https://www.facebook.com/105097128940403/

Theolographs, Baltimore, MD (2026)

11/28/2023

Hello all! Sorry it has been a while. I’ve been caught up with different responsibilities in life. I don’t know what the future holds for Theolographs, but right now unfortunately I’m not in a place to post Theolographs regularly.

But I did get a chance to put together this a special edition graph today!

This is a simple line graph on our interactions with different people on an ideological spectrum. This has many applications—politics, theology, morality, etc. One’s specific placement on the spectrum can vary, as well as the width of each category, but the basic principles are the same.

- Many issues are not binary. We are all somewhere in between in two extremes.
- We need to pick our fights. We cannot talk to everybody.
- We need to be realistic about who our “people” are. They can’t be too narrow, or we will find nobody. They can’t be too broad, or we will feel ungrounded.

Blessings.

09/28/2023

This one will be a doozy! Today we're talking about the difference between s*x and gender. Some Christians use these terms interchangeably. Others go along with secular definitions of s*x and gender. But even those who do see distinctions between the two terms don't see eye to eye with one other. Specifically, is only s*x part of our identity, is only gender part of our identity, or are both part of our identity? In total, here are four common views.

S*x and Gender Are the Same: God created human beings to be male and female, and the s*x we are born with is who God designed us to be. The separation of s*x and gender is a modern phenomenon that has no biblical precedent. While some people may "feel" that they have a gender that is different from their s*x, subjective feelings do not equate to objective identities.

S*x Is Part of Who We Are; Gender Is Not: Though the Bible doesn't distinguish between s*x and gender, our culture does, and it is fine to use the words in ways that are understandable to culture. S*x is ontological, while gender is social and cultural. However, how we are perceived (whether by others or ourselves) has no bearing on who we are. Just as we should not identify as a different race, we should not identify as a different gender.

Gender Is Part of Who We Are; S*x Is Not: Our s*x is assigned to us at birth by our doctors or parents, but it is just a label we have until we can determine for ourselves who we really are. Our true identity is who God created us to be on the inside. But because of the Fall, we may be born with bodies that are outside of God's original design. Some people are born with genetic diseases, and others are born with incorrect s*xual parts.

S*x and Gender Are Different Parts of Us: Our gender identities are central to who we are. However, our biological s*x is also a part of us. That is why people with gender dysphoria feel such distress. Two of their identities are out of sync with one other. Thankfully, God allows us to remedy our broken bodies. Just as people can get laser eye surgery to fix their eyes, people can get gender-affirming surgery to fix their bodies.

What do you believe, and why?

*xandgender

09/07/2023

Hello everybody! Sorry for the delay. Things have been busy the past month, and It's been a while since our last post.

Today we're talking about the timing of Genesis 2 within the days of creation—specifically Genesis 2:4-25. Genesis 1:1-2:3 describes the seven days of creation. In this account, humans are created on Day 6. However, Genesis 2:4-25 seems to describe in detail how God created a man and a woman. Where does this account fall in the timeline of creation? Here are three views.

Within Day 6: Sometimes the events in the Bible are not chronological. Genesis 2:2-3 narrates the seventh day of creation, but Genesis 2:4-25 shifts back to the sixth day, in order to give a more detailed retelling of the creation and commissioning of the first humans. Since humankind was created on Day 6, Genesis 2 must be a zoomed-in account of Day 6.

Alongside Days 1-6: The creation days in Genesis 1 are not literal time periods, but they are poetic symbols of theological truths. Genesis 1 communicates how God created the whole world with power and order. Genesis 2 describes another aspect of the same creation event of Genesis 1: God intimately forms humans with his hands and his breath, and designs them to be intimate with one another.

Long After Days 1-6: Genesis 1 is a poetic description of the creation of the world. Genesis 2 happens much later, and it is not about the creation of the world but about the creation of the Garden of Eden, a specific location on earth where God dwelled with humanity. The humans created in Genesis 2 may or may not be the first humans on earth, but they are certainly the first humans in the Garden.

What do you believe, and why?

08/17/2023

Hello everybody!

Today we're talking about the origin of the Baptists. Baptists are fairly diverse, but they generally affirm believer's baptism (in opposition to infant baptism), sola scriptura (dependence on Scripture alone instead of tradition), and local church autonomy. Where did Baptists come from?

Here are three common views.

16th Century Anabaptists: During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, Anabaptists arose in Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and Moravia. They were known for their refusal to baptize infants, their nonconformity to the world, and their nonresistance. Baptists were an offshoot of Anabaptism, and they maintained Anabaptist views on baptism and the separation of church and state.

17th Century Separatists: Baptists originated in England and the American colonies, and their founders had very little connection with the continental Anabaptists. Rather, they arose out of 17th century English Separatism, which was so named because they separated themselves from the Anglican Church. Separatists believed that the Anglicans were still continuing some of the errors of the Catholic Church.

1st Century Apostles: The theological distinctive of believer's baptism has existed since the 1st century apostles, and it has been passed down in an unbroken lineage to today. Although the Catholic Church was the dominant form of Christianity for over a thousand years, various Christians and minority groups preserved the tradition of believer's baptism over the centuries: Tertullian, Arnoldists, Waldensians, etc.

What do you think? Also, do you affirm believer's baptism? Why or why not?

08/03/2023

Hello everyone! I'd been thinking about doing one on atonement theories for a few months now, but it just seemed too intimidating to boil these complex ideas into simple diagrams. Well, here's my attempt!

How exactly did Jesus atone us? What did he save us from, and how did his death and resurrection accomplish that? Here are seven of the most popular views. Note: Some Christians hold to just one view, while others may hold to different views but may consider one to be the "primary" view.

Ransom Theory: Humanity was held in bo***ge to Satan. But God ransomed us through Jesus' death, which paid off our debt to Satan and set us free.

Christus Victor: Jesus' death and resurrection were not transactions with Satan, but rather they demonstrate God's victory over Satan, which liberated us from sin.

Satisfaction Theory: We were not indebted to Satan, but to God. Jesus' obedience to death fully satisfied our debt to the Father, guaranteeing us forgiveness of sins.

Governmental Theory: God seeks to deal with sin not because of a sense of retributive justice within his character, but because of his desire to publicly rule with law and order. God the Father has accepted Jesus' death not as payment for sin, but as the means to restore moral order and to forgive humanity.

Penal Substitution: On the cross, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God. He absorbed the penalty of our sin, satisfying God's justice, and now those who believe in him are declared to be righteous before God.

Moral Influence: Jesus' life and death are a demonstration of God's love to us, and it has the power to inspire and transform us to follow his example and live sacrificial lives.

Recapitulation: Through his incarnation, death, and resurrection, Jesus re-lived the full human experience in a perfect way, and by doing so, he reversed the Fall and undid the curse of Adam. By uniting himself with humanity, he has restored their ability to truly be the image of God.

What view(s) do you hold, and why?

07/21/2023

Recently, a few folks have asked how Theolographs are made. I do it all in Gimp, a free software that's similar to Photoshop. It takes quite a bit of time, but it allows me to be very precise with all of my text and my lines! Here's a time lapse of this week's Theolograph in the making.

07/20/2023

It's Theolographs Thursday! Today we're talking about the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation. What exactly does the Spirit do for Christians when we are reading the Bible? Here are two views.

Understanding, Conviction, & Application: The Holy Spirit is needed not just for spiritual conviction and practical application, but also for cognitive understanding. This is why the Psalmist prays for understanding (Psa 119:27), and why the two men going to Emmaus could not understand the Scriptures until Jesus opened their eyes (Luke 24:31-32). One without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14).

Conviction & Application Only: People without the Holy Spirit are able to cognitively understand the Bible. Felix, for example, is described as having an "accurate knowledge of the Way" (Acts 24:22). That is why many non-Christian scholars have contributed great insights to the interpretation and application of Scripture. However, those without the Spirit are unable to be convicted to trust and apply the Bible to their lives.

What do you think? Is the Spirit needed for someone to cognitively understand the Bible? Or can a non-Christian understand what they are reading without the Spirit?

07/13/2023

Hello all! The book of Daniel mentions four kings. Three of them—Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Cyrus—are mentioned in other ancient texts. But one of them, Darius the Mede, best known for throwing Daniel into the lion's den, is not known to history. Daniel says that Darius succeeded Belshazzar, but the historical consensus is that it was Cyrus who succeeded Belshazzar. So who then is Darius the Mede? Here are four views.

Cyrus the Great: The historical consensus is that Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Since Daniel 5:31 says Darius the Mede took the throne after Belshazzar, he must be no other than Cyrus the Great. Daniel 6:28, which normally reads, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian," can also be translated, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian."

Gobryas the Governor: Darius the Mede could not be Cyrus, as Cyrus is always described in biblical and extrabiblical texts as Persian, not Mede. However, several ancient sources assert that after Cyrus conquered Babylon, he installed a man named Gobryas, described as one well advanced in years, as the governor of Babylon. This description is compatible with Daniel 5:31, which says that Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of 62.

Astyages: Darius the Mede must have been a ruler of the Median Empire, a once-powerful kingdom in modern-day Iran. Most historians believe that the Persians had been under Median control, but Cyrus the Great led a rebellion and conquered Media in 550 BCE. Astyages was the last Median king, and he could be Darius the Mede. Daniel 14:1, considered canon by the Eastern Orthodox Church, says that Cyrus succeeded Astyages.

Cyaxarex II: The Greek historian Xenophon tells a history of Persia and Media that doesn't align with other historians, but it does align well with the biblical narrative. He writes that the last Median king, Cyaxarex II, had a peaceful relationship with Persia, and he even gave his daughter to Cyrus in marriage. After he died, Persia and Media became one. With this alternate history, Cyaxarex II fits the profile of Darius the Mede.

06/29/2023

Hello all! Today we will be looking at a much-debated Bible passage. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is. Peter says, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” In response, Jesus blesses Peter, and then he says in Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Who or what is the rock (petra) that Jesus is building his church upon? Here are three views.

Peter: The natural reading of Matthew 16:18, as well as the consensus interpretation in the early church, is that "this rock" refers to Peter. Peter's name (petros) means rock, and Jesus states that he is building his church on a rock (petra). Jesus is clearly linking these two similar words together. This prophecy of Peter's role is fulfilled in the book of Acts, where he is the first to preach the gospel to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10).

Peter's Confession: The church cannot be built on fallen people, so Peter cannot be the petra. Furthermore, in classical Greek, petros refers to a stone, and usually a small one. while petra almost always refers to large foundational rocks. Therefore, petros and petra must be related but not the same. The phrase "this rock" must refer to something else preceding verse 18. The best fit is Peter's confession in verse 16 that Jesus's identity as the Messiah.

Jesus: The New Testament repeatedly states that the church is built on Jesus alone. "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). Additionally, 1 Corinthians 10:4 refers to a spiritual petra, and it clearly identifies that rock as Christ. Peter himself would later allude to Jesus as the chief cornerstone (1 Peter 2:6). Therefore, Jesus must be referring to himself as the petra.

What do you believe, and why?

06/15/2023

Happy Theology Thursday! We're back again with another doozy. What teaching or leading roles can a woman have in the church, if any?

Sometimes the issue is approached in a binary fashion. Either you are a complementarian (women should not be ordained), or you are an egalitarian (women may be ordained). But in actuality, there are six possible positions to take on the complementarian/egalitarian spectrum.

If you want to learn more, check out this extended article that I wrote about it! https://larrylin.wordpress.com/2023/06/14/six-types-of-churches-on-the-complementarian-egalitarian-spectrum/

Anyway, what church leadership responsibilities are for men? Here are the six views (with A being the most complementarian and F being the most egalitarian):

A (Teaching & Leading): Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 that women should be silent in churches, and they should not teach or assume authority over a man. These commands should be interpreted as literal and binding for all churches. While women may certainly teach other women and children (Titus 2:3-5), they should not have any teaching or leading role in mixed-gender settings in the church.

B (Public Teaching & Leading): There are clear examples of godly women teaching or prophesying in the Bible (Acts 18:24-26; 21:8-9). Also, nowhere in the Bible does it seem like the spiritual gifts of teaching or prophecy are limited to men (Acts 2:18). Therefore, the biblical mandate is not to forbid women from teaching in general, but only to forbid women from exercising authority by publicly teaching to the gathered church.

C (Teaching in Church Services & Leading): Women are permitted to not only privately teach, but also to publicly preach in any Christian setting outside of the local church service, including Christian retreats, conferences, and workshops. Nonetheless, women must not preach in a Sunday service, as the jurisdiction of the local church still falls under male authority.

D (Leading as an Elder): Women may exercise their spiritual gifts of teaching and hold high levels of leadership anywhere. After all, Paul seems to assume that women will prophesy in church services (1 Corinthians 11:4-5), which connotes some level of authority. However, women are not qualified to hold the office of elder, which is the highest level of authority in a local church. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 state that an elder must be a man of one wife.

E (Leading as a Lead Pastor): God has called men to be the ultimate responsibility-bearers of creation. That is why Paul says that sin came into the world through one man, even though Eve ate the fruit first (Romans 5:12). Therefore, even though New Testament leadership models are not prescriptive for today, the individual with the highest authority in the church (lead pastor, rector, bishop, etc.) should still be male.

F (Nothing): There are no limitations for women in church leadership today. The very idea that women should not lead men actually comes from the Fall (Genesis 3:16). In fact, the Bible is filled with many female leaders with high levels of authority (Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Romans 16:7). The hierarchy of the kingdom is unlike the world's—all citizens, regardless of gender, are welcome to serve in all aspects of the church (Luke 22:26).

What do you believe? Has your view changed over time?

06/01/2023

Happy Thursday! Today we're talking about the number of books in the Old Testament. Just about all Christians agree on the 27 books that make up the New Testament, but there is actually quite a bit of disagreement on which books should be included in the Old Testament. Here are three common options (preceded by a symbols guide):

Symbols Guide:
* = Books included in the 46 that are not included in the 39
** = Books included in the 50 that are not included in the 46
+ = Books that include additional content besides the content found in the 39
++ = Books that include additional content besides the content found in the 46

39: Most Protestants recognize 39 Old Testament books. While there are other books recognized in other traditions, known as "the deuterocanonical books" or the Apocrypha, their origins have long been debated, and they were not accepted by the Jewish people as the Hebrew Scriptures from the first century onward. Furthermore, these other books arguably contain theological contradictions or historical errors.

46: Most Catholics recognize 46 Old Testament books, 7 of which are the deuterocanonical books. The New Testament alludes to deuteronomical content multiple times, signifying that its authors may have held these books with the same regard as the other Scriptures. Also, many early Church Fathers (like Augustine) viewed them as Scripture, and the earliest Bibles that we have (like the Codex Sinaiticus) also include them.

50: The Greek Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, is the version of the Bible most frequently quoted by the New Testament writers, and it includes books besides those that are commonly accepted by the Protestant or Catholic Church. Many Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox traditions recognize these books, putting the count at around 50, though there are slight differences in naming and organization.

How many books do you think there are in the Old Testament, and why?

05/18/2023

Hello all! Sorry that today's post is a bit late. The Apostles' Creed, widely used by many denominations around the world, says of Jesus, "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell." What does it mean that Jesus descended to hell? Where exactly did he go during the three days between his death and his resurrection, and why did he go there?

Some traditions have refused to cite the Apostles' Creed because they argue that there isn't enough biblical support to say that Jesus went to hell. There are multiple perspectives on where Jesus went after his death, but here are three common views.

Heaven: When Jesus was on the cross, he said to one of the criminals next to him, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk 24:43). The term "paradise" appears two other times in the New Testament (2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7), and in both occasions it seems to refer to heaven. Therefore, after Jesus died, his spirit must have ascended to heaven immediately before the Father, and when he rose from the grave, his body and spirit reunited again on earth.

Hades: Before Jesus' resurrection, the dead did not go to heaven or hell, but to a resting place called Sheol or Hades. This location, as illustrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, was divided into two components: one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. After Jesus died, he descended to Hades, unlocked its gates, preached the gospel, and led its righteous inhabitants to heaven (cf. Matt 12:40; Eph 4:8-9; 1 Pet 4:6).

Tartarus: During the time of Noah, God punished angels who had rebelled against him by imprisoning them in Tartarus, a place of torment at the lowest levels of hell. This narrative is recorded in the extrabiblical Book of Enoch, and it is referenced to a few times in the New Testament. When Jesus died, he went to Tartarus to address these former angels, not to free them but to proclaim his victory over them (cf. 1 Pet 3:18-20; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6).

Where do you think Jesus went between his death and his resurrection, and why?

Theolographs

11/28/2023

09/28/2023

09/07/2023

08/17/2023

08/03/2023

07/21/2023

07/20/2023

07/13/2023

06/29/2023

06/15/2023

06/01/2023

05/18/2023

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share