Worth Noticing...

Choking Hazard!
Martin Downes discovers a relic of the wild and wacky world of American evangelicalism.

An Insidious Agenda
Denny Burk on radical environmentalism and the elimination of humanity

Reassessing a Wicked Law
The Washington Post on the consequences of China's one child policy

Confusing the Categories?
Mark Jones on one of the most important distinctions in Scripture

"Some people are concerned"

In the last 20 years I have heard that statement more times than I can remember.

Here are some observations to which anyone in pastoral ministry can relate.

Far as the curse is found - The Fall

It was common among the ancient Greeks to picture time as moving in a circular fashion. You will still find that same idea in our own day. We speak of “the life cycle” and history repeating itself. Belief in Karma and reincarnation portray time in repetitious cycles. As a recent study by the Pew Forum demonstrates, those beliefs are no longer confined to eastern cultures.

Among atheists time is seen as a completely random movement. There is no God so there is no purposeful direction in time and space.

Endless repetition of cycles.

Meaningless movement toward an unknown end.

Of course the biblical understanding of time is radically different. God’s Word portrays time as moving purposefully in a particular direction not repeating itself in cycles. Time on a universal scale as well as the days allotted to each of us is under the sovereign direction of God. This means that history tells a story. It tells God’s story. And that story is punctuated by events that impact not only our individual lives but the entire cosmos. And standing at the ultimate pivot point of history is the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

These were actual historic events, not metaphors. They are exclamation points in actual history.

The story of Christmas begins long before the birth of Jesus some 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem. It begins before the angel’s announcement to Mary that she would conceive of the Holy Spirit. It begins before Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering Messiah who would bear away the sins of his people. It begins before God’s covenant with Abraham to make from him a nation of people made up of people from all the nations.

As far as human history is concerned the story of Christmas begins in a garden long ago. If we understand the events surrounding the advent of Jesus to be the most significant events in history then we should expect the story of his coming to be foretold from the earliest days of the human family. What is surprising is the context of that first announcement of the coming Saviour.

The story begins with…
The Fall

God created the man and woman as an expression of his joyful creativity and love. He created humankind to live on the earth, to multiply and be the crown of all creation. God created humankind for fellowship; for a unique relationship whereby we would glorify Him and He would pour out his love upon us. But the man and the woman, having listened to the voice of the Deceiver chose to be their own moral authority. They chose to reach for godhood themselves. They chose to do the one thing God had told them not to do.

In that single moment sin entered humanity, corruption entered creation, and what was innocent became guilty. We refer to this event as “the Fall.” Oddly enough this is where Christmas first enters the consciousness of God’s people.

God had warned the man and woman that if they chose to do the one thing he had commanded them not to do then it would constitute rebellion against him. It would be a wicked act of mutiny which is what sin always is. It is an attempt to dethrone God and place ourselves in His place. God had warned them that if they chose to sin then they would surely die.

In that moment of rebellion death surely entered the created order. What was incorruptible took on corruptibility and the man and the woman were driven out of that place of perfection. Mankind had been given the task of spreading throughout the earth and multiplying that paradise through their earthly dominion. But what happened instead is that paradise was lost. What is more God announced to Adam and Eve the curses which would follow in the wake of their sin.

Genesis three records perhaps the most tragic words in Scripture.

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (vv. 16-19).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote, “This third chapter of the book of Genesis is absolutely essential to a true understanding of life, the whole of life as it is at this moment for each individual.”

Our story as individuals and as a people is in so many ways shaped by what we are told in Genesis three. It’s the story of how sin entered the world. It helps us understand why things go wrong and why people do wrong. The fall has had an incalculable effect on us all. Sin has effected us in ways that, whether we know it or not, we experience every moment of every day.

We are wronged and we do wrong. We seek things that are beyond our grasp. The happiness we search for is never quite within our reach. When we do have peace of mind we still live with the nagging sense that it could all change in a second. Our work is toilsome. Our marriages are hard work. We will not understand ourselves and our world unless we understand what sin has done.

Genesis three is not a fanciful story. It is not a metaphor. It is written in the style of genuine history. No less than Jesus the Son of God and the apostle Paul understood Genesis three as genuine history.

Again, from Lloyd-Jones:

“Here is the most important key to history that is available at this moment. It explains the past. It explains the present. It explains the future. Let me put it as plainly as this: this is not allegory. I have no gospel unless this is history. In addition, I have been pointing out that as well as being a literal historical record of something that actually happened, Genesis 3 is also, in the most amazing way, an account and a description of the very thing that happens to us one by one. For the astounding fact is that every one of us repeats the action of Adam and Eve.”

We carry within ourselves every day the consequences of the fall – the bitter fruit of sin. This is where the story of Christmas begins.

Labor of Love

Syncretism and American Christians

USA Today reports on a study by the Pew Forum on the religious beliefs and practices of American evangelicals, mainline protestants, and Catholics. I can honestly say that I was not at all surprised by the survey's findings.

Elements of Eastern faiths and New Age thinking have been widely adopted by 65% of U.S. adults, including many who call themselves Protestants and Catholics, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released Wednesday...

In the 1980s, Albert Mohler and Julia Jarvis were in graduate school together at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville.

Today, Mohler is president of the seminary and a leading voice for Baptist orthodoxy. He sees a "rampant confusion" about faith revealed in the Pew findings.

"This is a failure of the pulpit as much as of the pew to be clear about what is and is not compatible with Christianity and belief in salvation only through Christ," Mohler says.

Pew says two in three adults believe in or cite an experience with at least one supernatural phenomenon, including:

•26% find "spiritual energy" in physical things.

•25% believe in astrology.

•24% say people will be reborn in this world again and again.

•23% say yoga is a "spiritual practice."

Mohler calls these "the au courant confusions," attachments to the latest fashionable free-floating beliefs.

"One hundred years ago, it would have been 'spiritualism.' They wouldn't have known what yoga was but might have been attracted to the 'New Thought' of the time," Mohler says.

His former classmate giggles at that. She's an ordained minister in the progressive United Church of Christ and leads the Interfaith Family Project, which meets for weekly worship at a Silver Spring, Md., high school.

Jarvis, of Takoma Park, Md., also studies with Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh and finds a spiritual dimension in yoga.

"I don't do astrology, but my mother, who grew up in Birmingham, Ala., and was a staunch Baptist all her life, looked at her horoscope daily and totally believed it," Jarvis says.

Jarvis says her late mother, like 49% of adults in the Pew survey, also had a moment of "religious or spiritual awakening."

"My mother feared for years that I was no longer saved, but just two days before she died, she had an epiphany," Jarvis says. "She said she was 'told' in a spiritual experience to put aside all religious and political differences and just love each other. That was her blessing to me, and that's what I'm doing."

Read the entire article HERE.

God's Word calls this idolatry. It sounds so reasonable to the thinking of the unregenerate. Variety is good in food, clothing, and entertainment. Why not in spiritual matters? After all who am I to question your experience?

This flirtation with and embrace of syncretism among those within the church is more evidence of what happens when the authority and sufficiency of God's Word is abandoned. Liberals challenge the authority of God's Word. They deny the Bible's inerrancy and claim that its theology is contradictory. Ironically, many conservative pastors who profess confidence in the authority and truthfulness of Scripture nevertheless deny its sufficiency by failing to preach it faithfully. Both tendencies lead to the same end.

The End of Secularism

Check out the latest episode of the White Horse Inn.

Secularists have argued for many years that religion is an entirely private matter that should not inform public life and policy decisions. But what about secularism itself? Is it really a neutral position itself? On this edition of the White Horse Inn the hosts discuss these issues with Hunter Baker, author of The End of Secularism.

What to learn from the Tiger Woods' scandal

Al Mohler has commented on the Tiger Woods debacle. Among the many lessons that can be learned from the scandal Mohler points out three that deal specifically with whether or not Woods' serial adultery is a strictly private matter.

1) Acts done in private can and will have public consequences.
2) The public still believes adultery is a big deal.
3) A fall from public favor can happen in an instant.

Mohler writes,

A good number of observers, including Peggy Noonan, appearing on the "This Week" program on ABC News, argued that the scandal was a private matter, since Tiger Woods is a professional athlete and not a politician. Writing in Newsweek
magazine, Julia Baird made a similar argument. "He is not a politician, priest, or morals crusader. He is an athlete," Baird declared.

She continued:

"Why do we even pretend that sportspeople are models of propriety? Or rather why do we need them to be? They are physically gifted, driven, and disciplined. That's what you need to excel in sport. Not moral strength, courage, decency, or fidelity. These virtues are admirable, but are a bonus: they should not be an expectation. Yet we continue to project an irrational desire for the physically perfect to be spiritually strong."

That is a rather amazing argument. Moral strength, courage, decency, and fidelity are "admirable," but not necessary for athletes? Clearly, the American public was not buying that argument -- and for good reason.

Tiger Woods may not be a priest or a politician, but he has transformed himself into a public figure. Indeed, most of his income is derived from selling himself as a brand, an advertising symbol, and an image. The glare of publicity was not forced upon Tiger Woods -- he has actively and quite successfully cultivated this publicity
for his own purposes. There is no inherent fault in this, but the American people are not buying the argument that his adventures in serial marital infidelity, combined with two late-night 911 calls, are matters of purely private concern between Tiger Woods and his wife, Elin Nordegren.

Read the entire post HERE.

What interests me is the impact upon pastors this story ought to have. Tiger's reputation will never be the same. He is not a member of the clergy. He is not, as far as I know, a professing Christian. As far as I know he has never been a crusader for family values or public morals. Nevertheless as someone whose image depended upon a certain level of wholesomeness the revelations of Tiger's debauchery have forever impacted his life and career.

When a pastor falls headlong into sexual immorality or even plays around on the margins the impact of that behavior goes far beyond his own family and reputation. It casts a shadow over the body of Christ. It gives unbelievers and various other cultured despisers of Christianity fuel for the fires of their unbelief and mockery.

I hear Paul's charge to Timothy to watch his life and doctrine closely ringing in my ears. The pastor much pay careful attention to those two things that can either build up or tear down - what he believes (and therefore teaches) and who he is (how he lives when no one is watching).

It Came to Pass...

An Example of Christless Christianity

The phrase "Christless Christianity" sounds strange. How is it possible for Christianity to be Christless? It is actually quite common. Christless Christianity is preaching, evangelism, worship, or ministry that presents Jesus as anything other than the Christ. In Christless Christianity Jesus is helpful. He will fix your marriage and your kids. He will give your life meaning. He will bless you financially. The only thing that is left out is the most important thing; the central thing. What is left out is that Jesus is the Saviour, the sacrifice for guilty sinners, the propitiation put forward by God to bear His wrath as he bore our sins. You see, in order to exalt Jesus as the Christ instead of Jesus as the great life coach in the sky then we must recognize both our sin and God's wrath. This simply will not do in many of our churches.

Gene Veith offers the following observation:

Have you seen the “Receive Jesus” ad on national television? (I can’t find it on the web. If any of you can find it, please post a link.) It has a rather cool-looking guy with a goatee and a black t-shirt against a white background. He says how life is hard. But that Jesus can make an amazing difference in your life. He tells viewers, wherever they are, to “receive Jesus.” It’s rather well-done, better than my description makes it sound.

But the ad nowhere includes the Gospel! He doesn’t say anything about sin or forgiveness or who Jesus is or what He accomplished for us on the Cross.

This is not uncommon, trying to be evangelistic while leaving out the evangel. Just telling someone to “receive Jesus” and encouraging a rote prayer to that effect without proclaiming the Gospel doesn’t make anyone a Christian, does it? I’m sure the makers of this ad do believe that Jesus died for sinners and that His death and resurrection grants forgiveness. So why did they go to all of the expense of this ad without saying that?

I’m all for using the media like this for evangelism and salute the effort, but the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners surely has to be in the message, doesn’t it?

The Real Planned Parenthood

As the following undercover video reveals, Planend Parenthood has nothing to do with women's "choice" or "reproductive health." They are a pro-abortion business. They grow and sustain their business on deception, lies, and bad science. At one point the abortionist tells the young woman that it's dangerous to have a baby. Please remember those politicians who have made promises to and championed the cause of Planned Parenthood. It is a wicked enterprise.

Deliver Us

Cozying Up to Error

The debacle that is the Anglican Church in North America ought to remind us that we cannot make nice with apostasy. Those churches and denominations that were once evangelical but now have departed from biblical Christianity did not reach their sad end overnight. It begin with small compromises usually rooted in a denial of biblical inerrancy.

Al Mohler comments on the on the tragic state of the Anglican Church.

The election of a second openly-homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church hardly came as a surprise. Given the actions of the church in its General Convention this past summer, the question was clearly not if there would be more openly-gay bishops, but when. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles answered that question on Saturday, electing the Reverend Mary D. Glasspool of Baltimore as an assistant bishop. She is expected to be consecrated as bishop on May 15 in Los Angeles.

Ms. Glasspool was elected on the seventh ballot, winning 153 clergy votes and 203 lay votes. Her election followed the election of another woman as a fellow assistant bishop for the diocese. More significantly, her election followed the seismic events of 2003, when the Reverend V. Gene Robinson was elected bishop of New Hampshire -- the first openly-homosexual bishop in the entire Anglican world.

Bishop Robinson's election set off a cataclysm in the Anglican Communion. That worldwide body of Anglicans appealed to its American church, the Episcopal Church, to respect the concerns of other churches and to establish a moratorium on the election of openly homosexual persons as bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions.

Anglican churches in the so-called "Global South" responded to the election of Bishop Robinson with outrage and conservatives in the Episcopal Church withdrew, forming the new Anglican Church in North America [ACNA]. Over the past two years, a significant number of churches and dioceses have withdrawn from the Episcopal Church to join the new ACNA or another conservative Anglican body.

Read the entire article HERE.

Battling for Purity

From Justin Taylor:

A sobering stat from a university study:

Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.

But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.

“We started our research seeking men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography,” said Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. “We couldn’t find any.”

HT: Mike Anderson

Here are some free resources to consider using as we battle together for purity:

•R. Albert Mohler Jr., “The Seduction of Pornography and the Integrity of Christian Marriage” (talk to college students: PDF, MP3)
•David Powlison, “Breaking Pornography Addiction” (article: part 1, part 2)
•David Powlison, Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken (conference talk: audio, video, and chapter)
•John Piper, Battling the Unbelief of Lust (sermon in manuscript, audio)
•John Piper, A.N.T.H.E.M: Strategies for Fighting Sexual Lust (article)
•Tim Challies, Sexual Detox: A Guide for the Single Guy (free eBook)
•Tim Challies, Sexual Detox: A Guide for the Married Guy (free eBook)
And here are a couple of books to consider purchasing:

•Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is): Sexual Purity in a Lust-Saturated World (book)
•Ed Welch, Crossroads: A Step-By-Step Guide Away from Addiction (study guide)
•Kris Lundgaard, The Enemy Within: Straight Talk About the Power and Defeat of Sin (book on sin and temptation in general, built on John Owen’s work)

The Supreme Mystery of Our Faith...

Every year the world--and the church--experiences Christmas, that curious amalgam of paganism, commercialism and Christianity which Western civilization has invented to tide it over the darkest days of the winter. It would be easy to be critical. Yet, in a day of small things, the festive season, so called, has one advantage: it reminds the public of at least the name and the fact of Jesus Christ. The pity is that men seldom go beyond that and that the church itself appears content to leave the supreme mystery of its faith only vaguely hinted at in the glitter and gaiety of what it calls its greatest festival. Christmas is a lost opportunity, a time when the world invites the Church to speak and she blushes, smiles and mutters a few banalities with which the world is already perfectly familiar from its own stock of cliches and nursery rhymes.

The question is still worth asking: What is this Christmas event which everyone hints at but no one talks about? The answer, of course, is the nativity; and the significance of that is defined for us by the Apostle John in one of the greatest statements in the New Testament: "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14).

- Donald Macleod, From Glory to Golgotha

It's that time again...

What is the Gospel?

From R.C. Sproul:

There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the Gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the Gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the Gospel.

The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

Funding Abortion

In a related story, Senator Boxer (CA) compared abortion to Viagra. Brilliant comparison Senator!

These are the people writing our laws people.

Are the Promise Keepers making a comeback?

There is an interesting piece in Slate about Promise Keepers. In case you did not know, the once enormously popular (among many evangelicals) ministry is staging for a comeback. For the purpose of full disclosure I will state that I am not a fan of Promise Keepers. It is not because they teach male headship in the home and church. I am convinced the Bible calls men to the key positions of leadership. My problem with Promise Keepers is that it was too broadly evangelical (some of the theology was sloppy) and that it depended upon emotions and hype.

This is not to say Promise Keepers did no good. God frequently uses flawed vessels in the service of his will. However, there were/are too many problems with Promise Keepers for me to be able to support it. The church is already too fascinated with fads. This is nothing new. Charles Finney found great success through hype and new "excitements".

The article in Slate has a few problems as well. The writer, Lilly Fowler is clearly no fan of the idea of male leadership. Also, there seems to be a bias against Promise Keeper's stand on moral issues. However, Fowler does, in my mind get some important points right.

McCartney aimed for P.K. to infiltrate every church in America— regardless of its specific denomination. After the stadium rallies swept through town, P.K. men were to take what they learned back to their local church and, in small groups, share the struggles they faced in their attempts to be godly men. In Bartkowski's essay "Breaking Walls, Raising Fences," an interviewee recalled that in one P.K. small-group moment, "otherwise 'strong men' ended up weeping profusely and rolling on the floor in anguish after learning that the vast majority of them had been sexually abused as children." P.K. uniquely allowed men to be vulnerable and intimate with one another. The organization presented the perfect combination of religion and pop psychology, a mishmash that would appeal to men from diverse backgrounds: those who felt their worldview aligned with P.K. as well as those who may have had a less clear vision but who clung to the opportunity for self-improvement, as Stephen D. Johnson noted in "Who Supports the Promise Keepers?"

But Promise Keepers also offered something different from a church: an unmediated relationship with God. The stadium rallies produce an intimate, almost frenzied relationship with God that create a high—which even an alcohol-abstaining Christian man might seek out. But for how long? The P.K. experience that might have created an ecclesiastical euphoria the first time might not bring the same high the next time. Bartkowski thinks that to continue to bring men back, to sustain the high, P.K. needs to present something new—always. This year, at least, that something new comes in the form of women and Messianic Jews...

In any case, the outreach to women and Jews won't really help the Promise Keepers once again pack stadiums with adoring men. To include women and Jews, even those who believe in Jesus Christ, will dilute the group's focus rather than expand its reach, says Bartkowski. Like a rock band that attempts to resurrect itself, getting the groove back is a daunting task. The concerts, the music, and the fans belong to a certain time; try as the group might, things will never quite be the same, as natural as it is for P.K. and leaders like McCartney to yearn for it to be so.

Read the entire article HERE.

Contending for the Truth

Charles Spurgeon was a man who contended for the truth. As a result he was reviled and misunderstood. Refusing to yeild ground to those who attacked the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the substitutionary atonement, the necessity of the new birth, etc. led eventually to his departure from his denomination. Some say the Downgrade Controversy took such a toll on Spurgeon that it hastened his death. But this is what men do. They contend for the truth. The following are exerpts from an editorial Spurgeon wrote in The Sword and the Trowel in response to those who savaged him for his commitment to the truth.

Let half a word of protest be uttered by a man who believes firmly in something, and holds by a defined doctrine, and the thunders of liberality bellow forth against the bigot. Steeped up to their very throats in that bigotry for liberality, which, of all others, is the most ferocious form of intolerance, they sneer with the contempt of affected learning at the idiots who contend for "a narrow Puritanism," and express a patronizing hope that the benighted adherents of "a half-enlightened creed" may learn more of "that charity which thinketh no evil."

To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is to them an offense against the enlightenment of the nineteenth century; but, to vamp old, worn-out heresies, and pass them off for deep thinking, is to secure a high position among minds "emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs."

Great is their indignation at the creeds which render their position morally dubious. Churches have no right to believe anything; comprehensiveness is the only virtue of a denomination; precise definitions are a sin, and fundamental doctrines are a myth: this is the notion of "our foremost men." For earnest people to band themselves together to propagate what they hold to be the very truth of God, is in their eyes the miserable endeavor of bigots to stem the torrent of modern thought...

The proper course, according to their "broad views," would be to leave doctrines for the dunces who care for them. Truths there are none, but only opinions; and, therefore, cultivated ministers should be left free to trample on the most cherished beliefs, to insult convictions, no matter how long experience may have matured them, and to teach anything, everything, or nothing, as their own culture, or the current of enlightened thought may direct them...

It appears to be, now-a-days, a doubtful question whether Christian men have a right to be quite sure of anything. . . . He who teaches an extravagant error is a fine, generous spirit: and, therefore, to condemn his teaching is perilous, and will certainly produce an outcry against your bigotry. Where the atonement is virtually denied, it is said that a preacher is a very clever man, and exceedingly good; and, therefore, even to whisper that he is unsound is libelous: we are assured that it would be far better to honor him for his courage in scorning to be hampered by conventional expressions. Besides, it is only his way of putting it, and the radical idea is discoverable by cultured minds. As to other doctrines, they are regarded as too trivial to be worthy of controversy. . . .

Elections Matter

Last evening the Senate defeated the Nelson/Hatch Ammendment which would have prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The vote, largely along party lines was 54-45.

The two Republicans who voted against Nelson/Hatch were, not surprisingly Collins and Snowe of Maine. Six Democrats voted for the ammendment - Bayh (IN), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Nelson (NE), and Pryor (AR).

Just 54 Senators voted to use your money to pay for abortions. Elections matter.

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.