Tried With Fire

I have an uneasy relationship with movies that are made out of books that I love. Maybe I'm not creative enough to understand a director's art, or I'm just a critical wet blanket. But a book purist I will remain, and my standard will be  - "Is it true to the book?" A few months ago, I watched part of the 3rd Hobbit movie. I was disappointed with some of the adjustments that occurred in the older  Lord of the Rings epics. (Okay, Faramir's character assassination was more than just a tweak.) But regarding the Hobbit , was this even the same book? I probably should have just ignored it and gone back to my knitting, but I continued to watch in grim fascination curious to see how far the film makers would go. There were great special effects and all sorts of angst and violence to satisfy a modern audience, but it was a disservice to Tolkien and his beloved novel in my opinion. But what I find even more interesting are so-called Christian movies and books that...

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)

A friend on FB posted a link to the Heidelblog -  Sola Scripture ≠ Nuda Scriptura . I wasn't familiar with the term, Nuda Scriptura , so I read the post, which says: Evangelical Christians in North America sometimes misunderstand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological resource, that it can and should be denuded of its churchly context (hence nuda Scriptura ). Such an understanding is altogether incorrect. While believers should be Bereans and search the Scriptures for themselves, we don't do it in a vacuum. Our study of the Word is not disconnected from what has transpired through church history. Neither should it be divorced from the context of the present local church. So given the potential for deception if one is left to one's self, I wondered if any cults or erroneous teachings were conceived via  Nuda Scriptura . Well in my recent reading, I happened upon: - Caleb Rich "insisted that his...

Several years ago pre-Doctrines of Grace, a book was recommended to me when my ex- first moved out.  At that point, discernment was the last thing on my mind because all I wanted was comfort and hope.  It seemed reputable and a bestseller, which must be worth something.  W ell written and emotionally compelling, the book pulled at my heart strings. I cried buckets, and upon finishing, I was convinced that God was a lovesick Father. Deep down humanity was longing for God and deeply sorry for their sin. The last thing to do is drive someone away by talking about repentance and sin, so the key is to be as nice as possible and not offend in any way.  It certainly made me feel better, but it also gave false hope for reconciliation. In hindsight, I was banking on sentiment not truth. The book gave me what I wanted to hear and feel at the time. I didn't want to face the possibility of God actually ordaining my trial. I didn't want a God who doesn't give happy endings to hi...

Trinity College Library, Dublin With the mountain of Christian books available, old and new, plus limited time, I want to invest that time as wisely as possible and read for maximum edification.  Therefore, here's my rough attempt at the book weeding-out-process.  This is still a work-in-progress, but getting it in writing has helped me think about how I choose what to read.   Talk to the pastor/elders and mature saints. Read reputable reviews from sources with sound theology, not just the gushers at Amazon. Identify the bones as best as possible with help from the above. Who's endorsing or raving over it?  If someone with suspect theology gives an endorsement, I am more inclined  not  to read it. Conversely, just because a big name endorses it, doesn't guarantee I will.  To be honest, if the book is wildly popular, I'm wary because I don't have much faith in the discernment of "Christianity" at large.  Who's not selling the book?  Pl...

The expression “chew the meat and spit out the bones” is an interesting one. Christians say this when reading books with questionable theology, meaning “I'll keep what I think is Biblical and ignore the other stuff.”  But what bones are we willing to gnaw around and which ones should we avoid like the plague?  I've been wondering about this for some time and finally have come up with a list (in writing, not just mental) of things I would consider problematic.  You may think I'm going over the top by considering these as potential items in  Christian books. But frankly there's a lot of garbage out there written by professing Christians and sold by Christian booksellers.  Also these aren't necessarily no-brainers as error can be camouflaged very well.   The Shack  contained bones #1-#4, and it still went viral among Christians.   Granted  there as many views on what's kosher as believers, but orthodoxy isn't a matter of consensus.  So...

'On babies and bathwater: I don’t need to give my respect to men of dubious character or qualification “because they make a valuable contribution to the conversation.” I can throw out their baby with their bathwater because that same baby can be found in cleaner water elsewhere.' From David Kjos, the Thirsty Theologian .  Check out his other  observations regarding truth .  

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...

I have been thinking about the role of the Trinity in the atonement. Part of it is from listening to Mission Accomplished and High Priest by Shai Linne. Part of it is reading Leviticus and Hebrews with the parallel of the high priest and Jesus, our Great High Priest. Part of it is the whole Shack craze which appears to be muddying the doctrine of the Trinity, promoting Patripassianism, and denying substitutionary atonement. Interestingly, Patripassianism and Sabellianism/Modalism were brought up in a recent Sunday school class on early heresies in church history. So nothing is really new under the sun. I was always taught the Trinity but I feel very ignorant about the implications of the doctrine to the rest of Christianity. For example, if you believe that the Father suffered on the cross, than who was atonement being made to? This confuses what the atonement really is. So having an accurate Biblical view of the Trinity can be a safeguard against other errors. A mental picture I ha...

- "[B]ut the truth that if you actually love you will actually suffer is something we Christians should know best." This quote is from a great post by Frank Turk on TeamPyro. This hit home because the church is getting to ready to embark on small groups. There is a lot of excitement because so many people have been visiting and joining in the last 6 months. In July 2008, there may have been 30 on a good Sunday. Now, all the pews are starting to get filled. Right now we're all smiling, nice, and congenial but are we or rather am I willing to get beyond the smiley, nice, warm fuzzies and be willing to be hurt for the sake of loving my brethren in Christ? It's scary to be vulnerable, letting my sin be exposed and open to correction, possible conflicts in the future, etc. But what's worse is the thought that everyone will go on being nice, congenial, and safe but without any impact on each other or those in the community around us. It's easy for me to measure out...