Doctrine in a Nutshell

Although I have never subscribed, and although I have never sent a change of address when I moved, I still receive a certain fundamentalist periodical in the mail every 2 weeks. I think it was initially sent by a pastor friend who was trying to rescue me from the error of my ways. That’s OK. I can keep up to date on what that slice of the world is doing.


The latest edition had a front page article exposing the errors of Calvinism. The editor stated that he was co-authoring a book on the subject, but hasn’t had the time to complete the work. Instead, he used the space to refer to 2 earlier fundamentalist authors who wrote polemical books on the issue. One of those was called Why I Disagree with All Five Points of Calvinism.

I have no particular interest in defending Calvinism against its detractors. I would appreciate that any critique of any system, whether it is Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Dominion Theology, etc, includes discussion of source material. The aforementioned article had only one reference to a Reformed author and the remainder was an attempt to dismantle a straw man.

For those who may not be familiar with Reformed Theology, Steve Lawson encapsulates the doctrines of grace in one paragraph. There will be some who will disagree with some of the points mentioned in this paragraph. However, it is unlikely that any of the detractors will be able to identify a set of values that is more God-centered and God-focused as is this paragraph:

Before time began, the Bible teaches, God the Father chose a people for Himself to be worshipers of His glory by becoming the objects of His grace. As anexpression of His infinite love for His Son, the Father gave His elect to Christ as a love gift, a people who would praise Him forever and ever. The Father then commissioned His Son to come into this world in order to redeem these chosen ones through His sacrificial death. The Father, along with the Son, also sent the Spirit into this world to apply the saving work of the Son to this same group of elect sinners. This vast number of redeemed saints—those elected by God, purchased by Christ, and called by the Spirit—will never fall from grace. They all shall be transported safely to heaven and glorified forever. This is the God-honoring triumph of sovereign grace. Foundations of Grace (31-32) by Steven Lawson

Church and Culture

During one of my evening walks last week I listened to a workshop session from the 2007 Gospel Coalition Conference. Stephen Um from Boston MA presented a session dealing with the church and culture. One of his rather off-handed comments sparked my thinking.

After Peter’s message on Pentecost, the multitude responded in Acts 2: 37 with, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter’s answer was, “Repent…” That answer emphasized that the gospel calls us to break with the past and enter a new kingdom. This was not novel in Peter’s theology. Jesus had explained this in Lk. 14:25-33. There must be a radical reordering of priorities and a major shift in worldview when one becomes a follower of Christ.

Fast forward to 21st century Western (predominantly American) evangelical culture. We debate about the most effective ways to reach the lost with the gospel. We have the Emerging Church, the “seeker-sensitive” model, and, in order to maintain links with the past while facing the future, countless churches have both contemporary and traditional services on Sunday morning. Some have realized that unchurched people will not attend on Sunday morning so they have provided a Saturday evening service (which I wonder if it’s merely an opportunity to allow church members another day of sleeping in on Sunday, but I have no way of knowing).

What seems to have been lost is the realization that no longer do unsaved people ask, “What shall we do…?” Instead, it is the church asking the world, “What shall we do to make you want to be saved?” Am I the only one who thinks that this is backwards? Now, I am not railing upon the contemporary vs. traditional idea. I personally think that we need to call a cease fire in the worship wars. But it seems to me that the more we try to adapt to pagan culture, the less effective we become.

The beauty of the gospel is that it is trans-cultural. In Acts 15, the Jews tried to freeze the gospel into a Jewish context when Gentiles began to be converted. That movement was soundly rebuked. But the attempt to place Christianity into a culture has been an ongoing project. The most recent version in our country is to make Christianity white, suburban, and Republican.

Peter tell us to be ready to have an answer to anyone who asks for the reason for the hope that is in us (1 Pt. 3:15). Is anyone asking?

Carl Trueman Exposes the Pope as Catholic

Carl Trueman provides a thoughtful and whimsical review of a new biography on Pope Benedict XVI. Read the review here. This is a great line by Trueman that encapsulates the pluralistic/postmodern/politically correct insanity that is western culture: "PR will be the only orthodoxy; orthodoxy will be the only heresy."

God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck

Is it possible to offend the religious right, political conservatives, political liberals, fundamentailsts, evangelicals, and religious liberals all at the same time? Russell Moore comes as close as anyone in his post called God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck. I am sure this will upset some, but I think he is right on target. Here's an excerpt:

Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we’ve relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We’ve tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political “conservatism” and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.

Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah.

The Christ of Confrontation

John MacArthur is no stranger to controversy. In fact, he nearly single-handedly started the “Lordship Controversy” with his The Gospel According to Jesus some 20 years ago. As a faithful expositor of God’s Word, he will be bold enough to say what needs to be said. Though not as shocking and controversial as his earlier works, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore is no less bold and forthright.

This volume examines the ministry of Jesus particularly as He challenged the religious leaders of His day, the Pharisees. It is popular to think of Jesus as the meek and mild Savior who never uttered a discouraging word to anyone. Modern people will say that Jesus was always about helping the poor, lifting up the downtrodden, establishing justice, and proclaiming peace. MacArthur shows that His words were very different. Jesus spoke of the wrath of God and eternal condemnation; He called the Pharisees snakes, blind leaders of the blind, and hypocrites. He continually confronted the religious establishment with the truth of Scripture.

One of the best titled chapters is called “Hard Preaching.” To some, it may come as a surprise that the better part of the chapter examines the Sermon on the Mount. Casual readers of this sermon do not always see that it was indeed “hard preaching” directed at the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. The “Bread of Life” discourse concludes the chapter showing that, after His hard preaching, “many turned back.”

This book is synthesized from MacArthur’s preaching ministry at Grace Community Church. The chapters seem cobbled together. Perhaps if it had been written as a book in the first place, the transitions between chapters would have been smoother. Nonetheless, for clear Bible exposition and content, John MacArthur has few rivals.

Lean on Me

Bill Withers - Lean On Me
Uploaded by chilavert. - Watch more music videos, in HD!

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort." (2 Cor. 1:3-7)

Gods and Generals

I just finished watching Gods and Generals, the 1st of a trilogy on the Civil War (or the War between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression, depending upon where you live). This movie centered largely on Stonewall Jackson and seemed to fairly portray his faith. It made me want to read the biography of Jackson by James Robertson (this is now on my “to buy and read” list).


The Civil War battle tactics still seem strange. Nearly 90 years after the War of Independence, soldiers still faced their adversary in the same manner, namely, form a firing line and shoot. With the all of the military advances, why didn’t someone get the idea that standing shoulder to shoulder yards from the enemy is a good way to get killed? Of course, Americans were fighting Americans, but it is no wonder that so many Americans were killed. I know that the kinds of weapons were not so accurate, but really, how does presenting yourself as a good target make sense? Maybe I need educated on this, but was it ungentlemanly to hide behind a rock or tree?

The movie is heavy in dialogue; maybe that’s why it is unappealing to some. Also, Ted Turner had a cameo appearance. I guess that makes sense since he bankrolled the film. I want to re-watch Gettysburg and compare Robert Duvall and Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee. I wonder who plays Lee in the 3rd movie?