The Holiness of God by R. C. Sproul is one of the top all-time books I've ever read. Right now, for a short time, you can get a copy free for your Kindle.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001C36CEW?tag=kiq-free-e-20
Showing posts with label RC Sproul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RC Sproul. Show all posts
07 December 2011
14 November 2011
A Thought for the Day
"The issue for Christians is not whether we are going to be theologians but whether we are going to be good theologians or bad ones." -R. C. Sproul, from Knowing Scripture.
08 November 2011
Sproul-Mates
I can't even begin to count the number of people I've met, many in the blogosphere, who have something in common with me. We were all once stuck in some form of humanistic understanding of God, our theology peppered with nice phrases about God's sovereignty and authority, but in practical reality, we all acted as though we, and not God, were really sovereign.
Then something changed.
The thing that happened to all of us was an introduction to reformed theology. Not the dry academic kind, but the gospel-focused, mission-oriented, God-glorifying kind. We were introduced, often accidentally (of course, we now know it was providential, not accidental!), by faithful men proclaiming God's word in its fullness. There are many names that come up in these discussions and some appear much more commonly than others. Names like Boice, Kennedy, Piper, Mahaney, Dever, Horton, Ferguson, and Mohler are usually mentioned. Lately I'm hearing more and more Chandlers and Chans, and even a few Driscolls. But there are two names heard more often than any other: MacArthur and Sproul. And Sproul is usually universally mentioned.
Sproul gets the slight edge most likely due to his ability to take complex doctrinal issues and make them understandable, all the while engaging us with edge-of-the-seat stories that are filled with gospel truth have made him the key figure in almost everyone's story that is like mine.
I know there's been a bit of a backlash against 'celebrity pastors' recently, and rightfully so. But I've never heard Dr. Sproul's name mentioned as one of these, because he isn't a celebrity, he's a leader and a teacher. He may be well-known, but he's well-known for reasons primarily focused around respect, not glamor. And he's appreciated not because he has a famous face or a national radio program (he has both), but because he's a father-figure to so many of us who have come into the light of the reformed faith late (or lately) in our lives. I don't know how much longer Dr. Sproul will continue in active ministry, though I hope it is many years. What I do know is, there are a great many of us 'Sproul-mates' out here who hold a tremendous appreciation and respect for Dr. Sproul for his faithful ministry over the last four-plus decades. It's really funny; who would have imagined a baseball player from Pittsburgh amounting to anything!
Thank you for your service, Dr. Sproul!
Then something changed.
The thing that happened to all of us was an introduction to reformed theology. Not the dry academic kind, but the gospel-focused, mission-oriented, God-glorifying kind. We were introduced, often accidentally (of course, we now know it was providential, not accidental!), by faithful men proclaiming God's word in its fullness. There are many names that come up in these discussions and some appear much more commonly than others. Names like Boice, Kennedy, Piper, Mahaney, Dever, Horton, Ferguson, and Mohler are usually mentioned. Lately I'm hearing more and more Chandlers and Chans, and even a few Driscolls. But there are two names heard more often than any other: MacArthur and Sproul. And Sproul is usually universally mentioned.
Sproul gets the slight edge most likely due to his ability to take complex doctrinal issues and make them understandable, all the while engaging us with edge-of-the-seat stories that are filled with gospel truth have made him the key figure in almost everyone's story that is like mine.
I know there's been a bit of a backlash against 'celebrity pastors' recently, and rightfully so. But I've never heard Dr. Sproul's name mentioned as one of these, because he isn't a celebrity, he's a leader and a teacher. He may be well-known, but he's well-known for reasons primarily focused around respect, not glamor. And he's appreciated not because he has a famous face or a national radio program (he has both), but because he's a father-figure to so many of us who have come into the light of the reformed faith late (or lately) in our lives. I don't know how much longer Dr. Sproul will continue in active ministry, though I hope it is many years. What I do know is, there are a great many of us 'Sproul-mates' out here who hold a tremendous appreciation and respect for Dr. Sproul for his faithful ministry over the last four-plus decades. It's really funny; who would have imagined a baseball player from Pittsburgh amounting to anything!
Thank you for your service, Dr. Sproul!
25 April 2011
Natural Theology, Aquinas, Augustine, and Muslim Philosophy
As an answer to a discussion question in my Historical Theology class, I posted the following-
As a trained scientist I've paid a bit of attention to this topic. I won't even try to be brief.
--------------------
The Bible simply assumes the existence of God, without making any attempt to prove it. So why should we look outside the Bible for reasons for His existence? Is this attempt trying to lift nature higher than scripture? What is the relationship between nature and grace; reason and faith?
First, we should define 'natural theology'. The simplest definition I know is from RC Sproul- a knowledge of God that is gained from nature.
There are many different views of what natural theology is and means, which explains some of the controversy around the concept. It is based on 'general revelation', but is not the same thing. General revelation refers to something God does, but natural theology is something we do. Natural theology comes out of general revelation.
The audience to general revelation is universal. Not everybody has access to special revelation (at least, not yet).
The content of general revelation is also general, not specific. We can learn general characteristics of God, but not specifics, such as the nature of the trinity, and so forth.
In general revelation, we have two kinds- mediate and immediate general revelation. Mediate is that revelation that God gives to all people through some medium. It is indirect. "The heavens declare the glory of God..." is the psalmist saying that by looking at nature, we see that though the stars are not God, they display some of the glory of their maker. Immediate is the revelation that God gives to all people directly, without an intervening media. Romans tells us that God has written his law on our hearts...this is immediate and directly from God. It is not a deduction from nature. We get this inscription by virtue of being human. Calvin called this the sensus divinitatus.
Natural theology is of course most associated with Thomas Aquinas...as a result, protestants tend to view natural theology as a strictly Roman Catholic process, and thus shy away from it. Francis Schaeffer, for example, claimed that Aquinas separated nature from grace. As much as I like Schaeffer, I don't think he understood Aquinas completely enough to make these distinctions without destroying the union between nature and grace that Aquinas developed.
To understand what Aquinas was trying to do, we need to see him in his context. What problem was Aquinas trying to solve? The answer was Islam. Islam was the greatest threat to the church at this time...and was supported by powerful Muslim philosophers. They argued something called, 'Integral Aristotelianism'. (Say that fast three times!) This was a synthesis between Muslim theology on the one hand and Aristotle on the other. Their central thesis was the 'double-truth' theory. This theory stated that something could be true in philosophy and false in religion at the same time (i.e., true in science, false in theology).
[This sounds remarkably like contemporary arguments for the co-existence of evolution and theism by Biologos, by the way; and is a philosophical stance that I held in my own life for a number of years as a neo-Darwinist before God's grace revealed the falsehood of the idea.]
St. Thomas developed his ideas of natural theology in response to this double-truth theory from Islamic philosophy. He said we can and must distinguish between nature and grace. What he meant was, there are certain things we can learn from nature that we don't learn from special revelation. The bible doesn't teach us anything about nuclear physics, or molecular biology, even though the study of these things is made possible by the common grace of God on man. And while these things are to be distinguished, one cannot be true in one arena and false in the other. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.
Thomas added a third category- the articulus mixtus (mixed articles). These are things that can be learned from either the Bible or from the study of nature. Chief among these things is the existence of God (RE Paul in Romans 1). Thus, the reason the Bible does not argue the existence of God is, from the beginning, God has proven his existence beyond any doubt in nature. So Aquinas argues that the existence of God is proven both by nature and by scripture. He doesn't separate these two things, he makes distinctions.
Thomas stood on Augustine's shoulders. Augustine taught his students that they should learn as much as they could learn about whatever they could, because all truth was God's truth and would reveal God. Augustine's natural theology was based on Paul, of course.
In Rom. 1, Paul goes back to show why the gospel is necessary, and this is based in general revelation. People aren't condemned because of rejecting the Jesus they've never heard of, but because of what they've done with the knowledge of God that they DO have. This 'suppression of the truth of God' is the primary sin of fallen humanity. As Paul says, God has made the truth about himself (that may be known) manifest (phaneros/manifestum); yet we have rejected it.
The general revelation Paul speaks of produces a natural theology in us. This natural theology clearly gives us enough knowledge to condemn us. It does not give enough to save us. For that we need special revelation.
One other point is important: If God reveals himself in nature and in scripture, and the primary textbook of the scientist is nature, and the primary textbook of the theologian is the Bible, why is there conflict between science and theology? Because we live in a fallen world, we don't have complete understanding of either nature or God. Both the scientific community can correct the church (as we probed earlier in the term), and the church can correct the scientific community. But both nature and scripture reveal God, limited as our understanding in both arenas may be.
Reference- Sproul RC. Defending your faith.
As a trained scientist I've paid a bit of attention to this topic. I won't even try to be brief.
--------------------
The Bible simply assumes the existence of God, without making any attempt to prove it. So why should we look outside the Bible for reasons for His existence? Is this attempt trying to lift nature higher than scripture? What is the relationship between nature and grace; reason and faith?
First, we should define 'natural theology'. The simplest definition I know is from RC Sproul- a knowledge of God that is gained from nature.
There are many different views of what natural theology is and means, which explains some of the controversy around the concept. It is based on 'general revelation', but is not the same thing. General revelation refers to something God does, but natural theology is something we do. Natural theology comes out of general revelation.
The audience to general revelation is universal. Not everybody has access to special revelation (at least, not yet).
The content of general revelation is also general, not specific. We can learn general characteristics of God, but not specifics, such as the nature of the trinity, and so forth.
In general revelation, we have two kinds- mediate and immediate general revelation. Mediate is that revelation that God gives to all people through some medium. It is indirect. "The heavens declare the glory of God..." is the psalmist saying that by looking at nature, we see that though the stars are not God, they display some of the glory of their maker. Immediate is the revelation that God gives to all people directly, without an intervening media. Romans tells us that God has written his law on our hearts...this is immediate and directly from God. It is not a deduction from nature. We get this inscription by virtue of being human. Calvin called this the sensus divinitatus.
Natural theology is of course most associated with Thomas Aquinas...as a result, protestants tend to view natural theology as a strictly Roman Catholic process, and thus shy away from it. Francis Schaeffer, for example, claimed that Aquinas separated nature from grace. As much as I like Schaeffer, I don't think he understood Aquinas completely enough to make these distinctions without destroying the union between nature and grace that Aquinas developed.
To understand what Aquinas was trying to do, we need to see him in his context. What problem was Aquinas trying to solve? The answer was Islam. Islam was the greatest threat to the church at this time...and was supported by powerful Muslim philosophers. They argued something called, 'Integral Aristotelianism'. (Say that fast three times!) This was a synthesis between Muslim theology on the one hand and Aristotle on the other. Their central thesis was the 'double-truth' theory. This theory stated that something could be true in philosophy and false in religion at the same time (i.e., true in science, false in theology).
[This sounds remarkably like contemporary arguments for the co-existence of evolution and theism by Biologos, by the way; and is a philosophical stance that I held in my own life for a number of years as a neo-Darwinist before God's grace revealed the falsehood of the idea.]
St. Thomas developed his ideas of natural theology in response to this double-truth theory from Islamic philosophy. He said we can and must distinguish between nature and grace. What he meant was, there are certain things we can learn from nature that we don't learn from special revelation. The bible doesn't teach us anything about nuclear physics, or molecular biology, even though the study of these things is made possible by the common grace of God on man. And while these things are to be distinguished, one cannot be true in one arena and false in the other. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.
Thomas added a third category- the articulus mixtus (mixed articles). These are things that can be learned from either the Bible or from the study of nature. Chief among these things is the existence of God (RE Paul in Romans 1). Thus, the reason the Bible does not argue the existence of God is, from the beginning, God has proven his existence beyond any doubt in nature. So Aquinas argues that the existence of God is proven both by nature and by scripture. He doesn't separate these two things, he makes distinctions.
Thomas stood on Augustine's shoulders. Augustine taught his students that they should learn as much as they could learn about whatever they could, because all truth was God's truth and would reveal God. Augustine's natural theology was based on Paul, of course.
In Rom. 1, Paul goes back to show why the gospel is necessary, and this is based in general revelation. People aren't condemned because of rejecting the Jesus they've never heard of, but because of what they've done with the knowledge of God that they DO have. This 'suppression of the truth of God' is the primary sin of fallen humanity. As Paul says, God has made the truth about himself (that may be known) manifest (phaneros/manifestum); yet we have rejected it.
The general revelation Paul speaks of produces a natural theology in us. This natural theology clearly gives us enough knowledge to condemn us. It does not give enough to save us. For that we need special revelation.
One other point is important: If God reveals himself in nature and in scripture, and the primary textbook of the scientist is nature, and the primary textbook of the theologian is the Bible, why is there conflict between science and theology? Because we live in a fallen world, we don't have complete understanding of either nature or God. Both the scientific community can correct the church (as we probed earlier in the term), and the church can correct the scientific community. But both nature and scripture reveal God, limited as our understanding in both arenas may be.
Reference- Sproul RC. Defending your faith.
28 March 2011
Spring Rolls On
Well, March is almost over, and I still don't have much to say. I've been so busy going to my sons' baseball games, I don't have time to think.
A few tidbits-
I just saw that a Southwest Airlines flight from Orlando to Chicago had to make an emergency landing in Louisville. Apparently, there were some smoking wires in the cockpit. They should arrest those wires. I understand it's a federal offense to smoke on a domestic flight. <>
I just found out today that the head football coach is going to move my son, Will up to varsity for Spring football. He's just a freshman. So now I'm both very proud and very nervous. Those other boys are very, very, big. And fast.
I just got a promotion to full professor. I'm pretty excited about that...it's the highest academic rank one can achieve short of retiring and being named Emeritus professor. And as one retired gentleman explained once, 'Emeritus' is from the Latin: E means your out, and meritus means you deserved it!
I just had the honor of co-approving the money for a new state champion wall sign for the high school gym. (I'm one of the VPs for the Canyon Eagle booster club.) The Lady Eagles went 38-0 this year; were the only undefeated team in the state of Texas, boys or girls; and the state championship game was Coach Lombard's 1100th career win. He hasn't lost a hundred yet (98 loses). That's almost unimaginable. He's quite a coach, and a great Christian man who brought glory to God in the process of winning this title. Hats off. This was his 14th state title here at Canyon. Wow. On top of that, the Lady Eagles are now ranked in the top 12 nationally by USA Today magazine.
Our interim pastor preached on hell yesterday. You don't hear that very often anymore. Contrary to what we hear, everyone I talked to at church found it to be a positive, not a negative, sermon. Good job, Dr. Shaw!
We only have two more lessons left in 2 Peter. That means I have to find something to do for the summer. Last summer, I used a six-week video series called, Chosen By God with R. C. Sproul. Maybe I can find something like it for a different tact for early summer. Then, by request, we are going to do some systematic theology, starting with the doctrine of prayer. I'm looking forward to that study, even though it will be a tough prep, as I'll get some magnificent Bible study from it.
Just saw a pair of funny tweets from Fred Thompson- "Reporter at Biden fundraiser locked in closet. Only allowed out during Biden speech. Now that's what I call adding insult to injury."
And, "Hillary: U.S. won’t go into Syria the way it has in Libya. Oh, so Obama's going to go in with a plan?"
Good ones, Fred!
A few tidbits-
I just saw that a Southwest Airlines flight from Orlando to Chicago had to make an emergency landing in Louisville. Apparently, there were some smoking wires in the cockpit. They should arrest those wires. I understand it's a federal offense to smoke on a domestic flight. <
I just found out today that the head football coach is going to move my son, Will up to varsity for Spring football. He's just a freshman. So now I'm both very proud and very nervous. Those other boys are very, very, big. And fast.
I just got a promotion to full professor. I'm pretty excited about that...it's the highest academic rank one can achieve short of retiring and being named Emeritus professor. And as one retired gentleman explained once, 'Emeritus' is from the Latin: E means your out, and meritus means you deserved it!
I just had the honor of co-approving the money for a new state champion wall sign for the high school gym. (I'm one of the VPs for the Canyon Eagle booster club.) The Lady Eagles went 38-0 this year; were the only undefeated team in the state of Texas, boys or girls; and the state championship game was Coach Lombard's 1100th career win. He hasn't lost a hundred yet (98 loses). That's almost unimaginable. He's quite a coach, and a great Christian man who brought glory to God in the process of winning this title. Hats off. This was his 14th state title here at Canyon. Wow. On top of that, the Lady Eagles are now ranked in the top 12 nationally by USA Today magazine.
Our interim pastor preached on hell yesterday. You don't hear that very often anymore. Contrary to what we hear, everyone I talked to at church found it to be a positive, not a negative, sermon. Good job, Dr. Shaw!
We only have two more lessons left in 2 Peter. That means I have to find something to do for the summer. Last summer, I used a six-week video series called, Chosen By God with R. C. Sproul. Maybe I can find something like it for a different tact for early summer. Then, by request, we are going to do some systematic theology, starting with the doctrine of prayer. I'm looking forward to that study, even though it will be a tough prep, as I'll get some magnificent Bible study from it.
Just saw a pair of funny tweets from Fred Thompson- "Reporter at Biden fundraiser locked in closet. Only allowed out during Biden speech. Now that's what I call adding insult to injury."
And, "Hillary: U.S. won’t go into Syria the way it has in Libya. Oh, so Obama's going to go in with a plan?"
Good ones, Fred!
07 February 2011
How Christina Aguilera is an Important Example for Christians
If you watched the Super Bowl, you probably caught it; if you didn't watch, you certainly have seen news reports and blog opinions on Ms. Aguilera's pre-game rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. (If you just came out of a cave, here's a link to her performance.)
It wasn't pretty. (And that doesn't include the fact that she flubbed a line.) What's wrong with singing it the way it was written???
OK, I got that out of my system.
Back to the theological implications of the whole mess. If you listen to a lot of people in the church (and none too few outside it), what matters is your passion for whatever you believe, but not so much the content thereof. I don't agree with that, and most serious bible students I know don't either. Now, if we judge Ms. Aguilera's performance on passion alone, she was perfect. You couldn't ask for more passion than what she put into that song. But she didn't get the content right.
Our society seems to think that's OK. How many times have you heard, "It doesn't really matter so much what you believe, just as long as you're sincere." She was sincere to a fault, but didn't get the words quite right. So was it a perfect performance, or not? I didn't think so. I'm sure she's embarrassed about it, and I know that in the same situation, I'd probably forget some of the words myself. And as much as I don't appreciate that style of rendering the national anthem (I would much prefer a barbershop quartet, or the US Marine Chorus), she can sing a lot better than I could, even if I had the electronic enhancement that the Black Eyed Peas so sorely missed in their half-time show.
The gospel is, after all, a narrative...a story. It has content. It does indeed matter what we believe, and what we say about it. It matters a great deal. R. C. Sproul had to write a whole book about this, called, Getting the Gospel Right. More recently, Greg Gilbert wrote, What is the Gospel?, a book about getting the gospel right itself. It seems a lot of good folks must not be getting it right. I highly recommend both books, especially if you find the words to articulate the gospel hard to come by.
So next time you are interested in having a lot of passion for what you believe (and there's nothing wrong with that), take a cue from Christina...make sure you get the words right first.
It wasn't pretty. (And that doesn't include the fact that she flubbed a line.) What's wrong with singing it the way it was written???
OK, I got that out of my system.
Back to the theological implications of the whole mess. If you listen to a lot of people in the church (and none too few outside it), what matters is your passion for whatever you believe, but not so much the content thereof. I don't agree with that, and most serious bible students I know don't either. Now, if we judge Ms. Aguilera's performance on passion alone, she was perfect. You couldn't ask for more passion than what she put into that song. But she didn't get the content right.
Our society seems to think that's OK. How many times have you heard, "It doesn't really matter so much what you believe, just as long as you're sincere." She was sincere to a fault, but didn't get the words quite right. So was it a perfect performance, or not? I didn't think so. I'm sure she's embarrassed about it, and I know that in the same situation, I'd probably forget some of the words myself. And as much as I don't appreciate that style of rendering the national anthem (I would much prefer a barbershop quartet, or the US Marine Chorus), she can sing a lot better than I could, even if I had the electronic enhancement that the Black Eyed Peas so sorely missed in their half-time show.
The gospel is, after all, a narrative...a story. It has content. It does indeed matter what we believe, and what we say about it. It matters a great deal. R. C. Sproul had to write a whole book about this, called, Getting the Gospel Right. More recently, Greg Gilbert wrote, What is the Gospel?, a book about getting the gospel right itself. It seems a lot of good folks must not be getting it right. I highly recommend both books, especially if you find the words to articulate the gospel hard to come by.
So next time you are interested in having a lot of passion for what you believe (and there's nothing wrong with that), take a cue from Christina...make sure you get the words right first.
01 February 2011
Do We Get Our Theology from Kindergarten?
It is well-known that much of American evangelicalism holds the idea that if God provides some form of grace (say, salvation) to one person, he is really obliged to provide it equally to everybody. That's not a biblical concept (Rom. 9:15, for example), but it is still widely held in society. Where did it come from?
Maybe our kindergarten teachers taught it to us. You remember the little book that was popular back in the 90s, called, Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten? I thought the book was a dumb idea then, because it isn't true, and if it contributed to our theological mess, I think it is even dumber now than I did then. It was cute, but still dumb.
Pretty much everyone I know has had some form of this experience- "I brought a piece of candy to school...the teacher saw it and said, 'If you don't have enough of those for everybody, you can't have any either!' So I put it away (or had it confiscated)." Is that where we got this misguided idea about God?
R. C. Sproul, in his classic book, The Holiness of God, addresses it this way-
It is impossible for anyone, anywhere, anytime to deserve grace. Grace by definition is undeserved. As soon as we talk about deserving something, we are no longer talking about grace; we are talking about justice. Only justice can be deserved. God is never obligated to be merciful. Mercy and grace must be voluntary or they are no longer mercy and grace. God never “owes” grace. He reminds us more than once. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This is the divine prerogative. God reserves for Himself the supreme right of executive clemency.
Suppose ten people sin and sin equally. Suppose God punishes five of them and is merciful to the other five. Is this injustice? No! In this situation five people get justice and five get mercy. No one gets injustice. What we tend to assume is this: If God is merciful to five He must be equally merciful to the other five. Why? He is never obligated to be merciful. If He is merciful to nine of the ten, the tenth cannot complain that he is a victim of injustice. God never owes mercy. God is not obliged to treat all men equally. Maybe I’d better say that again. God is never obliged to treat all men equally. If He were ever unjust to us, we would have reason to complain. But simply because He grants mercy to my neighbor gives me no claim on His mercy. Again we must remember that mercy is always voluntary. “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy.” (p. 128-9)
By the way, if we are indeed getting some of our ideas about God from secular schooling and the control of interpersonal behavior therein, that does not paint a pretty picture of theological education in our churches.
Get this book by Sproul. If you live near me, ask me and I'll give you a copy. It's worth the read.
Maybe our kindergarten teachers taught it to us. You remember the little book that was popular back in the 90s, called, Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten? I thought the book was a dumb idea then, because it isn't true, and if it contributed to our theological mess, I think it is even dumber now than I did then. It was cute, but still dumb.
Pretty much everyone I know has had some form of this experience- "I brought a piece of candy to school...the teacher saw it and said, 'If you don't have enough of those for everybody, you can't have any either!' So I put it away (or had it confiscated)." Is that where we got this misguided idea about God?
R. C. Sproul, in his classic book, The Holiness of God, addresses it this way-
It is impossible for anyone, anywhere, anytime to deserve grace. Grace by definition is undeserved. As soon as we talk about deserving something, we are no longer talking about grace; we are talking about justice. Only justice can be deserved. God is never obligated to be merciful. Mercy and grace must be voluntary or they are no longer mercy and grace. God never “owes” grace. He reminds us more than once. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This is the divine prerogative. God reserves for Himself the supreme right of executive clemency.
Suppose ten people sin and sin equally. Suppose God punishes five of them and is merciful to the other five. Is this injustice? No! In this situation five people get justice and five get mercy. No one gets injustice. What we tend to assume is this: If God is merciful to five He must be equally merciful to the other five. Why? He is never obligated to be merciful. If He is merciful to nine of the ten, the tenth cannot complain that he is a victim of injustice. God never owes mercy. God is not obliged to treat all men equally. Maybe I’d better say that again. God is never obliged to treat all men equally. If He were ever unjust to us, we would have reason to complain. But simply because He grants mercy to my neighbor gives me no claim on His mercy. Again we must remember that mercy is always voluntary. “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy.” (p. 128-9)
By the way, if we are indeed getting some of our ideas about God from secular schooling and the control of interpersonal behavior therein, that does not paint a pretty picture of theological education in our churches.
Get this book by Sproul. If you live near me, ask me and I'll give you a copy. It's worth the read.
20 January 2011
Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Book Review, part 3)
Here is the conclusion of my review of Dr. Sproul's book. If you missed the first two parts, they are here-
Part 1
Part 2
Part Three is titled, A compassionate response and strategy.
Ch 11- 'Is Abortion the Unpardonable Sin?'- This is a short but effective chapter. Sproul starts with David and explains how God deals with sin in our lives. He leaves no uncertainty about abortion being a forgivable sin. He then explains clearly how to apprehend that forgiveness.
Ch 12- 'A Pro-Life Strategy'- Sproul attacks the issue of what to do in this chapter. He uses comparisons between Wilberforce's work against slavery in England two hundred years ago with our work against abortion today. On page 144, he says, "On one occasion, Lord Melbourne stated, 'Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.' Doesn’t that sound like today’s media quotes in the United States?"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Sproul says we should speak up where appropriate, target pro-choice (not pro-abortion...see chapter 9 for the difference), target (liberal) churches that support abortion, target the medical community (which has been done effectively already), target political officials, and target parents and families. The strategy for each of these groups varies, but is not complex, and he gives short descriptions of each.
He ends with the idea that the struggle must continue until the time when, "...no human child is destroyed under the sanction of law." (p. 153)
I heartily agree.
There are two appendices included in the book: (A) Testimony on the Beginning of Human Life, and (B) Pro-Life Resources.
The testimony section is fascinating. It is the recorded testimony of a geneticist at a trial about a dispute involving frozen human embryos. Just this testimony is worth the price of the book. I wonder why this hasn't made wider rounds?
The second appendix has contact information, including URLs, for various pro-life organizations.
There are summaries and discussion questions at the end of each chapter for group or personal study use. There is a bibliography, not exhaustive but very good, and a useful index.
I suppose the best summary of the whole thing, and the best way to end the discussion might be a question Dr. Sproul asks in page 115-
Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-
http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/
Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.
This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Part 1
Part 2
Part Three is titled, A compassionate response and strategy.
Ch 11- 'Is Abortion the Unpardonable Sin?'- This is a short but effective chapter. Sproul starts with David and explains how God deals with sin in our lives. He leaves no uncertainty about abortion being a forgivable sin. He then explains clearly how to apprehend that forgiveness.
Ch 12- 'A Pro-Life Strategy'- Sproul attacks the issue of what to do in this chapter. He uses comparisons between Wilberforce's work against slavery in England two hundred years ago with our work against abortion today. On page 144, he says, "On one occasion, Lord Melbourne stated, 'Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.' Doesn’t that sound like today’s media quotes in the United States?"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Sproul says we should speak up where appropriate, target pro-choice (not pro-abortion...see chapter 9 for the difference), target (liberal) churches that support abortion, target the medical community (which has been done effectively already), target political officials, and target parents and families. The strategy for each of these groups varies, but is not complex, and he gives short descriptions of each.
He ends with the idea that the struggle must continue until the time when, "...no human child is destroyed under the sanction of law." (p. 153)
I heartily agree.
There are two appendices included in the book: (A) Testimony on the Beginning of Human Life, and (B) Pro-Life Resources.
The testimony section is fascinating. It is the recorded testimony of a geneticist at a trial about a dispute involving frozen human embryos. Just this testimony is worth the price of the book. I wonder why this hasn't made wider rounds?
The second appendix has contact information, including URLs, for various pro-life organizations.
There are summaries and discussion questions at the end of each chapter for group or personal study use. There is a bibliography, not exhaustive but very good, and a useful index.
I suppose the best summary of the whole thing, and the best way to end the discussion might be a question Dr. Sproul asks in page 115-
"Do we have the moral right to choose what is morally wrong?"
_______________Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-
http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/
Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.
This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
15 December 2010
Holiness of God "Sermon Jam"
I found this video on YouTube and thought it was too good not to pass along. Instead of a simple link, I thought I'd try embedding it here. We'll see if it works.
This is a collection of sermon-segments from R. C. Sproul, C. J. Mahaney, and John Piper.
This is a collection of sermon-segments from R. C. Sproul, C. J. Mahaney, and John Piper.
02 December 2010
The Last Vestige of Theology Around Christmas (Music!)
I've long been interested in hymns and their stories. I have multiple iterations of those hymn-story books, and love reading about the origins and meanings of some of the hymns therein. I especially enjoy reading about songs that are more than two hundred years old.
As Christmas season approaches, it isn't too hard to see that there is really little theology left in the holiday. It has become secularized and commercialized (more of the latter, which results in the former, I think). The last vestige of any theology outside church services is found in some of the Christmas music that has remained popular in spite of their lyrics. Here's an example- I have XM/Sirius satellite radio in a couple of my vehicles, and I tune in to the couple of seasonal stations that they put up during the holidays. One, called Holly, is really about as secular as it can get, and is new music, so I don't listen much. The other, called Holiday Traditions, is more older stuff that we heard when I was a kid. (But note, there is no Xmas hint in the station's title.) The Holiday Traditions station plays a lot of secular seasonal music, but occasionally slips in a religious Christmas song, if it was performed by one of the greats (Crosby, Martin, Presley, etc.). I heard Hark! The Herald Angels Sing yesterday. Have you ever paid attention to the lyrics to that song? The gospel is in there, and it can't be confused with any moralistic therapeutic deism, much less secular winter solstice worship.
Pete Scribner, over on his Sola Gratia blog (which I both follow and recommend), has just posted a couple of really neat posts about the song O Come, O Come Emmanuel.
The first post of the pair is here, and the second is here.
He talks about several aspects of this song, but also about how the real Christmas music works year-round, because it isn't oriented toward a holiday, but toward the gospel, at least the part of the gospel that is the incarnation of Christ. I don't think the gospel orientation is why the songs have become traditions...if anything, the wording is offensive to secular culture and in many cases the lyrics get changed to fit the artist's taste (heard Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas lately? It's not even a religious song, but the line, ...if the Lord allows has been changed to, ...if the fates allow. And they say Calvinists are fatalists...). I think R. C. Sproul got it right, in the video of the Q and A time at one of the Ligonier national conferences, when he points out that the high church music lasts because it is complex and strives to glorify God rather than be simple to perform; that's why the music has become a landmark.
But enough analysis. Give these posts a read...they are worth the time taken as a devotional this time of year.
As Christmas season approaches, it isn't too hard to see that there is really little theology left in the holiday. It has become secularized and commercialized (more of the latter, which results in the former, I think). The last vestige of any theology outside church services is found in some of the Christmas music that has remained popular in spite of their lyrics. Here's an example- I have XM/Sirius satellite radio in a couple of my vehicles, and I tune in to the couple of seasonal stations that they put up during the holidays. One, called Holly, is really about as secular as it can get, and is new music, so I don't listen much. The other, called Holiday Traditions, is more older stuff that we heard when I was a kid. (But note, there is no Xmas hint in the station's title.) The Holiday Traditions station plays a lot of secular seasonal music, but occasionally slips in a religious Christmas song, if it was performed by one of the greats (Crosby, Martin, Presley, etc.). I heard Hark! The Herald Angels Sing yesterday. Have you ever paid attention to the lyrics to that song? The gospel is in there, and it can't be confused with any moralistic therapeutic deism, much less secular winter solstice worship.
Pete Scribner, over on his Sola Gratia blog (which I both follow and recommend), has just posted a couple of really neat posts about the song O Come, O Come Emmanuel.
The first post of the pair is here, and the second is here.
He talks about several aspects of this song, but also about how the real Christmas music works year-round, because it isn't oriented toward a holiday, but toward the gospel, at least the part of the gospel that is the incarnation of Christ. I don't think the gospel orientation is why the songs have become traditions...if anything, the wording is offensive to secular culture and in many cases the lyrics get changed to fit the artist's taste (heard Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas lately? It's not even a religious song, but the line, ...if the Lord allows has been changed to, ...if the fates allow. And they say Calvinists are fatalists...). I think R. C. Sproul got it right, in the video of the Q and A time at one of the Ligonier national conferences, when he points out that the high church music lasts because it is complex and strives to glorify God rather than be simple to perform; that's why the music has become a landmark.
But enough analysis. Give these posts a read...they are worth the time taken as a devotional this time of year.
21 October 2010
What's a Good Study Bible These Days?
Since I teach a Sunday School class, I've been asked a few times which study bible one ought to buy; which one is the most accurate translation, has the best notes, etc. Those are tough questions to answer in generalities.
TRANSLATIONS
First, there are a number of good translations, starting with the good old King James Version (KJV). Most of the modern version are good as well. But before you can pick a version, you need to ask yourself what kind of philosophical foundation you want in the text. Bible translations are done on one of about three (give or take) foundations- (a) literal, word-for-word; (b) dynamic equivalent (so-called thought-for-thought); or (c) paraphrase. I have condensed these a bit, and there are many ways to make distinctions such that there are more ways to translate the bible than these three, but I've done this for the sake of brevity.
Some paraphrase versions- New Living Testament (NLT), New English Bible (NEB), Today's English Version (TEV), Phillips', Living Bible, The Message. If you want to read scripture like a story, with writing at the 9th-grade level or below, these are your target. You will gain readability, but lose accuracy and detail in translation. In addition, several are the work of single individuals, so you get their biases in the text.
Some thought-for-thought translations- New International Version (NIV), Today's NIV (TNIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New RSV (NRSV), Amplified Bible, updated New American Standard Bible. These try to strike the middle ground between literal, word-for-word translations and the paraphrases. On the whole, they are mostly good and useful for most people. If you want precision to the original text, they aren't as good as the next category, but they are certainly better than the first category.
Some literal word-for-word translations- KJV, New KJV (NKJV), original NASB, English Standard Version (ESV). The KJV is the historical standard, in spite of a few translation issues. However, it is written on a 16th-grade reading level, and many people find the language inaccessible. The NKJV is an excellent translation, and I recommend it. The original and updated NASB versions are good as well, though the flow of the language can be stilted in some places. The ESV is one of the newest version, and in my opinion, the best. It is as readable as the NIV, but retains much more accuracy to the original languages, and retains the genders in the original languages.
STUDY BIBLES
There seem to be almost as many study bibles available now as there are versions. This is really a bit silly, though in our consumerist culture, I can see why this is so. If your primary interest is understanding the text and the meaning of the original authors, I can narrow the list down to just a few. Here are my recommendations, in order-
(1) MacArthur Study Bible, ESV or NKJV
(2) Reformation Study Bible, ESV
(3) ESV Study Bible, ESV (obviously)
In terms of conservative, gospel focused commentary, I don't think you can do better than the MacArthur Study Bible. Since it is now available in the ESV (as of Summer 2010), it's a no-brainer. Dr. MacArthur provides more meaningful and helpful notes on the text, stays true to the original intent (as defined by historic, post-reformation orthodox Christianity), and is a bona fide biblical conservative, than any other translation out there.
The Reformation Study Bible, edited by R. C. Sproul, is also excellent. It has notes of no less value, but there are fewer of them. It has the advantage of having been compiled by a committee of men rather than a single individual (like MacArthur), which can be important (though not in the case of Dr. MacArthur's work, in my opinion).
The ESV Study Bible is the biggest in terms of the volume of helps and notes. As a result, it is BIG. I keep one of these on my desk for reference, but don't carry it to church. It has a tendency to move a bit further to the left in terms of the notes, compared the the two bibles above, but it is still a very conservative, evangelical (in the traditional sense) study bible. It has the best (most, and high-quality) maps and charts. And if you buy one, you get free access to the online version of the study bible, which I find very helpful.
These are just my recommendations...you may find another that you like better, and that's fine. But if you ask me, these are the three suggestions you'll hear.
TRANSLATIONS
First, there are a number of good translations, starting with the good old King James Version (KJV). Most of the modern version are good as well. But before you can pick a version, you need to ask yourself what kind of philosophical foundation you want in the text. Bible translations are done on one of about three (give or take) foundations- (a) literal, word-for-word; (b) dynamic equivalent (so-called thought-for-thought); or (c) paraphrase. I have condensed these a bit, and there are many ways to make distinctions such that there are more ways to translate the bible than these three, but I've done this for the sake of brevity.
Some paraphrase versions- New Living Testament (NLT), New English Bible (NEB), Today's English Version (TEV), Phillips', Living Bible, The Message. If you want to read scripture like a story, with writing at the 9th-grade level or below, these are your target. You will gain readability, but lose accuracy and detail in translation. In addition, several are the work of single individuals, so you get their biases in the text.
Some thought-for-thought translations- New International Version (NIV), Today's NIV (TNIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New RSV (NRSV), Amplified Bible, updated New American Standard Bible. These try to strike the middle ground between literal, word-for-word translations and the paraphrases. On the whole, they are mostly good and useful for most people. If you want precision to the original text, they aren't as good as the next category, but they are certainly better than the first category.
Some literal word-for-word translations- KJV, New KJV (NKJV), original NASB, English Standard Version (ESV). The KJV is the historical standard, in spite of a few translation issues. However, it is written on a 16th-grade reading level, and many people find the language inaccessible. The NKJV is an excellent translation, and I recommend it. The original and updated NASB versions are good as well, though the flow of the language can be stilted in some places. The ESV is one of the newest version, and in my opinion, the best. It is as readable as the NIV, but retains much more accuracy to the original languages, and retains the genders in the original languages.
STUDY BIBLES
There seem to be almost as many study bibles available now as there are versions. This is really a bit silly, though in our consumerist culture, I can see why this is so. If your primary interest is understanding the text and the meaning of the original authors, I can narrow the list down to just a few. Here are my recommendations, in order-
(1) MacArthur Study Bible, ESV or NKJV
(2) Reformation Study Bible, ESV
(3) ESV Study Bible, ESV (obviously)
In terms of conservative, gospel focused commentary, I don't think you can do better than the MacArthur Study Bible. Since it is now available in the ESV (as of Summer 2010), it's a no-brainer. Dr. MacArthur provides more meaningful and helpful notes on the text, stays true to the original intent (as defined by historic, post-reformation orthodox Christianity), and is a bona fide biblical conservative, than any other translation out there.
The Reformation Study Bible, edited by R. C. Sproul, is also excellent. It has notes of no less value, but there are fewer of them. It has the advantage of having been compiled by a committee of men rather than a single individual (like MacArthur), which can be important (though not in the case of Dr. MacArthur's work, in my opinion).
The ESV Study Bible is the biggest in terms of the volume of helps and notes. As a result, it is BIG. I keep one of these on my desk for reference, but don't carry it to church. It has a tendency to move a bit further to the left in terms of the notes, compared the the two bibles above, but it is still a very conservative, evangelical (in the traditional sense) study bible. It has the best (most, and high-quality) maps and charts. And if you buy one, you get free access to the online version of the study bible, which I find very helpful.
These are just my recommendations...you may find another that you like better, and that's fine. But if you ask me, these are the three suggestions you'll hear.
06 October 2010
American Theology: Justification by Death Alone
This past week in our Sunday School class, I talked briefly about what has become the American ideal in terms of the theology of justification- not sola fide (justification by faith alone), and not even a mix of justification by faith and works. The ideal in this culture is justification by death. In other words, the only thing required of us to receive entry into heaven is that we die.
R. C. Sproul has written on this in numerous places, and has put an outstanding blog article on the Ligonier page this week. Read it and tell me if this is not what you hear at funerals, and now, even in conversations with people about what happens when they die.
When you die, are you willing to risk standing before a perfectly holy God, and answering his query about why you should get into heaven with, "Because I'm dead?"
R. C. Sproul has written on this in numerous places, and has put an outstanding blog article on the Ligonier page this week. Read it and tell me if this is not what you hear at funerals, and now, even in conversations with people about what happens when they die.
When you die, are you willing to risk standing before a perfectly holy God, and answering his query about why you should get into heaven with, "Because I'm dead?"
04 October 2010
The Inherent Danger of Consensus as the Arbiter of Truth
Does using Wikipedia ever bother you?
It bothers me sometimes. I use it quite a bit...because it is so convenient. But when I use it, I always take what I find there with a grain of salt. (What will we use when the FDA bans salt from out diets???)
As is the norm, no one says deep philosophical things about culture quite as understandably as Tim Challies. (Well, I guess Al Mohler does, but who's counting. And don't forget R. C. Sproul and his peeps at Ligonier Ministries.) In this article, Tim talks about the problems with wikis (he uses Wikipedia as the example of all wikis). In a previous article, Tim spoke about what Wikipedia does well, and it does do some things well. But the second article is the one of import. Read the first for balance, or to get perspective on the second, but the second is the important one.
Everybody with a kid in school, especially the younger kids in (say) fourth grade through high school, should zip off a copy of this blog and let their kids read it. Or read it to them, if they can't read (you know how our education system is). This is a tremendously important concept that reaches over from the cultural into the spiritual sphere. Please don't go wandering through life without this perspective!
It bothers me sometimes. I use it quite a bit...because it is so convenient. But when I use it, I always take what I find there with a grain of salt. (What will we use when the FDA bans salt from out diets???)
As is the norm, no one says deep philosophical things about culture quite as understandably as Tim Challies. (Well, I guess Al Mohler does, but who's counting. And don't forget R. C. Sproul and his peeps at Ligonier Ministries.) In this article, Tim talks about the problems with wikis (he uses Wikipedia as the example of all wikis). In a previous article, Tim spoke about what Wikipedia does well, and it does do some things well. But the second article is the one of import. Read the first for balance, or to get perspective on the second, but the second is the important one.
Everybody with a kid in school, especially the younger kids in (say) fourth grade through high school, should zip off a copy of this blog and let their kids read it. Or read it to them, if they can't read (you know how our education system is). This is a tremendously important concept that reaches over from the cultural into the spiritual sphere. Please don't go wandering through life without this perspective!
01 September 2010
Why the ESV?
I've been using the NIV bible for about 25 years now. I started, like many, with a KJV, and when I found out I wasn't able to smoothly read King James-era English, looked for a more modern translation. The NASB was OK, but not great; the NEB and similar paraphrases weren't good enough; but the NIV was good enough and was certainly easier to read (the NIV is on a 6th grade reading level, compared to a 16th grade level for the KJV).
So why would I suddenly switch to the ESV after using the NIV for so long? Well, first, it wasn't all that sudden a switch. I've been aware of some issues with the NIV for several years. None of them are fatal issues, and assuming I stay away from the terrible tNIV, I really don't have a big problem with the NIV. But it isn't quite good enough any more.
Watch this short video clip from John Piper for an example of why.
It's pretty simple. Like John Piper, I want a version with all the words, but I still want one that is readable and has some flow to it, and in a modern version of the English language. The ESV excels at all these things.
I have two strong recommendations for anyone looking for a new study bible, and willing to try the ESV, or looking for a better version than the NIV, NASB, or other recent translation.
First, I'd recommend the Reformation Study Bible. It is edited by R. C. Sproul, and the study notes are fantastic and very much conservative and gospel-focused in their character. The bible is relatively compact, as the notes are not copious, but sufficient. There are other study aids included, and especially good are the half-page essays on biblical concepts important in the reformation and important to our understanding of the doctrines of grace today.
Second, I'd recommend the MacArthur ESV Study Bible. This one is brand new. I've used the MSB in the NKJV for a number of years. You won't find a more balanced but conservative approach to study bible notes than this one. Dr. MacArthur especially holds firm on the doctrine of creation in his notes. Now that the ESV is out, I'll be retiring my NKJV for a new copy in the new translation.
Thirdly, I will recommend the ESV Study Bible, though not as strongly as the first two. It is much larger, has many more notes, and has outstanding graphics (maps, charts, etc.). The downside is, it is heavier and bulkier, so isn't as easy to carry around. And the notes are not quite as conservative as either Dr. Sproul's or Dr. MacArthur's notes. Nothing bad that I've found, but not quite as firm on some issues of importance to me. Don't get me wrong...I have a copy of the ESV Study Bible on my desk at work. But I don't carry it to church on a weekly basis like the RSB or MSB bibles.
If you are looking for a better study bible, get either the RSB or MSB...you won't regret either.
[FCC notice, as required by a stupid, big-brotherish, overbearing federal law: I have received nothing from any of the publishers of the above bibles for this review.]
So why would I suddenly switch to the ESV after using the NIV for so long? Well, first, it wasn't all that sudden a switch. I've been aware of some issues with the NIV for several years. None of them are fatal issues, and assuming I stay away from the terrible tNIV, I really don't have a big problem with the NIV. But it isn't quite good enough any more.
Watch this short video clip from John Piper for an example of why.
It's pretty simple. Like John Piper, I want a version with all the words, but I still want one that is readable and has some flow to it, and in a modern version of the English language. The ESV excels at all these things.
I have two strong recommendations for anyone looking for a new study bible, and willing to try the ESV, or looking for a better version than the NIV, NASB, or other recent translation.
First, I'd recommend the Reformation Study Bible. It is edited by R. C. Sproul, and the study notes are fantastic and very much conservative and gospel-focused in their character. The bible is relatively compact, as the notes are not copious, but sufficient. There are other study aids included, and especially good are the half-page essays on biblical concepts important in the reformation and important to our understanding of the doctrines of grace today.
Second, I'd recommend the MacArthur ESV Study Bible. This one is brand new. I've used the MSB in the NKJV for a number of years. You won't find a more balanced but conservative approach to study bible notes than this one. Dr. MacArthur especially holds firm on the doctrine of creation in his notes. Now that the ESV is out, I'll be retiring my NKJV for a new copy in the new translation.
Thirdly, I will recommend the ESV Study Bible, though not as strongly as the first two. It is much larger, has many more notes, and has outstanding graphics (maps, charts, etc.). The downside is, it is heavier and bulkier, so isn't as easy to carry around. And the notes are not quite as conservative as either Dr. Sproul's or Dr. MacArthur's notes. Nothing bad that I've found, but not quite as firm on some issues of importance to me. Don't get me wrong...I have a copy of the ESV Study Bible on my desk at work. But I don't carry it to church on a weekly basis like the RSB or MSB bibles.
If you are looking for a better study bible, get either the RSB or MSB...you won't regret either.
[FCC notice, as required by a stupid, big-brotherish, overbearing federal law: I have received nothing from any of the publishers of the above bibles for this review.]
14 July 2010
The Truth of the Cross (book review)
I'm always on the lookout for a certain type of book- a book that explains the gospel (or critical parts of it) that isn't overly scholarly, isn't too simplified, and most of all, is short enough that someone who wasn't planning to read a book like that would choose to read it upon request.
R. C. Sproul's name comes up automatically in such a search, as he has empirically shown over 40-plus years that he has a gift of making difficult and controversial topics simple and understandable. The effect of his ministry on my own life is hard to measure, as his books and audio/video sermons and conference messages have increased both my understanding of and love for the gospel, the bible in general, and evangelism as a whole.
When I saw this book become available, I quickly requested a PDF copy from Ligonier.org for review. (FCC note: the publisher provided me with a free copy of the book for review purposes; no other benefit or payment was or is forthcoming). I wanted to know if this book fit the bill as a book I could hand to folks who don't have a good understanding of need for the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross (whether new believers or old ones who really haven't heard much gospel preached in their lives).
It does.
The book is short (167 pages), has a lot of good stuff in it, and is accessable by the new believer. Anyone with a high-school education can understand it, as the more complex theological arguments are, typical of Dr. Sproul, made accessible in terms and word-pictures that are easy to understand. There are nine chapters plus a chapter at the end called, 'Questions and Answers'. I have learned over time that the Q&A sessions at the Ligonier (and other) conferences can be some of the best teaching times, so the Q&A chapter in the book is particularly helpful. And, Dr. Sproul is really at his best when dialoging one-on-one with students.
In chapter one, 'The Necessity of an Atonement' Dr. Sproul moves the reader's view of the cross from a religious symbol to a necessary response to the seriousness of sin (that we usually underemphasize). He describes the three basic views of historic Christian theology (Pelagianism, Semi-pelagianism, and Augustinianism) and how the mindset found in each pre-determines one's view of the cross.
In chapter two, 'The Just God' Sproul talks about the holiness of God and how it would be unjust (and therefore un-God-like) for God to ignore sin rather than deal with it.
Chapter three talks about our place (nature) in the debate about sin, and Dr. Sproul uses his idea of Cosmic Treason that he has developed previously to describe the seriousness of sin before God.
Chapters four and five describe Christ as a ransom and a substitute (respectively). Here the importance of substitutionary atonement is developed.
Chapter six is on the humanity of Christ, and the importance to us of his perfect, sinless obedience to God. Without this, his substitution wouldn't mean much to us.
Chapter seven, 'The Suffering Servant' is a development of the old testament view of the messiah. It ties together the two testaments and serves to show the plan of God from the beginning was a salvation by faith alone.
Chapter eight is on the crucifixion itself. Importantly, Sproul points out the curse of God, not the pain of the cross itself, should be the focus of the passion event. Many people were crucified in this era, but only one suffered the full wrath of God at the same time.
Chapter nine is on the limited nature of the atonement (how the atonement applies to the elect). Sproul does an excellent job of communicating that the atonement wasn't a potential atonement actuated by the sinner, but an actual atonement initiated by the savior.
In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone looking for an overview of the cross and its meaning to the Christian and not wanting a highly technical, seminary-intended-audience coverage of the subject. I've never given a bad review to an R. C. Sproul-authored book, and this one is no exception. I've bought several to hand to folks who are interested. I'll probably make an outline of it for a series of Sunday School lessons for my adult SS class; it is small enough and inexpensive enough to be purchased as 'notes' for such a study. You won't be disappointed in this book.
Five stars.
.
R. C. Sproul's name comes up automatically in such a search, as he has empirically shown over 40-plus years that he has a gift of making difficult and controversial topics simple and understandable. The effect of his ministry on my own life is hard to measure, as his books and audio/video sermons and conference messages have increased both my understanding of and love for the gospel, the bible in general, and evangelism as a whole.
When I saw this book become available, I quickly requested a PDF copy from Ligonier.org for review. (FCC note: the publisher provided me with a free copy of the book for review purposes; no other benefit or payment was or is forthcoming). I wanted to know if this book fit the bill as a book I could hand to folks who don't have a good understanding of need for the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross (whether new believers or old ones who really haven't heard much gospel preached in their lives).
It does.
The book is short (167 pages), has a lot of good stuff in it, and is accessable by the new believer. Anyone with a high-school education can understand it, as the more complex theological arguments are, typical of Dr. Sproul, made accessible in terms and word-pictures that are easy to understand. There are nine chapters plus a chapter at the end called, 'Questions and Answers'. I have learned over time that the Q&A sessions at the Ligonier (and other) conferences can be some of the best teaching times, so the Q&A chapter in the book is particularly helpful. And, Dr. Sproul is really at his best when dialoging one-on-one with students.
In chapter one, 'The Necessity of an Atonement' Dr. Sproul moves the reader's view of the cross from a religious symbol to a necessary response to the seriousness of sin (that we usually underemphasize). He describes the three basic views of historic Christian theology (Pelagianism, Semi-pelagianism, and Augustinianism) and how the mindset found in each pre-determines one's view of the cross.
In chapter two, 'The Just God' Sproul talks about the holiness of God and how it would be unjust (and therefore un-God-like) for God to ignore sin rather than deal with it.
Chapter three talks about our place (nature) in the debate about sin, and Dr. Sproul uses his idea of Cosmic Treason that he has developed previously to describe the seriousness of sin before God.
Chapters four and five describe Christ as a ransom and a substitute (respectively). Here the importance of substitutionary atonement is developed.
Chapter six is on the humanity of Christ, and the importance to us of his perfect, sinless obedience to God. Without this, his substitution wouldn't mean much to us.
Chapter seven, 'The Suffering Servant' is a development of the old testament view of the messiah. It ties together the two testaments and serves to show the plan of God from the beginning was a salvation by faith alone.
Chapter eight is on the crucifixion itself. Importantly, Sproul points out the curse of God, not the pain of the cross itself, should be the focus of the passion event. Many people were crucified in this era, but only one suffered the full wrath of God at the same time.
Chapter nine is on the limited nature of the atonement (how the atonement applies to the elect). Sproul does an excellent job of communicating that the atonement wasn't a potential atonement actuated by the sinner, but an actual atonement initiated by the savior.
In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone looking for an overview of the cross and its meaning to the Christian and not wanting a highly technical, seminary-intended-audience coverage of the subject. I've never given a bad review to an R. C. Sproul-authored book, and this one is no exception. I've bought several to hand to folks who are interested. I'll probably make an outline of it for a series of Sunday School lessons for my adult SS class; it is small enough and inexpensive enough to be purchased as 'notes' for such a study. You won't be disappointed in this book.
Five stars.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)