness with other Christians–it’s hard to get connected in a big, traditional church because there are so many people and only so much time to spend with one person. In a small group, it is easier for iron to sharpen iron.

      The problem is that I have never seen or heard of a house church that is centred or rooted on solid, biblical hermeneutics or Christian agape love. In my fairly limited experience, house churches have begun out of a rebellion of traditional churches in order to avoid accountability and do things “my way,” or because there isn’t that one PERFECT church.

      The house churches I’ve been to have been nothing but chit chat and hanging out with very little Bible or theological substance to them, and the focus has been on what God has done to me-me-me and you’re supposed to have a testimony every week about some magnificent thing God has done last week–and if you don’t then there is something wrong with you–and if something is wrong with you then we fix you by just being nice to you and praying for awesome magical things to happen to you, instead of relying on biblical exegesis and its careful application. In these house churches, anything goes, as long as t

      This, I believe, only serves to divide the church instead of strengthen it. The motives for house church today seem to be narcissistic, and unless the leaders of house churches are grounded in Scripture’s principles (such as public accountability) then house churches are useless. Then again, the same is true for any type of church, whether house or the traditional Sunday gathering in a building churches.

      I believe that each Christian needs a big, public church structure as well as a small, intimate group of trusted Christian brethren & sistren who can sharpen each other. I also believe that both types need strong, radical Bible-centredness and proper hermeneutics &…

    • Teluog

      whoops, made a couple slip ups above, lemme fix those quickly:

      . . . In these house churches, anything goes, as long as it doesn’t demand accountability or too much intellectually–biblical scholarship isn’t exactly welcome, unless it is pragmatic almost to the extreme. IOW, today’s house churches seem to be a haven for fundamentalist emergents.

      . . . I also believe that both types need strong, radical Bible-centredness and proper hermeneutics & study to go with that.

    • jim


      I was in Montreal for a few days and took in SALT , rather unbelieveable storyline, but totally enjoyable get-away time for me.

      If Angelina Jolie ever needs a mentor, count me in (LOL)

      I don’t really care for house churches, good intentions but poor theological grounding. Teloug hit the nail on the head with his comments above.

      Take care,

    • Chris Poe


      Other than perhaps the offer of the kingdom and no mention of Christ seated on David’s throne now (generally, issues that point to more discontinuity within older dispensational schemes, whether of the Chafer or Ryrie variety) what differences would you see between Progressive Dispensationalism and the description that Carter gave? Would you see PD as being an entirely different view deserving of a category all its own?

      There are enough nuances within the various views so that some adherents of all of them might say that the descriptions given were too general. But I do think he gives somewhat more nuanced descriptions of amil and postmil than he does of either of the premil views. I think the article would have been strengthened by an aside that referenced the progressive dispensationalists, as he noted the differences between idealist and preterist amils and pietistic and theonomic postmillennialism.

      As for house churches, in general I share many of the concerns outlined above, but I do find the approach taken by Jim Elliff and his fellow elders to be intriguing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.