Tried With Fire

In light of the sola fide debate, I'm posting at Out of the Ordinary on the doctrine of imputation. This is a rewrite of an old post. However, when we stumble and fall and assurance waivers, it never hurts to be reminded again that our righteousness is outside of ourselves. Jesus Christ is our righteousness. For decades as a Christian, I was taught and believed that Jesus got me in the door, but the rest was up to me. This was terrifying. I remember crying as a child wondering if I would have the courage to be a martyr for Christ, and wondering if I would lose my salvation if I failed. I remember hearing about the movie, A Thief in the Night, and wondering what would happen if I wasn't ready. I lived with so much uncertainty that current events would strike fear in my heart because I doubted I would be good enough when Christ returned. Finally one day, I was raking leaves and listening to R.C. Sproul's lectures on What is Reformed Theology? . When he discussed the...

"Experience without doctrine is an unstable, often mystical, and wholly inadequate tool by which to define a movement. "To repent of sins," "to trust in Jesus for salvation," "to be born again" - the expressions used by evangelicals to describe conversion imply doctrinal content. But if there is no consensus about what constitutes sin or a sinful nature, about who Jesus was and is, about what Jesus did and does, and about what terms like "born again" mean, then the problem of a lack of doctrinal coherence stubbornly remains. Experience without content - or experience about which there is no agreement on the meaning of the words used to describe it - remains incapable of providing any clear identity for evangelicalism." The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind , Carl Trueman, Moody Publishers, 2011, pp. 18-19. [Updated 10:34 for missing word in quote. Corrected book title, too.  Sorry, Dr. Trueman.]

The words "Jesus" and "God" are used by many, but what do those words mean? What does it mean to be a "Christian?" Is it okay to press for a clearer definition of those terms and how a person is using them, or is that being too nit-picky and unloving? Should we just take everyone and what they say at face value?  If we are upfront about our theological distinctives, we then have a platform from which to let others know what confessions we align with the most. This way, we aren't being manipulative in our conversations and with our teaching. With proper boundaries set in place, we can acknowledge where we agree and disagree, all with the common goal of sharpening one another according to the Word of God and the working of his Spirit. But this requires a resolve to take theology seriously , take ourselves less seriously, and desire to grow in a meaningful way. Pretending that we are all on the same page and overlooking important differences can only f...

Look inside, examine it against the Bible (just cited verses don't count), and then see whether it is worth reading or not. Many Christians do not distinguish between a likable personality and the content of that person's teaching... A vital skill for becoming a competent woman is learning how to read well.  We need to be alert and equipped, because Christian bookstores don't have genre labels like "fluff" and "I may look like I have my life together more than you, but I am about to wreck your theology." You would be troubled to hear that women in your congregation were uncritically going on dates with random guys they had met, wouldn't you? What would you do in that situation? You would want to spend some time helping them distinguish between attractive traits and harmful ones. This is what we want to do with the books they are reading as well. No Little Women: Equipping All Women in the Household of God , Aimee Byrd, P&R Publishing, ...

I'm posting at Out of the Ordinary today: Unknowns are fine in mathematics, but I don't like them in real life. I feel much more secure knowing where my car keys are and what is going to happen today, tomorrow, and the day after that. Mentally keeping tabs on as much as possible gives me a sense of control, which is a comforting feeling even if it doesn't last very long. But in reality, there are too many factors outside of my control for me to be in control, and I don't like it. Recently I was fretting over a very minor incident in the grand scheme of things. I was replaying the situation over and over in my mind and praying that I would stop worrying, when I asked myself, " Is it enough that God knows even if I don't? " Read the rest here .

I'm posting at Out of the Ordinary today: "I can't imaging going through [fill in the blank] if I wasn't a Christian." Your answer for the blank may have been different from mine, but I think we would agree that we would not want to face trials or even an ordinary day without Christ. But what does that really mean when push comes to shove? What difference does it make being a Christian? Does being a Christian mean I won't have any problems? Do I truly get my "best life now?" If being a Christian doesn't give me an automatic out from hardship, does God still love me? Is He with me? How do I know this? Is it a feeling of emotional well-being? But what if I feel nothing? You may be thinking, "Enough of the questions already." You may be answering my questions in your head. But what are your answers and, more importantly, what is the source of those answers? Read more of the post here.

In the Biblical doctrine the sinner, being justified, receives the Spirit of holiness, through whose prevalent operations he perseveres to the end. According to Finney the justified person remains justified so long as he perseveres in the obedience which is the condition of his justification. In the Biblical view it is God, in Finney's it is man, who determines the issue: The whole standpoint assumed by Finney is that of a God responsive to human actions rather than that of a man operated upon by divine grace. Perfectionism , B.B. Warfield, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1958, pg. 158. (italics mine)

In Romans 16:17, Paul writes the following: I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. Notice what Paul says here. Contrary to the modern notion that doctrine divides, Paul here says the exact opposite: these people who must be avoided are divisive precisely because they have departed from the true teaching. It is their doctrinal deviance, their departure from true teaching, that makes them sources of division. If Romans 10:9-10 made the positive case for doctrine as a vital part of belonging, here Paul states the other side of the case, that wandering away from sound doctrine means being divisive and ceasing to belong. The Creedal Imperative , Carl R. Trueman, Crossway 2012, pg. 68.

Idealistic anthropologies consider the human being to be basically spirit, his physical body foreign to his real nature. We find this view in ancient Greek philosophy; according to Plato, for example, what is real about man is his or her intellect or reason, which is actually a spark of the divine within the person that continues to exist after the body dies. The human body, however, partakes of matter, which is of a lower order of reality; it is a hindrance to the spirit, and one is really better off without it... We must remember, however, that often non-Christian notions have crept into so-called Christian anthropologies. For example, the scholastic view of man prominent in the Middle Ages, though accepted as Christian, was actually more of a hybrid anthropology. It attempted to synthesize the idealistic view of man found in Aristotelian philosophy with the Christian view. The results of this mismating of two diverse anthropologies are, unfortunately, with us to this day. For e...

Here is John Calvin's take on the clear-as-mud school of theology. Yet another example that there's nothing new under the sun. Do you remember what kind of doctrine candidates for the ministry learned in the schools? You yourself know that it was mere sophistry and sophistry so twisted, involved, tortuous and puzzling that scholastic theology might well be described as a kind of esoteric magic. The denser the darkness in which anyone shrouded a subject and the more he puzzled himself and others with preposterous riddles, the greater his fame for acumen and learning. From Portrait of Calvin , T.H.L. Parker, Desiring God, pg. 29.

Let us never forget that we who stand in the historic stream of Christianity really believe that false doctrine, at those crucial points where false doctrine is heresy, is not a small thing.   If we do not make clear by word and practice our position for truth as truth and against false doctrine, we are building a wall between the next generation and the gospel.  And twenty years from now, men will point their finger back at us, this is the result of the flow of history... Evangelism which does not lead to purity of life and purity of doctrine is just as faulty and incomplete as an orthodoxy which does not lead to a concern for, and a communication with, the lost.  ~ Francis Schaeffer The context of this quote was Schaeffer's concern over Billy Graham's desire to join forces with liberal theologians and Catholics under the umbrella of a supposedly common gospel.  According to Iain Murray, Schaeffer's warning went unheeded. From  Evangelicalism Divided by Iai...

Thanks to Calvinist Cartoons You may have never heard of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834).  I had no idea who he was until last week-end.  You also may think, "Why on earth would I care about some dead German theologian whose name  I can't even pronounce".  But you might be more familiar with him than you think: [C]reed and character have no necessary connection - that it matters not what we believe so long as our hearts are right.  (page 9) Religion stands in no need of doctrine and rigid precepts, or of revelation from another world - that certain pious and devout sentiments towards God and Christ are all that is necessary for salvation. (page 9) If these sound familiar, we can thank Schleiermacher's influence because these ideas are now part and parcel of today's Christianity.  There are many who think sound doctrine is a nicety but subordinate to what we feel.  However, if you take this idea to it's logical conclusion, it becomes a very sli...

I was listening to R.C. Sproul yesterday when he made this startling statement: "In the final analysis, the only way that any person is ever justified before God is by works.  We are saved by works, and we are saved by works alone.  Don't touch that dial..." What did he say?!   Dr. Sproul goes on to explain: "[W]hen I say that we are justified by works and by works alone, what do I mean by it? I mean that the grounds of my justification and the grounds of your justification are the perfect works of Jesus Christ . We're saved by works but t hey are not our own.  That's why we say we're saved by faith, and we're saved by grace, because the works that save us aren't our works, they're Somebody else's works ." At this point, the light bulb went on in my head. In the garden, God entered a covenant with Adam, the representative of the human race, but that relationship was contingent on Adam's obedience which  must be perfect ....