Often books and speakers tell Christians that they should help the needy because they have so much. That is, of course, quite true. Common sense tells us that, if human beings are to live together on the planet, there should be a constant sharing of resources. So when the statistics are brought out to show Americans how much of the world’s resources we use, it creates (rightly) a sense of concern for those with less than ourselves.

But this approach is very limited in its motivating power. Ultimately it produces guilt. It says, “How selfish you are to eat steak and drive two cars when the rest of the world is starving!” This creates great emotional conflicts in the hearts of Christians who hear such arguing. We feel guilty, but all sorts of defense mechanisms are engaged. “Can I help it if I was born in this country? How will it really help anyone if I stop driving two cars? Don’t I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor?” Soon, with an anxious weariness, we turn away from books or speakers who simply make us feel guilty about the needy.

The Bible does not use the guilt-producing motivation, yet it powerfully argues for the ministry of mercy. In 2 Corinthians 8:2-3, Paul tells us that the Macedonian Christians gave generously to the Jerusalem famine victims. He notes that “out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity” (v. 2). The Macedonians were not of a higher social class than the needy in Jerusalem. They apparently were going through terrible trials of their own. What, then, was the dynamic that moved them to give? “Their overflowing joy . . . ” (v. 2) and “they gave themselves first to the Lord” (v. 5). It was the Macedonian’s response to the self-emptying Lord. Their gifts were a response, not to a ratio of income levels, but to the gift of Christ!

I am unsure whether this was intentionally farcical or even a real commercial but either way I think it is worth a laugh. Enjoy.

This is the major malfunction of American evangelicalism’s political idolatry. To the extent we equate God’s blessings and his kingdom coming to bear with the right men on Capitol Hill and the right laws in place, we settle for moralism and a righteousness born of self.

We’d all reject this theologically, I think, but it is implicitly central in a lot of the rhetoric and the exasperation from American Christians about what’s wrong with America, etc etc.

As I was waiting for my ride to the airport from the hotel in Louisville, KY last week after the Together 4 the Gospel Conference, I was reminded of cultural Christianity’s real concerns. The transportation attendant at the hotel noticed from my tag that I was from Vermont. Our conversation went like this:

Him: “You’re from Vermont?”

Me: “Yup.”

Him: “That’s great. That van load that just left were from Vermont.”

Me: “Oh cool.”

Him: “Yeah. Good to know you guys are getting the good news out up there.”

Me: “Well, we’re trying.”

Him: “Need to get some Republicans up there.”

And there I was transported back to everything that drives me nuts about American evangelicalism: the equation of the good news with something other than the gospel of Jesus Christ, in this case — as is often the case — with political conservatism.

I believe many Christians in America would be satisfied if “the culture” just stopped using pornography and drugs and alcohol and stopped aborting babies and started “acting right.” As far as I can tell, that would be a Win.

But it’s not a win. A land where everybody acts right and is on their best behavior, where peace reigns and social decay is no more and the poor are helped and the hungry are fed, but Christ is not worshiped as the sole supreme satisfaction in all the universe, is a big fat FAIL.

As C.S. Lewis says:

We must not suppose that if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world.

The message of the gospel is not “Behave!”

But that is the message American evangelicalism — Southern and Northeastern, and most other places — has been proclaiming. It is at its heart pharisaical.

We are called to preach not moralism but Christ crucified, foolishness to American culture and a stumbling block to American Christians.

Michael Horton illustrates this well in his book Christless Christianity:

What would things look like if Satan really took control of a city? Over half a century ago, Presbyterian minister Donald Grey Barnhouse offered his own scenario in his weekly sermon that was also broadcast nationwide on CBS radio. Barnhouse speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia (the city where Barnhouse pastored), all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, “Yes, sir” and “No ma’am,” and the churches would be full every Sunday . . . where Christ is not preached.

There is a great difference between “being good” and the gospel. Some call it moralism. Moralism, in fact, blinds us from the gospel by giving us something of “the real thing” ensuring that we miss out on the true gospel all together. We must remember that Christ came first not to make bad people good but to make dead people live. If we forget that, our Christianity will turn out to be Christless.

Certainly, I cannot fault anyone for desiring the propagation of the gospel but is this what Christ and his Apostles had in mind? Pithy little, counterfeit currency with a few proof texts slapped on the back with Reagan thrown in for good measure? Why do we feel the need to surreptitiously slip the gospel into a tip instead of proclaim it? While I must admit that I am repulsed by this sort of effort (whether right or wrong), I see many of the same tendencies that drive this sort of evangelism in my own heart even if they are not expressed in this way. May the Lord help us all.

kp

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

A few years ago many Christian and Muslim leaders tried to initiate an effort to find common ground between the faiths. (http://www.acommonword.com/) The substance of the message is for all faiths to unite on the principles of a love for God and neighbor. As it seems the goal is to find the lowest common denominator between different faiths and just pass of the rest of the practices as somehow less important.

Here’s the problem. We don’t both love God. One of us is wrong. Our respective Scriptures make irreconcilable contrary claims to one another about who God is and how we are to respond to him rightly. We cannot just overlook this. Even the ethos of loving our neighbor is radically effected by the particular theologies of either group. We need to make it very clear about where we stand and not apologize for it. We cannot look into the eyes of a local Mullah and say it is okay to reject the atonement and justification of Isa (Jesus) by faith. We don’t serve the same God. With that on the table, lets love and pray for one another.

I pray earnestly that these Muslims would not longer regard Isa as just another prophet but as thee only Prophet, Priest, and King. The narrative of Scripture is not content with just calling him a good teacher. He is God. He is the Gospel.

kp

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

I gave Him a crown of thorns, He gave me a crown of righteousness. I gave Him a cross to carry, He gave me His yoke which is easy, His burden which is light. I gave Him nails through His hands, He gave me safely into His Father’s hands from which no power can pluck me. I gave Him a mock title, ‘This is the King of the Jews.’ He gave me a new name and made me a king and a priest to God. I gave Him no covering, stripping His clothes from Him, He gave me a garment of salvation. I gave Him mockery, casting the same in His teeth, He gave me Paradise. I gave Him vinegar to drink, He gave me Living Water. I crucified and slew Him on a tree, He gave me eternal life. It was my sinfulness that put Him there. It is His sinlessness that puts me here.

Derick Bingham

So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, Do not write, The King of the Jews, but rather, This man said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

(John 19:16-22)

Two classic sermon vignettes from S. M. Lockridge remembering our Savior during this good Friday:

On the larger issue of polemics in this context I continue to run into a number of struggles as you have found out. There is a prevailing temptation to paint reality in a superficial light that honest dialectics just won’t allow for. These efforts expose the parts of my prideful heart that need sanctified as it seems more comfortable to create a theological structure with conveniently painted black and white walls than to faithfully represent the complexity that is such an integral parts of discussion.

I pray that my root motivation for my efforts is one of apostolic obligation, chiefly the defense and confirmation of the gospel. However it is hard to discern between attacks on perspicuous, central doctrines of Scripture and assertions that can still rest comfortably inside the circle of Orthodoxy. It frequently appears to me that the fabric of truth is seamless. Every truth is intertwined with every other truth, such that any assault on the inspiration of Scripture seems to be just a few steps away from denying the very gospel it seeks to propagate. Throughout the New Testament it seems the Apostles know that letting minor strands continue to unravel can eventually lead a dangerous compromising on the centrality of the gospel.

Clearly there is two ditches on every road. While my more fundamentalist brothers appear to exhibit a more retreatist attitude it seems the other extreme is equally as misguided. Under the banner of humility it becomes to easy to be hesitant where God is clear. I think you would agree that we live in a day of politicized discourse that puts no premium on assertions that are inherently clear. Some use language to conceal where they stand rather than to seek for clarity where they stand. My guess is that this happens because clear and open statements usually result in more criticism than ambiguous statements do. Vagueness wins more approval in hostile atmospheres than forthrightness ever will. This is not the vehement zeal for the truth which Christ and his Apostles unashamedly displayed. Perhaps if we loved the glory of God more deeply, and if we cared more for the eternal good of the souls of men, we would take our engagement in necessary controversy more seriously, supremely when the truth of the gospel is at stake. The Apostolic command is clear: we are to be “speaking the truth in love,” being neither truthless in our love, nor loveless in our truth, but holding the two in careful balance.

I seek to write with clarity and yet avoid the myopic thrust of closed-eyed dogmatism or unhelpful theological obscurities. This requires a commitment to precision that I have not yet discovered, as I displayed in the section of my book you read.

I appreciate your willingness to provide correction where it is necessary as I need to be held accountable for irresponsible polemics. Surprisingly I am always right whenever my thoughts go no further than my head or close group of friends on the same theological page. Yet even if this piece does not turn out to be a fair or helpful one it will have been another step to climb in the direction of taking seriously the task of dialogue.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in the slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

C. S. Lewis from the Weight of Glory

It will not do to say that God only uses our cancer but does not design it. What God permits, he permits for a reason. And that reason is his design. If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. If he does not, he has a purpose. Since he is infinitely wise, it is right to call this purpose a design. Satan is real and causes many pleasures and pains. But he is not ultimate. So when he strikes Job with boils (Job 2:7), Job attributes it ultimately to God (2:10) and the inspired writer agrees: “They . . . comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). If you don’t believe your cancer is designed for you by God, you will waste it.

Psalm 19:1-7

Trailer from the new Life DVD:

While this may seem too folksy… In part this is my response:

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

Affections that are truly spiritual and gracious do arise from those influences and operations on the heart which are spiritual, supernatural and divine. ‘Spiritual man’ refers to a sanctified person or saint if by natural and carnal be intended unsanctified, then doubtless by spiritual is meant sanctified and gracious.

The word ’spiritual’ in the Bible (for example as in “spiritual man’) refers to the relation to the Holy Spirit. Qualities are not said to be spiritual, because they have their seat in the soul and not in the body. Thus Christians are called spiritual persons because they are born of the Spirit, and because of the indwelling and holy influences of the Spirit of God in them. They who have only the common influences of God’s Spirit are not so called. For it was not by men’s having the gifts of the Spirit, but by their having the virtues of the Spirit, that they were called spiritual. Natural men may be the subjects of many influences of the Spirit of God yet they are not, in the sense of the Scripture, spiritual persons. The great difference lies in these two things:

The Holy Spirit lives in spiritual people and causes them to shine from the inside. The Holy Spirit may shine upon carnal people too but only as a light on a dark object. The grace which is in the hearts of the saints is of the same nature with the divine holiness, as much as it is possible for that holiness to be which is infinitely less in degree. He never acts disagreeably to His nature, either on the minds of saints or sinners. Thus, for instance, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and there was nothing disagreeable to His nature in that action; but yet He did not at all communicate Himself in that action. And so He may act upon the minds of men many ways, and not communicate Himself any more than when He acts on inanimate things. So that not only the persons are called spiritual, as having the Spirit of God dwelling in them, but those qualifications, affections, and experiences, that are wrought in them by the Spirit are also spiritual. There is no work so high and excellent, for there is no work wherein God doth so much communicate Himself, and wherein the mere creature hath, in so high a sense, a participation of God.

2 Pet 1:4 “having God dwelling in them, and they in God”

2 Cor 6:16 “being the temples of the living God”

Heb 12:10 “being made partakers of God’s holiness”

John 17:13 ” having His joy fulfilled in them”

Not that the saints are made partakers of the essence of God, and are so godded with God, and christed with Christ, which is blasphemous, but to use the Scripture phrase, they are made partakers of God’s fulness.
They (natural men) not only have not these communications of the Spirit of God in so high a degree as the saints, but have nothing of that nature of kind.

And natural men are represented in Scripture as having no spiritual light, no spiritual life, and no spiritual being; and therefore conversion is often compared to opening the eyes of the blind, raising the dead, and a work of creation and becoming new-born children. From these things it is evident that those gracious influences which the saints are subjects of, and the effects of God’s Spirit which they experience, are entirely above nature. And this is what I mean by supernatural, when I say that gracious affections are from those influences that are supernatural.

Something is perceived by a true saint, in the exercise of this new sense of mind in spiritual and divine things, as entirely diverse from anything that is perceived in them by natural men, as the sweet taste of honey is diverse from the ideas men get of honey by looking on and feeling it. The difference is not like two people smelling two different smells but as experiencing different sensations, say one smelling and the other touching. Hence the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration is often in Scripture compared to the giving of a new sense, giving eyes to see and ears to hear, unstopping the ears of the deaf, and opening the eyes of them that were born blind.

So this new spiritual sense is not a new faculty of understanding, but it is a new foundation laid in the nature of the soul for a new kind of exercises of the same faculty of understanding. So that new holy disposition of heart that attends this new sense is not a new faculty of will, but a foundation laid in the nature of the soul, for a new kind of exercises of the same faculty of the will. When the Spirit of God gives a natural man visions etc. as he did in Balaam, He only impresses a natural principle, which in Balaam’s case was the sense of seeing. But the Spirit of God in His spiritual influences on the hearts of His saints, operates by infusing or exercising new, divine, and supernatural principles; principles which are indeed a new and spiritual nature, and principles vastly more noble and excellent than all that is in natural men. The carnal man cannot discern this, just as a man born deaf cannot conceive of the melody of a tune, or a man who is blind from birth cannot understand the beauty of a rainbow.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

Ironically Peter is a Christian, and not a quiet one at that. Recently he has written a book why his atheism led him to God. The book is entitled The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith and is now available for pre-order. Here is a short video where Peter describes the book:

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

Vance Havner

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
(Ephesians 4:12-16)

These are the words of the Apostle Paul to the church in Ephesus. Paul reminds us that upon Christ’s resurrection he gave gifts to men, namely the gifts pertaining to instruction of the Word of God. This should be an evident indicator that teaching is important to the ministry of Christ. Why? For the building up of the body of Christ into maturity. It is the churches goal to lead its members to be a reflection of Christ on the earth. The body of Christ is to act in the model of the incarnation of Christ and continually point to and worship the exhalation of Christ. Paul points out the two major goals: unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. It seems ironic that these two objectives are so frequently pitted against one another. Do we side for truth or unity? The Apostle Paul appears to introduce these two as friends without a need of reconciliation. For truth is the foundation of true unity. Notice that Paul isn’t ascribing a generic unity but rather a unity of the faith. True unity never costs the truth of the faith. True unity is married to the knowledge of the Son of God. This knowledge is to grow us into maturity so that we are no longer tossed around with false teaching and false understanding. The Apostle Paul does not blush about identifying deceitfulness as being a present reality. Instead he commits the church to growing its members into a maturity whereby they will not fall prey to counterfeit gospels.

How is the church grown and sanctified? I believe Paul answered this in the same letter when he wrote, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27). Christ has redeemed his church by his own blood and is sanctifying her by the Word. It is no mistake that the Word is associated with the cleansing properties of water. Fundamentally, it is Christ who is doing the washing and sanctifying but he chooses to use his Word as the agent. Again we confirm the Scriptures as the center piece of our lives and the life of the church. In honoring the Word, we honor Christ’s promise to sanctify us. Paul identifies Christ as the head of the church and consequently he is slowly fitting us together by equipping us in truth for love. Thus the promotion of unity must be connected with the promotion of truth. London preacher, C. H. Spurgeon once observed:

Christ has not made a nondescript religion, that will hold all sorts of people in it, and yet all shall be alike obedient. Truth does not vacillate like the pendulum which shakes backwards and forwards. It is not like the comet, which is here, there, and everywhere. One must be right, the other wrong. It is not for me to pronounce who is right, or who is wrong. I am not infallible. It is for me to judge of Scripture, as in the sight of God, for myself. I beg you do the same, Do not think any error to be an unimportant one, but try the spirits, prove whether these things are so. I am quite sure that the best way to promote union is to promote truth. It will not do for us to be all united together by yielding to one another’s mistakes. We are to be united heartily, I hope we are. We are to love each other in Christ; but we are not to be so united that we are not able to see each other’s faults, and especially not able to see our own.

What Spurgeon noted here runs contrary to most of our culture, especially church culture. The best way to foster unity is to encourage truth. How can this be true when it is truth that appears to separate us? It is to this question we now turn.

Soli Deo Gloria,
kp

Here is an excerpt:

As the New Testament repeatedly affirms, those who want to be saved by their own obedience need to know that God doesn’t grade on a curve. His record-keeping is bad news, not good news, unless Christ’s obedient record has been credited to us through faith alone. God’s law says, “If you want to be saved by your own effort, here are the terms: Do all these things and you’ll go to heaven; fail to do them and you’ll go to hell.” The revivalists of yesteryear came up with their own list, but it was basically the same threat: “Do or die.” The kinder, gentler version is, “Try harder and you’ll be happier; fail to do them and you’ll lose out on God’s best for your life here and now.” No heaven, no hell; no condemnation or salvation; no perfect obedience of Christ credited to us: Just do your best. Remember, God is keeping score! Christ becomes totally unnecessary in this message.

Osteen reflects the broader assumption among evangelicals that we are saved by making a decision to have a personal relationship with God. If one’s greatest problem is loneliness, the good news is that Jesus is a reliable friend. If the big problem is anxiety, Jesus will calm us down. Jesus is the glue that holds our marriages and families together, gives us purpose for us to strive toward, wisdom for daily life. And there are half-truths in all of these pleas, but they never really bring hearers face to face with their real problem: that they stand naked and ashamed before a holy God and can only be acceptably clothed in his presence by being clothed, head to toe, in Christ’s righteousness.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

Today I just received my pre-ordered copy of The Essential Edwards Collection: Set of 5 Books. Five well designed books that offer up a collection of Edwards’ best writings on five different topics. This is not only a good example of making old puritans accessible to read but also the promotion of good book culture. These were very well put together and look great. It was also very well endorsed:

“Everyone says Jonathan Edwards is important. Quite frankly, however, his writing style is pretty dense by contemporary standards, so few pastors and other Christian leaders have invested much time reading him. Edwards is one of the “greats” of whom everyone has heard and whom relatively few have read. This new series tackles the problem. Here is the kernel of much of Edwards’s thought in eminently accessible form.”

—D. A. Carson

“In The Essential Edwards Collection, Owen Strachan and Doug Sweeney play the role of the good friend who pulls the book down off the shelf. With knowledge and excitement, they open the large and intimidating tomes, and point to some clear and searching section which illuminates God’s truth and searches our hearts. In this collection, Edwards is introduced to a new generation of readers. His concerns are made our concerns. This is a worthy effort and I pray that God will bless it.”

—Mark Dever

“Books on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards could fill a library. So where does an average reader (like me!) begin? Right here, with The Essential Edwards Collection. Strachan and Sweeney provide a doorway into the life and teaching of one of the church’s wisest theologians. But this book is more than history. The authors have included notes of personal application to help us apply the life and teaching of Edwards to our own lives. I’ve read no better introduction to Jonathan Edwards.”

—C. J. Mahaney

“Why hasn’t this been done before? The Essential Edwards Collection is now essential reading for the serious-minded Christian. Doug Sweeney and Owen Strachan have written five excellent and accessible introductions to America’s towering theological genius—Jonathan Edwards. They combine serious scholarship with the ability to make Edwards and his theology come alive for a new generation. The Essential Edwards Collection is a great achievement and a tremendous resource. I can’t think of a better way to gain a foundational knowledge of Edwards and his lasting significance.”

—R. Albert Mohler Jr.

“Jonathan Edwards is surely one of the most influential theologians of the eighteenth century, yet until now a representative sample of his work has required the reader either to wade through poorly printed double-column editions or to purchase incredibly expensive scholarly editions. Now at last we have a wide-ranging and representative sample of his work published in an attractive, accessible and, most important of all, readable form. The authors are to be commended for the work they have put into this set and I hope it will become an important feature of the library of many pastors and students of the Christian faith.”

—Carl R. Trueman

I look forward to reading these in the near future.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self- righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

I echo what one commenter wrote:

The humor in the performances is found in the humor of life itself. I think it’s possible to avoid mocking people and at the same time to enjoy the foibles of everyday folks.

John Daker is the highlight of the recital.

So earnest.

So forgetful of the lyrics.

And such perseverance until the bitter end.

Here is the video and a mock cartoon of the video which adds to the humor by adding subtitles.

…I write with the conviction that behind wrong living is wrong thinking. Furthermore, I trust that by abiding in the word of God deeply that our lives will be sanctified. By cultivating our affections for Christ by the knowledge of Him in the Scriptures, we find that the happiness offered by sin cannot compare to the joy we find in being satisfied by Christ. Sin is a result of a heart not satisfied by all that Christ is for us in God. When we sin we do so because it holds out some promise of satisfaction. It is only when we can embrace the promises of God that the promises of sin no longer appeal to us. This laying hold of the promises of God to sanctify us is faith. When Paul tells us that the gospel is the power of God for salvation, he explains that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith.¹ This faith is being satisfied by God and by it we understand God’s power to save us and the righteousness that he reveals unto us. By this faith God justifies us because by faith we embrace with empty arms the declaration that the ungodly is counted righteous in Christ. Faith is the root of our sanctification because it is faith that humbly receives the power and grace of God to produce fruit in our lives. Such faith kills sin because it is trusts in Christ’s uncompromising satisfaction above that of fleeting pleasures. The righteous shall live by faith.

Ignorance of who God is and what He has promised us in Christ is in opposition to this faith because we will fail to lay hold of His gifts, supremely Himself. As we seek to know God and witness his glory revealed in the Scriptures we find our faith being built on rock solid redeemer who is our justification, sanctification, and satisfaction. Attempts to seek this outside of God is not only antithetical to faith but will always fail. The best we can do without faith is self-justification. Without faith our lives are not sanctifyingly transformed but only conformed to moralistic do’s and don’ts. Without faith our attempts to appear right before God will always end in despair and deny us the satisfaction we long for. Conversely, the righteous shall live by faith.

This faith is ultimately a gift² from God but it is imparted by the word of God.³ Knowing God, in other words theology and doctrine, is the bedrock of our faith on which our satisfaction in God rests. Theology, understood correctly, is not dry, boring, or dangerous rather it is timely, dynamic, and essential. Upon it we establish a foundation and framework for all of life.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp

A truly humble man is sensible of his natural distance from God; of his dependence on Him; of the insufficiency of his own power and wisdom; and that it is by God’s power that he is upheld and provided for, and that he needs God’s wisdom to lead and guide him, and His might to enable him to do what he ought to do for Him.

From love arises hatred of those things which are contrary to what we love, or which oppose and thwart us in those things that we delight in.

Soli Deo Gloria,

kp