A Response to Ed Young: “Cool-Aide Homeboy”

Reformed theology has been on the rise for several years now.  Some pastors are discovering the doctrines of grace for the first time; others are waking up to the beauty of Calvinism, the dogma that Spurgeon called a “nickname for biblical Christianity.”  However, whenever a movement of God ascends, opposition tends to rise.  Consider the push-back from the Roman Catholic Church during the days of the Reformation.  Or who can forget the negative reaction to the work of God’s Spirit during the Great Awakenings.

While a new Reformation is afoot in the contemporary church, there appears to be opposition at every juncture.  The newest public attack on Reformed theology comes from the pulpit of Ed Young, Senior pastor of Fellowship Church.  Several days ago, Young took the last twelve minutes of his message to unleash a vicious attack on Reformed theology.  This assault was not only directed at the doctrine; he also set his sights on churches and pastors committed to Calvinism.

This venom is nothing new.  Spurgeon was constantly attacked for his preaching that was soaked in the doctrines of grace.  Jonathan Edwards was scorned for his Calvinistic framework.  And most recently, the Southern Baptist Convention is showing signs of division on matters that pertain to Soteriology.

But what is most troubling about Pastor Young’s rant is the personal nature of the attack. His chief contention: “Reformed theology leads to a deformed  ecclesiology” – strong words, especially in light of Calvin’s strong ecclesiology.  It was Calvin who rightly argued that the true church includes three critical components, namely – the right preaching of God’s Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and church discipline.  So Young’s words should not be taken lightly.  The essence of his charge is that Reformed-minded churches have distorted the truth, a serious accusation to be sure.

Pastor Young essentially argues that Calvinists have placed “God in a box.”  He says, “Most of the Calvinistic churches don’t reach anybody …”  He accuses Reformed believers of being apathetic at the plight of people who have yet to meet Jesus: “They pimp God not to reach people who are dying and going to hell.”   He warns the young people in his church, “You are prey for these churches … It’s sexy, it’s cool, you’ve got God in a box.”

Additionally, Young accuses Calvinists’ of being arrogant:  “Why are these people so mean-spirited, most of them?  Why are they so Pharisaical?”  This banter continues as Young fires his guns directly at the Reformed community: “Don’t you blaspheme the name of God and use God not to reach people for Jesus Christ.  And if you don’t like the message, there’s the exit.”

But the accusation that will draw some of the greatest heat is Young’s contention that Calvinism presents a different gospel.  He instructs his congregation, “When they say gospel [speaking of Calvinists], they don’t mean the same gospel that we do …”  Young’s contention is this: Reformed theology is “ruining the church.”

“Reformed is deformed, most of it” argues Young.  Pastor Young obviously has a twisted perception of Reformed theology.  That much is true.  But as I listened to his message, I wondered, “How shall the Reformed community respond to Pastor Young?”  “What would be the most fruitful way to counter some of the claims that reflect poorly on Christ-followers who embrace a Reformed approach to Scripture?”  Note three specific responses.

We must respond with graciousness and humility

The Scripture is clear on this point: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness …” (2 Tim. 2:24-25a).  Roger Nicole wisely writes, “We have obligations to people who differ from us.  This does not involve agreeing with them.  We have an obligation to the truth, and that has priority over agreement with any particular person.”  We must be careful that our response is bathed in prayer and soaked in humility.  It would be so easy to “lob a bomb” over the fence.  But the Scripture demands a different kind of response.  Ad hominem  attacks are cowardly and lack the force of biblical conviction. The Word of God demands a gracious and humble response.

We must clear up any misunderstandings

First, historic Reformed theology does not limit God.  Young is quick to accuse Calvinists of having “God in the box.”  But nothing could be further from the truth.  It is true that Calvinists are careful to worship God in a way that is prescribed in Scripture.  It is true that they vigilantly guard the attributes of God and promote his character in a way that is in keeping with Scripture.  But Calvinists do not limit what God can do.  Young’s “God in the box” accusation does not square with the facts.

Second, Young accuses Reformed-minded churches of neglecting the plight of the lost and remaining passive in the evangelistic enterprise.  This accusation has some validity to be sure.  Indeed, some of these churches are content to sit on the sidelines and as a result are marginalized.  In these cases, then, Young’s charge should be taken into account.  However, many Calvinistic churches are reaching people by the droves.  This notion that the doctrines of grace discourages evangelism must be dismantled and cast aside.  Some of the most mission-minded evangelists in church history were Calvinists including William Carey and George Whitefield.

David Mathis, a committed Calvinist, is passionately committed to world missions and evangelism: “Missions is about the worship of Jesus.  The goal of missions is the global worship of Jesus by his redeemed people from every tribe, tongue, and nation.  The outcome of missions is all peoples delighting to praise Jesus.  And the motivation for missions is the enjoyment that his people have in him.  Missions aims at, brings about, and is fueled by the worship of Jesus” (John Piper, Ed. A Holy Ambition: To Preach Where Christ Has Not Been Named).  Mathis continues, “Our churches should both pursue mission among our own people as well as missions among the world’s unreached peoples.  One way to sum it up is to say that we can’t be truly missional without preserving a place for, and giving priority to, the pursuit of the unreached.”  This sentiment is expressed in Reformed-minded churches around the globe.  So let us dispense with the notion that Calvinism discourages evangelism.

Third, a belief in predestination does not preclude choice.  Young quips, “I believe in election.  I also believe in choice.”  This subtle jab promotes a common caricature that Calvinists reject the notion of free will.  But Reformed thinkers have held a robust theory of free will since the days of the Reformation.  Jonathan Edwards held that one chooses according to his “strongest inclination.”    Herein lies the essence of free will!  Edwards held, “A man never, in any instance, wills anything contrary to his desire, or desires anything contrary to his Will.” So the unregenerate choose freely.  The unregenerate chooses according to his strongest inclination.

But here is the rub.  Freedom does not imply ability.  And this appears to be the main bone of contention between Arminians and Calvinists.  G.I. Williamson adds, “With sin’s entrance man lost ability to do good, not liberty.”  For example, sinful creatures are free to fly – but they are unable to do so.  Sinful creatures are free to swim under water without oxygen for an extended period of time – but they are not able to do so.  A paralyzed man  is free to jump out of his wheel chair and dance – but he is utterly incapable of performing this activity.  Most important, sinful creatures are free to come to God – but they are not able apart from God drawing them.  J.I. Packer writes, “We have no natural ability to discern and choose God’s way because we have no natural inclination Godward; our hearts are in bondage to sin, and only the grace of regeneration can free us from that slavery.”  So totally depraved people are free to do good or evil but only able to do evil due to the radical nature of his sinful condition (John 6:44; 8:34).

Fourth, God’s election takes place in eternity past.  Several Scriptures bear this truth out:

“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” (Ephesians 1:4–5, ESV)

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,” (Ephesians 1:11, ESV)

“For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,” (1 Thessalonians 1:4, ESV)

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (Romans 8:29–30, ESV)

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” (John 15:16, ESV)

Yet Young maintains in his sermon, “We keep on nominating them and God keeps electing them.”  Even an Arminian would reject this kind of thinking.  At least an Arminian embraces election according to foreknowledge, namely – God elected some in eternity past on the basis of foreseen faith.  While clearly distinct from the Calvinistic understanding of unconditional election, it must be admitted that in both schemes, election takes place in eternity past.  God’s electing grace is not carried out as the people of God “nominate” people that appear to be fit for the kingdom.

We must respond decisively

One of Young’s chief arguments is that “Reformed theology is deformed.”  He adds the disclaimer, “most of it” [speaking of Reformed theology].  But the most distressing aspect of this sermon concerns the heart of the gospel.  He charges Calvinists with believing a different gospel.  Young says, “When they say gospel, they don’t mean the same gospel that we do.  Its different.” This kind of preaching is simply indefensible.  Calvinists and Arminians have been debating theological matters for almost 500 years.  However, this kind of banter crosses the line.

Frankly, Pastor Young’s presentation is grieving.  His arguments are not only theologically wrongheaded; they are irresponsible and careless.  The irony is that every time he steps into the pulpit he stands on the shoulders of a long line of godly men; men who fought for, taught, and preached the doctrines of grace.  Men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, Edwards, Bunyan, Watson, Sibbes, and Owen raised the banner of Reformed theology which proclaims that Christ is the Savior for all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10, ESV).  They proclaimed with Christ that “whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35, ESV).  And yes, they proclaimed the gospel that says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, ESV).  These men proclaimed the sovereign grace of God – the grace that sets the prisoner free (John 8:36).  They proclaimed the sovereign grace of God that removed the enormous barrier between a holy God and sinful people (Rom. 5:10, Col. 1:19-23).  They proclaimed the sovereign grace of God that redeems unclean people from their sins (Eph. 1:7).  These men of God proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ; the gospel that tells us the good news of Christ’s incarnation and his death on the cross, his burial, and his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-5).

When Pastor Young tosses out Reformed theology, he undercuts the very foundation of the Christian faith.  For the essence of the Reformed faith is that sinners may be forgiven their sin – by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.  The challenge for Calvinistic pastors, therefore,  is to listen carefully to Young’s charges.  Perhaps adjustments can be made along the way.  If any of the accusations stick, repentance may be in order.  But we must refuse to respond to Young in a way that is arrogant or demeaning.  We must love our brother and promote a spirit of unity.  Roger Nicole writes, “It is remarkable that committed Calvinists can sing without reservation many of the hymns of Charles and John Wesley, and vice versa that most Arminians do not feel they need to object to those of Isaac Watts, Augustus Toplady, or John Newton.”  Perhaps we need a meeting of the minds – in order to generate more light than heat!

“Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133:1, ESV)

THE GRACE AWAKENING – Charles Swindoll (1990)

The Grace Awakening was one of the first significant books I read as a young Bible College student over twenty years ago.  Rereading this excellent piece of work reminded me of the importance of grace in the daily grind of the Christian life.

Swindoll reacts strongly to the heavy-handed legalistic tendencies that are so typical in many churches.  He rightly affirms justification by faith alone and rejects antinomianism and humanism: “Grace is God’s universal good news of salvation.  The tragedy is that some continue to live lives in a deathlike bog because they have been so turned off by a message that is full of restrictions, demands, negativism, and legalism.”  The Grace Awakening is a book every Christian should read and absorb.

GODFORSAKEN – Dinesh D’Souza (2012)

Dr. Dinesh D’Souza serves as the President of King’s College.  He is also a prolific writer.  His newest work, Godforsaken picks up the theme of human suffering and the problem of evil.  It is clear from the outset that the author is familiar with the various attempts to resolve the so-called “Achilles heel of the Christian faith.”  Unconvinced by the typical atheistic approach to the problem, D’Souza’s goal is to provide an answer that is both rational and practical.

The author begins by admitting the problem of evil.  Both unbelievers and believers wrestle with this age-old problem.  Both respective groups approach suffering with completely different perspectives: “While the atheist merely uses suffering to confirm disbelief in God, the Christian who is suffering feels betrayed by God.  The atheist is intellectually triumphant – See, I told you there is no God! – while the Christian is heartbroken … godforsaken.”

In a surprising twist, D’Souza argues that Christians and atheists seem to be the most perplexed with the problem of suffering.  He demonstrates how Muslims refuse to question the plan of their god.  Hindus and Buddhists assume suffering as a normal part of life.  But Scripture argues in the opposite direction: “In contrast with the Eastern religions, which treat suffering as either illusory or deserved, the Bible portrays suffering as very real and unequivocally bad.”

D’Souza’s approach to the problem of evil appears to be unique.  He argument is essentially this: “God is the divine architect, the Cosmic Designer … [He] wanted to create conscious, rational agents who could understand his creation and also freely relate to him.  Given God’s objective to make humans, God constructed the universe not in the best possible way, but in the only way that it could be constructed.  In other words, God chose the sole option available to produce the result that he wanted.”  D’Souza labels his defense the “Only Way Argument.”  The author is totally unconvinced by the traditional approaches to theodicy.   Our task is to determine if  his approach is any better.

D’Souza’s theodicy is based on the philosophical notion of  free will.  As such he rejects all forms of determinism, even so-called soft-determinism.  The author shows his hand in chapter five: “If God truly has foreknowledge, how is it possible for us to choose differently?  If God knew at the beginning of Creation that at a given point in time, I am going to write this book, then it seems that I cannot choose at that particular time to write a different book instead.”  This notion, otherwise known as libertarian free will is the standard Semi-Pelagian notion that has crept into the church  and has gone largely unchecked.

D’Souza hints at a compatibalistic understanding of free will – where God has comprehensive foreknowledge of free choices, yet allows the creature to make a meaningful free choice (although he does not use the term).  But he rejects what he calls a “halfway concept of free will” and argues that such a notion is “hardly satisfactory.”  Hence, he rejects the biblical notion of compatibalism.

Chapter six sets out to answer the question, “Why did God create a lawful world – that is, a world conforming to discoverable and predictable laws?”  Again, the answer is centered exclusively on the free will of man.  There is no hint of God’s will of decree in D’Souza’s answer: “No wonder there is so much evil in a world where evil is determined not by God’s will but by human choice.”

The author seeks to answer the age-old question, “Why are there natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, and other forms of natural suffering?”  His answer relies on scientific data that points to an old earth, which in the final analysis argues for a universe that is billions of years old.  Pain and suffering which is a part of the warp and woof of the universe is not only a fact of life, it is as the author posits, “built into the fabric of nature’s laws … With regard to what we can discern by reason about the only world we can really know, pain and suffering are inextricably bound up with the good.”

D’Souza continues his argument by pointing to the Anthropic principle or the  so-called “finely tuned universe.”  In other words, certain conditions need to be met for human life to flourish (which is the essence of his theodicy).  He holds that “evil and suffering are inextricably bound with the structure of creation.”  The author concludes, “When we consider that God has so finely tuned the universe in such a way as to allow us the freedom to take up our own cross and follow him and also, through that suffering, to draw closer to the divine, the suffering itself can be rendered sublime.”

Dr. D’Souza is a fine writer.  He clearly articulates his views and has a tremendous grasp on the history of intellectual thought and understands the dominant arguments that are emerging from the so-called “new atheists.”  While I appreciate his efforts, his arguments at the end of the day, remain mostly unconvincing.

The first glaring weakness with Godforsaken is an approach that appears to render the Scriptures as secondary.  He admits, “It is written by a professed Christian, yet its purpose is to examine the problem of evil and suffering not primarily on the basis of revelation or sacred authority but on the basis of reason, science, and experience.”  While his approach is understandable, he jettisons the very basis of his hope.  Surely, he starts off on the wrong foot.

The second weakness is a radical commitment to libertarian  free will.  Indeed, the entirety of the book leans on the frail fabric of free will.  And in typical libertarian fashion, the free will of man is pitted against the absolute sovereignty of God.  For example, the author essentially argues that God lacks comprehensive foreknowledge.  “Think about it,” says D’Souza.  “If God truly has foreknowledge, how is it possible for us to choose differently” (p. 85).  The author borrows the libertarian musings of Boethius: “No longer do we have to worry that God, in knowing the future, is in some sense controlling the future.  God is omniscient, but this does not prevent free creatures from making their own choices that God knows about but does not dictate.” Apparently, his prior commitments have clouded his biblical judgment.  He appears to posit a “take it or leave it” mentality.  Either there is libertarian free will or there is  no free will whatsoever.  That is to say, if there are any restrictions on free will; if one does not have the ability of contrary choice, it follows that free will totally evaporates.  This “all or nothing” mentality fails to take into account the biblical position of compatibalism; the view that presents a God who ordains everything that comes to pass and allows creatures to make free choices.

Since the author does not distinguish between God’s will of command and God’s will of decree, he falls stumbles at another point that concerns suffering.  For instance, he posits this crucial point: “Just as man’s use of free will can produce results that were not part of God’s plan or purpose, so the necessary structure of the universe can result in miseries that were also not intended by God” (176).  One wonders where the cross of Christ fits in this confusing scheme.  Surely, the most wicked event is the crucifixion of Jesus, the unjust punishment of the only innocent man in the universe.  Yet it appears as if God is taken off guard.  It appears that something may have happened that he never planned.  And all these things occur to safeguard a commitment to libertarian free will.   This kind of logic must be immediately discarded in universe that is sovereignly controlled by God!

Third, while the author waits until the end of the book to address his beef with Reformed theology, the juices of anti-Calvinistic bias are simmering and quite frankly, render the “stew” unsavory.   For instance, he falsely caricatures the Calvinistic notion of double-predestination and in the process he charges God with sending people to hell who had no intention of going there.

D’Souza minces at a God who may offer grace to some but withhold it to others.  He writes, “I find this concept of God extending grace to some while keeping it from others to be unworthy of God.  It is an idea not lacking in justice, perhaps, but certainly lacking in benevolence.”  He continues by laying his soteriological cards on the table: “… The point seems to be that God has given to every person the grace, which is to say the ability, to decide either way.”  These arguments are nothing new.  Arminians have been advancing the “prevenient grace” argument throughout church history.  What is disturbing is – why is the argument posed here?  What does this have to do with undermining an atheistic worldview?

The author is obviously knowledgeable and seeks to tear down the stronghold of atheism and provide a satisfying answer for the problem of evil.  His writing is engaging.  He is fair-minded and congenial.  He offers several fascinating insights but his reasoning, in the final analysis appears to fall short.  Instead of unifying the tension-points of faith and reason that have been at odds since the days of the Enlightenment, he actually escalates the war that pits reason against faith.

2 stars

WHAT CAN I DO WITH MY GUILT? – R.C. Sproul (2011)

I cannot think of anyone who has done more to bring Reformed theology to center-stage than R.C. Sproul.  This rock of the Christian faith has a unique way of communicating challenging theological concepts in understandable ways. His teaching gift is evident in his little book, What Can I Do With My Guilt?

Sproul distinguishes between guilt and guilt feelings.  He challenges readers to honestly evaluate the depth of their guilt and to recognize the chasm between the sinners’ guilt and the holiness of God.

The author surfaces some popular ways that people tend to deal with guilt.  Some deny their guilt.  Others rationalize their behavior.  Sproul warns, “In God’s court, we’re guilty, and nothing we can say can change it.  It is absolutely futile for any human being to attempt to justify himself or herself before God.”  Still others seek to make restitution via acts of penance.

Finally, Sproul presents the cure for guilt.  Of course, the cure is forgiveness found in the merits of Christ and banking one’s hope in his life, death, burial, and resurrection from the dead.  The crucial question concerns the gospel which promises hope for anyone who believes and turns from their sin.

Sometimes short books can catch a reader by surprise.  This book will undoubtedly shock many a reader.  Some readers will be horrified by Sproul’s candor and the cure he presents.  But others will be blessed and shocked to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ.  One wonders – what will your response be?

UNDERSTANDING THE BIG PICTURE OF THE BIBLE – Wayne Grudem, Ed. (2012)

Understanding the Big Picture of the Bible, edited by Wayne Grudem is the resource that I needed as a first year Bible College student in the 80’s.  The introduction by Vern Poythress is worth the price of the book.  Dr. Poythress reveals the storyline of the Bible and skillfully unfolds God’s plan for redemptive history: “The Bible … makes it clear that God has a unified plan for all of history.  His ultimate purpose, ‘a plan for the fullness of time,’ is ‘to unite all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth’ (Eph. 1:10), ‘to the praise of his glory’ (Eph. 1:12).  He continues, “The work of Christ on earth, and especially his crucifixion and resurrection, is the climax of history; it is the great turning point at which God actually accomplished the salvation toward which history had been moving throughout the Old Testament.”

Poythress introduces Christ in the Old Testament and the promises of God.  He reveals a fundamental assumption of the Old Testament, namely – that Christ would redeem a people for his own possession and make all things new.  The author affirms that Scripture “directly points forward through promises of salvation and promises concerning God’s commitment to his people.”

Warnings and curses are set forth: “Christ at his second coming wars against sin and exterminates it.  The second coming and the consummation are the time when the final judgment against sin is executed.”  Additionally, Poythress points to the covenants.  He adds,  “God’s commitment takes the form of promises, blessings, and curses.  The promises and blessings point forward to Christ, who is the fulfillment of the promises and the source of the final blessings.  The curses point forward to Christ both in his bearing the curse and in his execution of judgment and curse against sin, especially at the second coming.”

The author continues to show how Christ fulfills the promise set forth in the Old Tesatment.  This overview of the Bible’s storyline is the perfect set up for the rest of the book.  A top-notch host of scholars write from a conservative viewpoint; theologians that include the likes of Thomas Schreiner, Paul House, and Dennis Johnson, to name a few.  Part one summarizes the theology of the Old Testament.  Part two walks readers through the background to the New Testament, including a brief discussion on period between the Testaments.  Finally, part three examines the theology of the New Testament.

This work would be an appropriate place to begin for Bible College students or readers unfamiliar with the flow of Biblical history.  The discussion is simple enough to read for beginners but is challenging enough for readers who are versed in redemptive history.

A TALE OF TWO SONS – John MacArthur (2008)

A Tale of Two Sons by John MacArthur is a rich retelling of one of Jesus’ most popular parables – the parable of the prodigal son.  MacArthur unpacks this powerful parable with typical skill.

Details of the parable are explained.  Misconceptions are cleared.  The horror of sin exposed.  The hypocrisy of the Pharisees’ is revealed. The drama of redemption is celebrated. And the primary aim is articulated, namely – that sinners (both prodigals and elder brothers) would turn to Christ for forgiveness by grace alone through faith alone.

4 stars

DEAR TIMOTHY: Letters on Pastoral Ministry – Tom Ascol, Ed (2004)

Dear Timothy: Letters on Pastoral Ministry, edited by Tom Ascol includes twenty mock letters to a new pastor.  Each letter is meant to inspire, educate, motivate, and admonish.  Letters are written by seasoned pastors who have “run the bases” of pastoral ministry multiple times.  Topics include matters of character, theological conviction, preaching, evangelism, worship, training, discipleship, among other things.

While Dear Timothy is geared to rookie pastors, it is sure to encourage experienced pastors as well.  This is a tremendous resource that should be reviewed consistently.  The advice is timeless.  Pastors will only be strengthened and edified by reading this work.

4 stars

JEREMY LIN: FAITH, JOY, AND BASKETBALL – Ted Cluck (2012)

Yesterday, I was listening to sports radio and the host commented, “The NFL has never been more popular.”  Indeed, sports is an important part of American culture.  Yet fewer and fewer athletes are worth emulating these days.  Multi-million dollar contracts eclipse the need to demonstrate character on and off the field.  More and more athletes are picking up where Charles Barkley left off in the 80’s – roles models appear to be a thing of the past.

Jeremy Lin: Faith, Joy, and Basketball by Ted Kluck shatters the stereotype that is dominating professional sports.  Kluck is quick to point out how Jeremy Lin is a unique combination of talent and Christ-honoring character.  The book serves as an inspiration for Christian young people who aspire to honor God on and off the playing field.

Kluck brings his usual witty, tongue-and-cheek realism to the table in his latest book.  His outlook is refreshing.  His honesty is commendable.  This little book is a fun read and should find its way into the hands of young Christian athletes.  May a new generation of young people make it their aim to glorify Christ in every shot, pass, spike, and jump.  “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31, ESV)

OF THE MORTIFICATION OF SIN IN BELIEVERS – John Owen (1658)

“Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”  This crucial principle stands at the core of John Owen’s monumental work, “Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers.”  This marks the first of four lengthy expositions in Volume 6: Temptation and Sin.

The Puritan divine clearly sets forth the biblical case for mortification.  Mortification is the duty of every believer: “The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business all their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin.”  Indeed, Owen adds, “The vigour, and power, and comfort of our spiritual life depends on the mortification of the deeds of the flesh.”

In typical Owen fashion, he leaves no stone unturned here.  He describes the imperative, the motivations behind the imperative, the dangers of disobedience, the  blessing of obedience, and practical principles for mortifying the flesh.

Owen leaves a God-centered legacy that stands the test of time.  His writing goes to the core of indwelling sin and offers Christians a wealth of biblical ammunition that will sufficiently arm them as they engage in hand to hand combat in the area of spiritual warfare.

Highly recommended

5 stars

THE GOSPEL AND THE MIND: Recovering and Shaping the Intellectual Life – Bradley G. Green (2010)

R.C. Sproul has stated, “We live in the most anti-intellectual period in church history.”  Sproul’s words are right on target.  His timely words are a sober reminder that once we have lost the Christian mind, we have lost all basis for discussion.  Indeed, we have lost our basis for meaning and morality.  When the epistemological scaffolding collapses, one may as well give up the quest for truth.  And when one abandons the quest for truth, one abandons the quest for God!

Bradley Green has brilliantly captured the essence of the Christian mind in his book, The Gospel and the Mind.  The subtitle goes to the core passion of the author, namely – “recovering and shaping the intellectual life.”

Green’s theses is clearly presented at the outset:

1. “The Christian vision of God, man, and the world provides the necessary precondition for the recovery of any meaningful intellectual life.”

2. The Christian vision of God, man, and the world offers a particular, unique understanding of what the intellectual life might look like.”

The remainder of the book defends the theses with skill and precision.  I found the book most helpful and should be included in the arsenal of any thinking Christian.

5 stars