Senate Rejects Abortion Amendment

From Shailagh Murray at The Washington Post:

The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.

The vote came amid intense final negotiations on the bill, as Reid aims to wrap up debate on amendments and begin a long procedural stand-off with Republicans -- possibly extending 10 days -- before the bill can come to a final vote before Christmas.

Nelson also is participating in talks to establish an alternative to the public insurance option, and said he would continue to negotiate with Reid and his colleagues on the overall bill. "People are talking," he said before the abortion vote. "And that's usually a good thing."

Coming Next Month...

A new book by Richard Phillips, one of my favorite preachers and writing pastors, is due to be released next month. The Masculine Mandate looks as if it will address an area of great need within the body of Christ.

From the Publisher:

There is a crying need in the church today for men to be men. But competing visions for what a man is to be some growing out of popular culture and others arising from flawed teaching in the church are exacerbating the problem. Richard Phillips believes it is possible to cut through all of this confusion by consulting the Bible. Only in the pages of Scripture, he asserts, can men find a clear explanation of their God-given roles as leaders, husbands, fathers, and churchmen.

Beginning in Genesis, Phillips shows that God commissioned Adam to work and tend the Garden of Eden. In these twin tasks, he perceives a template for manhood, one that, when carried out with diligence, provides dignity to men, service to mankind, and glory to God. He then goes on to show that men are called to lead, to love their wives, to discipline their children, and to serve the church of Jesus Christ. Here is biblical exposition of the most practical sort teaching that reveals not only what men are to think but what they are to be.

A Biblical Paradigm for Ministry...

The good folks at Westminster Bookstore were kind enough to send me a copy of The Trellis and the Vine. I've only read the first chapter but I am hooked. Some pastors I highly esteem are calling it the best book on ministry through the local church that they have ever read.

Right now you can get The Trellis and the Vine for 50% off at WTS books.




From the Introduction:

The image of the trellis and the vine raises all the fundamental questions of Christian ministry:

What is the vine for?
How does the vine grow?
How does the vine relate to my church?
What is vine work and what is trellis work, and how can we tell the difference?
What part do different people play in growing the vine?
How can we get more people involved in vine work?
What is the right relationship between the trellis and the vine?

In the following chapters, we will be suggesting that there is an urgent need to answer these questions afresh. Confusion reigns. Everyone wants their churches to grow, but most are unsure how and where to start. Church growth gurus come and go. Ministry methods fall in and out of favour like women’s fashion. We troop from one new technique to the next, hoping that this one (at last!) may be the secret to success.

Even among those godly, faithful pastors who avoid the trendsetting fads of Christian marketing, there is confusion— most especially between what Christian ministry is in the Bible, and what Christian ministry has become in the particular tradition or denomination of which they are part. We are all captive to our traditions and influenced by them more than we realize. And the effect of tradition and long practice is not always that some terrible error becomes entrenched; more often it is that our focus shifts away from our main task and agenda, which is disciple-making. We become so used to doing things one way (often for good reason at first) that important elements are neglected and forgotten, to our cost. We become imbalanced, and then wonder why we go in circles.

Read Stephen Nichols

I have had the good experience of hanging out with Steve Nichols over lunch. He is one of my favorite people to read. Dr. Nichols is a church historian who knows how to write church history. There is not a single one of his books that I do not highly recommend. One of my top choices for reads for 2009 is his book Ancient Word, Changing Worlds. Check out other titles by Stephen HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

Sundays' sermon was part 25 in our series through Hebrews. You can listen to or download "The Sufficiency of Christ" (Heb 9:23-28) HERE.

Stephen Meyer

World Magazine's (one of my favorite mags) Daniel of the Year is Dr. Stephen Meyer. Dr. Meyer is the director of the Discovery Institute's Center of Science and Culture and author of the must read Signature in the Cell.

From his office Meyer has ventured forth to debate at least nine prominent Darwinians on CNN, NPR, FOX, the BBC, and other venues. In it he has written numerous newspaper and magazine columns in defense of Intelligent Design (ID), as well as an academic article that became notorious five years ago when Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist, agreed to publish it in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Darwinian higher-ups demoted Sternberg for allowing the other side to have its say. They interrogated him about religious and political beliefs.

ID proponents regularly receive that type of harassment: No lion's den, but denials of tenure and media depiction as anti-science. Ironically, scientific advance is now
backing ID, which starts with the idea that—in Meyer's words—"certain technical features in a physical system reveal the activity of an intelligence or a mind. A simple example might be Mount Rushmore: You drive into the Dakotas and you see
carvings of the presidents' faces up on the mountainside, and you immediately recognize that you're dealing with a sculpture, an intelligence, rather than an undirected process like wind and erosion."

Our new ability to peer into cells also shows ID: Meyer says, "We don't see little faces but we do see other indicators of intelligent activity, such as the digital code that's stored in a DNA molecule, or the tiny little miniature machines, the nanotechnology, the sliding clamps and turbines and rotary engines that biologists are now finding inside living cells." Darwin did not know any of that and Meyer, 51, did not always know it. His career shows the four-stage pattern that is common among intellectual Daniels: Questioning, discernment, courage, and perseverance.

Read the entire article HERE.

The Myth of Neutrality

The late (d. 1995) great Greg Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen may well have been the greatest apologist of our generation.


Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Good Reading for Kids

I am a strong proponent of adventure stories. They can teach such virtues as sacrifice, courage, honor, and perseverance. Fortunately, the history of God's people is full of genuine adventure. A new book by Linda Finlayson is just the type of book I like my boys to read.

"There is an odd notion among school children that history is boring, just full of dates and events. But in fact history is really about people and their stories. Their stories range from dramatic adventures to examples of quiet courage, from those who chose to pursue the good and those who did not. What a treasure chest for a writer to choose from, especially for children...I have found the Montgomery Library at Westminster an invaluable resource for researching my books. It probably helps that I’m also married to the Library Director, who is an excellent research assistant."

- Author, Linda Finlayson

Martin Luther shakes in his boots. Accused of being a criminal and in danger of loosing his life he has to stand up for what he believes.

David Brainerd ventures into difficult wilderness territory in order to share the gospel. There are tough decisions to make during his travels. The risks are great but so are the needs.

William King simply obeys the Bible. It doesn't matter what the rich and powerful slave owners want - Jesus has other plans.

Brother Andrew risks his life so that Hungarians can read the Bible. But what about the Soviet troops who have invaded the country?

Nehemiah builds a wall while enemies plot to destroy his work.

Stephen prays to Jesus as an angry mob throws stones at him.

These men were all willing to take risks. They faced danger and difficulties. Some even died for what they believed in. While reading their exciting stories you will learn about why they did what they did and who it was who helped them.

D.A. Caron on being Gospel-Centered

From Justin Buzzard's interview with D.A. Carson:

1. In a paragraph, what does it mean to be gospel-centered in one’s Christian life?

Some think of the gospel as so slender it does nothing more than get us into the kingdom. After that the real work of transformation begins. But a biblically-faithful understanding of the gospel shows that gospel to be rich, powerful, the wisdom of God and the power of God, all we need in Christ. It is the gospel that saves us, transforms us, conforms us to Christ, prepares us for the new heaven and the new earth, establishes our relations with fellow-believers, teaches us how to work and serve so as to bring glory to God, calls forth and edifies the church, and so forth. This gospel saves — and “salvation” means more than just “getting in,” but transformed wholeness. It would be easy to write many pages on how a gospel-centered ness affects all of life, but one must begin with a full-orbed understanding of what the gospel is and does.

2. What do you see happening with the gospel and my generation, the twentysomethings of the American church? Are you encouraged?

Cautiously, yes. It is still a day of relatively small things. But it is always encouraging to observe the substantial number of twentysomethings who want to learn what the Bible says, who are looking for faithful mentors, who are tired of the endless openness of some strands of postmodernism but who do not want to drift back into isolationism or privatized religion. Some from very culturally conservative Christian backgrounds are engaging in a pendulum swing toward “hip” stances that are barely orthodox, but they are winning almost no one except other people like themselves. In God’s grace, the future lies with that part of the younger generation that is passionate to understand, believe, and obey the truth, and who to that end are diligently studying the Word of God for themselves and learning lessons in contrition and joy, in humility and courage, in faith and obedience, that every generation of believers must learn.

3. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have a lot of work to do. This is a highly unchurched metropolitan area with great hostility to the gospel. What are a couple brief points of counsel you’d give to church leaders wanting to build (or re-build) a gospel ministry in a region like this?

Trust Christ; believe the power of the gospel; abandon short-term gimmicks; think big but start small and be faithful; meet with, work with, pray with, learn from, those who have a common set of commitments and vision.

Read the entire thing HERE.

Defending Human Dignity

Al Mohler has commented on a recent decision by Dr. Fancis Collins concerning the use of human embryos in scientific research.

The defense of human dignity is the responsibility of all human beings, but certain individuals bear a special responsibility due to position or influence. This is certainly the case with Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health...

Throughout the confirmation process, Collins appeared to reassure scientists that he would support the President's policy. That assurance was made clear on December 2, when Dr. Collins announced the NIH approval of the first 13 additional stem cell lines for federally funded research. Collins said:

"I am happy to say that we now have human embryonic stem cell lines eligible for use by our research community under our new stem cell policy. . . . In accordance with the guidelines, these stem cell lines were derived from embryos that were donated under ethically sound informed consent processes. More lines are under review now, and we anticipate continuing to expand this list of responsibly derived lines eligible for NIH funding."

In making his statement about the new cell lines for federally funded research, Collins defended his policy with very strange language. As The Washington Post reported, Collins said, "I think that there is an argument to be made that what is being done is ethically acceptable, even if you believe in the inherent sanctity of the human embryo."

An argument can be made? Arguing that "an argument can be made" is no substitute for making the argument. Dr. Collins must now take personal responsibility for the use of additional stem cell lines that required the destruction of human embryos. When he says that such research is conducted according to "ethical" guidelines he is repeating the pattern of President Obama, who limits the "ethical" concern to the fact that the human embryos were derived with donor consent. In another evasion, the NIH is prevented by congressional action from funding the actual destruction of the embryo, so it allows other entities to fund that process, taking over after the embryo is destroyed.

Read the entire article HERE.

Without the Word...

“…Without this transcendent Word in its life, the church has no rudder, no compass, no provisions. Without the Word, it has no capacity to stand outside its culture, to detect and wretch itself free from the seductions of modernity. Without the Word, the church has no meaning. It may seek substitutes for meaning in committee work, relief work, and various other church activities, but such things cannot fill the role for very long. Cut off from the meaning that God has given, faith cannot offer anything more by way of light in our dark world than what is offered by philosophy, psychology, or sociology. Cut off from God’s meaning, the church is cut off from God; it loses its identity as the people of God in belief, in practice, in hope. Cut off from God’s Word, the church is on its own, left to live for itself, by itself, upon itself.”

- David Wells, God in the Wasteland

I need one of these...

THE GRYPHON

Michael Horton Interviewed

Burke Parsons over at Ligonier has posted a four part interview with Michael Horton. Check it out HERE.

In a word, what encourages you most about what you see in the church today?
The godly lust of many young people for God's grace and glory.

In one sentence, what does it mean to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever?
It means that we are we were created to be, that as Augustine said, God made us for Himself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in Him--it means that God's glory and our happiness are not antithetical, but our real happiness is found in God.

Considering Bishop N.T. Wright's doctrine of justification, do you believe he is teaching another gospel?
J.I. Packer has a great line: Tom Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds--but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes--in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.

There's a kind of fundamentalist approach to Scripture that Tom Wright seems to want to confront. And while he does a wonderful job of highlighting the fact that justification in Paul's writings is understood within a broader redemptive-historical framework, something not all presentations and defenses of justification do, he is not confronting historic Reformed theology. Reformed theology always has understood justification within a broader redemptive-historical framework. If he were to read the Reformers and more recent Reformed writers, such as Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, he would clearly see that justification is placed in its proper context with the believer's union with Christ and within the whole history of redemption. Reformed writers speak of Paul's treatment of justification being inseparable from the inclusion of the Gentiles. Then, when you read Tom Wright he makes it seem as if he's the first person who saw these emphases of Paul, and that everyone else before him sort of taught the four spiritual laws. It's an incredibly naïve view...

What is most central to your life and ministry?
The ministry of the Word--the public preaching of the Word is the center. Out of that cascades the ministry of parents in the home, teaching the Scriptures in the home, and the time that individual believers spend in the Word. I think that all of those disciplines are important: the discipline of regular church attendance, attendance to the ordinary means of grace--listening to God speak to us through His Word--each of these is essential, and we must bring the Word into the home. It's essential that we recover the practice of catechism--family catechism, or family worship, whatever you want to call it--a time in the morning and the evening, or at least during one time in the day where parents are training their children in the Scriptures. At our church, for example, we have a weekly catechism question that the children learn at different grade levels, appropriate to their grade levels. At church and throughout the week the children memorize the catechism question and answer and the pertinent Scripture references in family worship. There's an integration of what's happening at home and what's happening at church, and the elders ask when they come for their visits: "Are you teaching the children the Scriptures in the catechism in the home?" That's part of their vows they make as parents and as church members.

And while this is all central, it is also the hardest to maintain, especially personally it's hardest for me to make time daily for my own Bible reading and prayer because every day in my teaching and writing I am reading the Bible. This is our job. And the danger is that it becomes strictly a job. The danger is that we're coming to the Scriptures to mine it in order to make a meal for others while we ourselves might be starving. It's easy for a lot of people who handle the Word regularly as a calling to sort of lose the sanctity of the Word, to lose a sense of appreciation and wonder for that Word, not only for others, but for themselves. So that's what I struggle with most--not being in the Word daily for myself and spending extended periods of time in prayer just for my own edification, even though I'm studying the Word daily.

When our responsibility to God conflicts with what Caesar commands

There are encouraging statistics that show more Americans are identifying themselves as "pro-life." Nevertheless, Roe V. Wade is still the law of the land and this to our shame. For years there has been broad agreement in congress that tax payers should not be expected to pay for abortions (the Hyde Amendment). But that uneasy truce may come to an end before too long. Under the guise of "health care reform" pro-abortion politicians are seeking to make use of tax payer funds to pay for abortions. The Stupak Amendment seeks to keep that from happening. However, both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama have expressed their intentions to keep such restrictions out of an eventual health care bill.

If the health care bill that pro-abortion politicians desire to have becomes law Christian tax payers will be required to violate their conscience. What then? I don't like political crusades. Christians must understand the difference between the city of man and the city of God (Augustine). We are not seeking to make America "a Christian nation" or bring about God's kingdom through political means. However when it comes to state sponsored violation of God's law (abortion) then Christians must be very careful to not participate in or give tacit approval of such evil. If the state requires tax payers to pay for abortions then Christians will have to face the possibility of civil disobedience.

National Review Online has an interesting interview with Robert George of Princeton University concerning civil disobedience. Check it out HERE.

We believe in law and the rule of law. We recognize an obligation to comply with laws, whether we like them or not. That obligation is defensible, however. Gravely unjust laws, and especially laws that seek to compel people to do things that are unjust, do not bind in conscience. Certainly, one must never perform a gravely unjust act, even when “following orders” or compelled by law. Christians believe — and they are far from alone in this — that one must be prepared to pay a price, sometimes a very high price indeed, for refusing to do what one’s conscience tells one is wrong. Socrates, as presented by his disciple Plato, stunned his interlocutors by saying that if one is faced with the options of doing a wrong or suffering one, it is better to suffer a wrong. That’s the teaching of Christianity, too. So if legislation is enacted that compels obstetricians and gynecologists to participate in abortions or refer for them, Christians and other pro-life men and women who practice in those fields of medicine will find themselves faced with the options of doing what they judge in conscience to be gravely unjust or abandoning their careers. Their obligation will be to abandon their careers. By the same token, if legislation is enacted to compel Catholic hospitals and clinics, for example, to provide abortion
services or refer for abortions, those institutions could face the options of doing what the Church teaches is profoundly wrong or going out of business. Their obligation will be to go out of business. Of course, this would be a tragedy, especially since these institutions do such wonderful work in providing health care to the poor. But the legal imposition will leave them no choice.
- Robert George

Sola Scriptura

A new book from Ligonier Ministries...

Sola Scriptura, the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, is essential to genuine Christianity, for it declares that the Bible is the inspired word of God, the church's only rule of faith and practice. Yet this doctrine is under assault today as never before, both from outside and and inside the church. In manifold ways, both blatant and subtle, the idea is being put forth that the Bible is inadequate for the needs of modern man. Such suggestions represent an attack on the very foundations of the Christian faith.

In this book, several leading Reformed pastors and scholars, including Joel Beeke, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, Ray Lanning, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Derek W. H. Thomas, and James White, unpack the meaning of the doctrine of sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"). They also explain where the attacks on the Bible are coming from and show how those who accept the Bible as God's inspired Word should respond. Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible is a treasure trove of information and a comfort to those who grieve to see the twenty-first-century church wandering away from the safe harbor of the Bible.

Will we be forced to pay for abortions?

From Erica Werner of the Associated Press:

"Our goal is to maintain essentially Hyde-like protections that prevent federal funds from being used to pay for and subsidize abortion," [Bob] Casey's communications director Larry Smar said Wednesday, referring to the existing law on abortion, though nothing had been finalized.

Efforts to find such a common ground failed in the House.

Women's rights groups were caught off-guard by the provision that passed the House and are now vowing to keep similar language out of the Senate bill. Hundreds of activists organized by Planned Parenthood and other groups rallied Wednesday, holding signs reading "Listen up senators: Women's health is not negotiable."

Several House Democrats spoke, vowing to oppose final passage of any health bill with the tough abortion restrictions already approved by the House. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., called it "a devil's bargain" that she couldn't accept...

Abortion opponents say Reid's bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition -- even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said after addressing the crowd that she didn't think Nelson had the votes to prevail, though she stopped short of saying she'd oppose the overall legislation if it included Nelson's language. Reid controls 60 votes, the exact number needed to advance legislation in the 100-member Senate, so he has no room for error.

Boxer told activists at the rally that the anti-abortion amendment adopted by the House amounted to "the biggest rollback in a woman's right to choose in three decades."

Read the entire article HERE.

When the world is not enough OR Tiger and Me

"Has a nation changed its gods,
even though they are no gods?
But my people have changed their glory
for that which does not profit.
Be appalled, O heavens, at this;
be shocked, be utterly desolate,
declares the Lord,
for my people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
broken cisterns that can hold no water."
- Jeremiah 2:11-13

Tiger Woods released a statement today confirming that he is guilty of committing "transgressions" against his family. Of course we know what this means. Now multiple women have lined up to identify themselves as the transgressions.

It occurred to me today just how much Tiger has risked by engaging in sinful behaviour. He is the husband of a beautiful wife and the father of lovely children. He is perhaps the most famous athlete in the world. He is certainly the highest paid athlete in the world. Because of his talent and reputation Tiger is extraordinarily marketable as a product spokesman. The world is his oyster.

But the world, it seems, is not enough. Why would he risk so much? Is a happy home with a wife and children not enough? Is all the money in the world not enough? Is universal popularity not enough? What could he possibly be missing that would motivate him to seek out fleeting pleasure in the arms of other women?

And this is where I am so much like Tiger. I have never sought out pleasure by breaking my marriage vows but my heart is just as deceitful as his. I am just as susceptible to the temptation of wanting more, much more than I already have. By God's grace I do not have similar "transgressions" but this is not because I am morally superior. My heart is still an idol factory. It is still a sometimes confounding labyrinth of competing desires, some good and others ugly. I still find myself searching for water in broken cisterns.

"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
- Romans 7:24

"Christianity Confronts Islam"

This week's edition of The White Horse Inn deals with the conflict between Christianity and Islam.

What is the meaning of Jihad? Is Islam really a religion of peace? What does the Koran say about terrorism? On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton discusses these questions and more with Muslim scholar and former professor of Shari'ah law, Sam Solomon, who after his conversion to the Christian faith was forced to leave his country of origin.

Check it out HERE.

ESV Bibles

ESV Bibles are 40% off right now at Monergism. Check it out HERE.

"Pure Fashion"

Nightline aired an interesting story on a program called "Pure Fashion". In a day when modesty is all but lost Pure Fashion is teaching some important lessons.

HT: Denny Burk

"The Abortion Distortion"

"The youngest generation of voters—those most likely to need an abortion—is the most pro-life to come along since the generation born during the Great Depression."

There is an interesting article in New York Magazine about the growing number of Americans who are pro-life. The article points out correctly that the idea that pro-lifers are a radical fringe group is not supported by the facts. I quibble with some of the assertions of the article but it is worth the read.

Clearing the fog away from Justification

The Christian Science Monitor has published a nice article by Kevin DeYoung about, of all things, the doctrine of Justification. DeYoung briefly sketches the controversy between the Protestant and Roman traditions over Justification and shows how the controversy continues primarily through the "New Perspective on Paul."

The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification – signed by Catholics, Lutherans, and later by Methodists – thawed this historical ice in some quarters, but most Catholics and Protestant theologians still don't agree on justification. More recently, a number of respected Protestant scholars such as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright have argued for a "New Perspective on Paul."

They maintain that Luther read too much of his own personal angst into Paul's epistles. The faith versus works debate was about ethnic boundary markers, not attempts to merit God's favor. Justification, therefore, is not so much about how we get saved as it is about how we know who belongs to the people of God. They say we've gotten Paul, and justification, terribly wrong. Justification, contra Luther, is based on the whole life lived and has nothing to do with having God's righteousness.

Even some Evangelicals have questioned whether it's right to speak of Christ's righteousness being counted for the believer's righteousness. There's some evidence that the New Perspective is leading Evangelicals closer to a Catholic understanding of salvation – one that bases our final justification, in part, on what we do.

At the heart of the Protestant faith is the conviction that there is nothing we contribute to our salvation but our sin, no merit we bring but Christ's, and nothing necessary for justification except faith alone.

The main purpose of DeYoung's article is pastoral. He does an excellent job of demonstrating how a proper [i.e. biblical] understanding and apprehension of Justification makes all the difference in our spiritual and emotional health.

As a pastor in a Protestant church, my whole ministry centers on the conviction that by grace we are saved through faith. And it's not our faith that delivers us, as if believing something, anything at all were pleasing to God. It's the object of our faith – Christ's life, death, and resurrection – that saves us.

The doctrine of justification is not an esoteric wrangling about words to the people in my congregation. Justification by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone means we can have confidence before God. There's no need to figure out venial versus mortal sins. There's no purgatory for remaining imperfections because God looks on his people and sees them clothed in the "Lord our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6; Zech. 3:1-5).

Justification means I don't have to find the god within because I have already been declared innocent by the God without. It means an end to all my futile attempts at self-justification, whether by politics, parenting, or preaching. Justification means I can sleep soundly at night, whether I wake up in the morning or not, knowing that God is for me and not against me.

Much of the impotence of American churches is tied to a profound ignorance and apathy about justification. Our people live in a fog of guilt. Or just as bad, they think being a better person is all God requires. Even a cursory look at church history in the past few hundred years shows that the church is at its best and most vibrant when justification through faith alone is heard from her pulpits and clearly articulated by her most prominent spokesmen.

After so much time and so many controversies, there are still plenty of Protestants – be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, or Pentecostal – who still believe justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. I guess I'm one of them.

Read the entire article HERE.