Category — Theology

Let us pray that we may be delivered from a cold, speculative, unsanctified head-knowledge of Christianity. It is a rock on which thousands make shipwreck to all eternity. No heart becomes so hard as that on which the light shines, but finds no admission. To be an ignorant heathen, and bow down to idols and stones, is bad enough. But to be called a Christian, and know the theory of the Gospel, and yet cleave to sin and the world with the heart, is to be a candidate for the worst and lowest place in hell. It is to be as like as possible to the devil.

—J.C. Ryle
Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke – Volume 2

Via: J.C. Ryle Quotes

Via: Against Heresies

Martin Downes published a really insightful post the other day at his website and I wanted to pass along a couple of quotes:

A non-doctrinal faith is impossible. A faith wrongly informed because it has been fed on false doctrine is disastrous. A faith rooted in an experiential, subjective moralism, can easily pose as Christian faith, but it is no substitute for faith in a gracious Saviour, who is both God and man, a faith rooted and grounded in the Word of God. And not to care about these matters is really not to care about God.

Although this quote is presented out of order from the original post, I thought it a fitting warning and wonderful conclusion.

My point is that we need books to help us grow in grace and knowledge, to help us think deep thoughts about a great God, and to set us on a path of further reading and reflection on the riches of the Christian faith. Truth has edges and boundaries. Step outside of these, or behave as if they don’t matter, and you will walk into a spiritual minefield.

Via: Against Heresies

I originally posted the audio from this NPR interview with Dr. John Piper on August 7, 2008, but I thought it was especially timely in relation to the recent disaster in Haiti and wanted to make it available again. This is a thoughtful, biblical response to people that question the sovereignty of God in the face of tragic events, in this case the subject of the interview was the 2005 Tsunami. The interview is about 30 minutes long but well worth the investment of time.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Related: You can download or listen to the interview at Desiring God.

The word doctrine simply means “teaching.” And it’s ludicrous to say that Christ is anti-teaching. The central imperative of His Great Commission is the command to teach (Matthew 28:18-20). Yet there’s no shortage of church-growth experts, professional pollsters, and even seminary professors nowadays who are cautioning young pastors that doctrine is too divisive, too threatening, too heady and theoretical—and therefore simply impractical. Impractical? I agree that practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But if there is a deficiency in preaching today, it is that there’s too much relational, pseudo-psychological, and thinly life-related content, and not enough emphasis on sound doctrine. Moreover, the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is completely artificial; doctrine is practical. In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine, because there’s ultimately no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word. Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they are divorced from divine principle. Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied. The New Testament church was founded on a solid base of doctrine. Without that, no practical application matters. True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

—Dr. John MacArthur

Via: Reformation Theology

On November 20, 2009, a document called the Manhattan Declaration was presented to the public by a coalition of cobelligerents. The document is concerned primarily with three very important biblical and cultural issues: the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. Without question, these issues are up for grabs in our nation.

As anyone familiar with my ministry will know, I share the document’s concern for defending the unborn, defining heterosexual marriage biblically, and preserving a proper relationship between church and state. However, when the document was sent to me and my signature was requested a few weeks ago, I declined to sign it.

In answer to the question, “R.C., why didn’t you sign the Manhattan Declaration?” I offer the following answer: The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel.

The framers of the Manhattan Declaration seem to have calculated this objection into the language of the document itself. Likewise, some signers have stated that this is not a theological document. However, to make that statement accurate requires a redefinition of “theology” and serious equivocation on the biblical meaning of “the gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).

The drafters of the document, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George, used deliberate language that is on par with the ecumenical language of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement that began in the 1990s. The Manhattan Declaration states, “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word,” and it identifies “Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelicals” as “Christians.” The document calls Christians to unite in “the Gospel,” “the Gospel of costly grace,” and “the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Moreover, the document says, “it is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”

Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted.  More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term “the gospel” in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to “proclaim” (Phil. 1:27).

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using studied ambiguity in order to win over opponents. Let me be unambiguous: Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide. I believe there are true and sincere Christians within the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. But these people are Christians in spite of their church’s official doctrinal positions.

At least one of the document’s framers, Mr. Colson, sees the Manhattan Declaration as a way to revitalize the church in America. In his commentary on November 25, Mr. Colson said the Manhattan Declaration is “a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.” He suggests that the Manhattan Declaration is an antidote to “biblical and doctrinal ignorance” within the church. However, true reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).

The Manhattan Declaration puts evangelical Christians in a tight spot. I have dear friends in the ministry who have signed this document, and my soul plummeted when I saw their names. I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.

Lastly, I stand with the sentiments expressed by my friends Alistair Begg, Michael Horton, and John MacArthur, and I appreciate their willingness to say “no” to the call to get aboard this bandwagon as they continue to stand firm in their proclamation of the gospel and the whole counsel of God as it pertains to all matters of faith and life, including the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, and the nature of religious liberty. It is only in our united proclamation of the one, true gospel of Jesus Christ that any heart, any mind, or any nation will truly change, by God’s sovereign grace and for His glory alone.

—Dr. R.C. Sproul

Via: Ligonier Ministries Blog

One plague of our age is the widespread dislike to what men are pleased to call dogmatic theology. In the place of it, the idol of the day is a kind of jellyfish Christianity – a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or sinew, – without any distinct teaching about the atonement or the work of the Spirit, or justification, or the way of peace with God – a vague, foggy, misty Christianity, of which the only watchwords seem to be, ‘You must be..liberal and kind. You must condemn no man’s doctrinal views. You must consider everybody is right and nobody is wrong.’

—J.C. Ryle
The Upper Room

Via: J.C. Ryle Quotes

On a dark Friday afternoon two thousand years ago, an itinerant preacher and miracle worker hung on a Roman cross just outside the ancient city of Jerusalem. A small crowd gathered to observe the agonizing death of this man who, with His claim to be the very Lord of the universe, had aroused the ire of the temple authorities. Many in this crowd believed that they were doing a service to God and country by executing this popular teacher. Others remained bewildered that the one they called Messiah was suffering a death reserved only for the worst of criminals.

Neither friend nor foe understood exactly what was going on that day. Though many strange things happened at the moment of His death, few realized that in Jesus, God was fulfilling His plan of redemption. Scarcely any knew that when He cried out “It is finished!” (John 19:30), Jesus fulfilled the will of His Father and brought satisfaction to Israel’s longing for salvation.

If there is one theme that underlies the entire book of Hebrews, it is that of accomplished redemption. In conjunction with the author of Hebrews, we could approach this theme from a variety of different angles. We could emphasize Jesus as the final revelation from the Father (Heb. 1:1-4). We could point out the truth that Jesus alone brings His people into their eternal Sabbath rest (3:7-4:13) because He alone brings us rest from sin. We can highlight Jesus’ role as the perfect High Priest who satisfies the wrath of God once-for-all for His people (9:12-14). From beginning to end, Jesus’ cry of “It is finished!” reverberates in the epistle to the Hebrews.

Because of the clear emphasis on the work of Christ found therein, Hebrews is a book well-loved by systematic theologians. The doctrines of substitutionary atonement, Christ’s humiliation and exaltation, faith, perseverance, and the deity of Jesus are all so clearly presented, and they provide rich material for our understanding of the nature of God and His plan.

Perhaps James has been less used than Hebrews in the formulation of systematic theology. Nevertheless, James has also been a well-loved book in the church. The brother of our Lord is so intensely practical in His work that his epistle is mined to answer the question: “How am I to live as a Christian?”

This is a question that we all must ask because the gospel not only puts us into right standing with God, it also transforms our daily lives. Paul and the author of Hebrews recognize this, placing the practical applications of the gospel near the end of their epistles. James, however, stands out in that his practical admonishments are found so clearly enumerated and highlighted throughout His epistle. His teachings regarding systematic doctrine are somewhat less obvious, and so James is sometimes ignored when Christians pursue the study of theology.

Unfortunately, it is far too common to separate the study of doctrine from the pursuit of holy living. Many people study theology without asking questions like: How does a right understanding of God instruct me regarding my treatment of other people? Others focus rigidly on living moral lives without asking, How do the commands of Christ reveal the gracious and forgiving nature of God? However, as James shows us, if we do not ask such questions, we have not really understood doctrine at all.

The practical ways to live out the gospel are clear throughout James. The doctrinal assumptions that underlie this instruction, though no less important, are somewhat less clear at first glance. But James does in fact have a rich understanding of Christian theology. That he is sometimes ignored when we are systematizing the teaching of Scripture points more to our inadequate understanding of the nature of theology than to James’ supposed lack of doctrinal instruction.

James has a thorough knowledge of the character of God. We see this mainly in his use of the names of God. God is Father (James 1:27) and therefore loves His children deeply. Yet God is Judge (5:9) and thus is required to punish sin. God’s love and righteousness, we know, motivated Him to accomplish redemption for us based on the sacrifice of His perfect Son who suffered the punishment we all deserve.

James also clearly understands that God is sovereign, in control of all things, bringing all creation to glorify Him. God’s providence necessitates that we recognize that only those things that He has decreed will come to pass (4:14-15). God is called “Lord” (3:9), emphasizing His rule over all things. This sovereignty works itself out in election. By His will alone God has called out those whom He has saved (1:18). It is God who sovereignly implants His Word in those whom He has chosen to receive Christ (v. 21). And if James understands election, He understands that redemption was accomplished for the sake of these elect.

James wants us to apply the gospel even to the most “ordinary” circumstances in life. But make no mistake, the gospel he knows is based upon the perfect merit of Christ and His redemption fully accomplished more than two thousand years ago. Even in James, the cry “It is finished!” is heard loud and clear.

—Robert Rothwell

Via: Ligonier Ministries Blog

The essence of the Christian religion consists in this, that the creation of the Father, devastated by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God, and recreated by the Holy Spirit into the kingdom of God.”

—Herman Bavinck
Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1

Via: Of First Importance

What is a Presbyterian? What comes to mind when you hear that word (other than a name that is difficult to spell!)? It might surprise you to know that it is a word that is both biblical and historical in nature.

Presbyterian is biblical in that it refers to a form of church government in which the overseeing (or the “shepherding”) is done by elders. In fact, “Presbyterian” comes from a Greek work that simply means “elder.” When the Council of Jerusalem is called in Acts 15, those who attend are apostles and elders (Acts 15:6). After spending considerable time in the city, Paul delivers a farewell address to the elders in Ephesus, warning them to watch over their flock, the church (Acts 20:17-31). Titus is instructed to appoint elders where there are churches (Titus 1:5). And Timothy was ordained to the ministry by a group of elders (literally, a “presbytery” or “body of elders”; see 1 Timothy 4:14). These elders are godly men who watch over the church and are concerned with the spiritual needs of the members, committing themselves to prayer and the word in order to lead God’s people. The name “Presbyterian” simply reflects the way God has established, through His word, the way He desires for His people to be watched, guarded, and feed.

Presbyterian is also an historical term. It is most closely associated with John Knox, the great Scottish Reformer. Knox was greatly influenced by John Calvin, including the theology which brought about the Protestant Reformation – the recovery of the gospel (“good news”) of salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. When Knox returned to Scotland in 1559, he brought with him a biblical form of church government (which was dubbed “Presbyterianism”) derived from the teachings of Calvin. In 1560, with the adoption of the Scottish Confession of Faith, Presbyterianism became the official church (or “kirk”) of Scotland. Presbyterianism was further solidified nearly a century later with the Westminster Confession of Faith, completed in 1648. Presbyterians were among those who traveled to the New World and helped colonize what would become the United States. In fact, the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church dates back to the beginning of the United States, having been established in 1782, after the end of the Revolutionary War.

So the next time someone asks you about Presbyterianism, be sure to tell them it is both biblical and historical. While it is important that a Christian denomination has its roots in history, it is even more important that it has its origin in the word of God. And Presbyterianism is the best of both worlds.

—Pastor Tim Phillips

Via: Tim Phillips