CHILDLIKENESS by B.B. Warfield

This article is long, but well worth your time to read. It is not only sound biblical teaching, it is also a model of careful interpretation of Scripture. In it, Warfield presents various interpretations of the passage explaining why they are superficial and inferred — to one degree or another. The last two paragraphs, giving us a more accurate interpretation of the passage, are pure gold. A beautiful picture of the sovereign, free grace of God in salvation.

CHILDLIKENESS

by B.B. Warfield

“Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.” — Mark 10:15

The declaration embodied in this verse, apparently very simple, and certainly perfectly clear in its general sense, is not without its perplexities when examined in its detailed implications. The occasion of its enunciation was an incident in the life of our Lord which manifests His beautiful tenderness as few others of those narrated in the Gospels. In the prosecution of His mission He went up and down the land, as we are told, “doing good.” It was characteristic of His teaching that the common people heard Him gladly. It was of the essence of the beneficent impression that He made that He drew to Him all who were afflicted and were suffering with diverse diseases.   Continue at  Eric T. Young

Free Grace or Free Will?

John Hendryx Responds to Visitor Struggling with Free Will Vs. Free Grace

 
visitor: I am struggling with the Calvinism vs. Free Will debate. Why, when one “flees to Christ” as you say is there not the possibility of NOT fleeing to Christ. Is there not a choice involved here? Fleeing to Christ is not a work is it? Turning to Christ is not a work is it? Why is choosing to believe in Christ considered a work by so many Calvinists? When I believed in Christ I gave Him ALL the glory as I then understood that NOTHING I can do would satisfy God. ONLY what Christ did saves me! But I must choose to believe, trust, follow, Flee to Him! Where am I going wrong? 

response: Thanks for writing with your excellent question. This hits directly at the crux of the matter. Salvation by grace alone in Christ alone was the very issue of the Reformation that Martin Luther battled the most with Erasmus and the Roman Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century. 

What is this issue of the bondage of the will all about? It points to what the Bible says is the real condition of the natural man. If we set aside church traditions for a moment go through what the Bible asserts about fallen man it may be surprising to you. First we need to establish whether or not man has a free will, according to Scripture. But how do we do this?   Continue at Bob Hanks

Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Are Christians free from the law? This age-old question has often been answered in two wrong ways. The error on one side is often described as ‘legalism’—the idea that Christians are bound by some or even most of the Old Testament law. This might mean that Saturday should be our Sabbath (on which no work is done), or that circumcision or other Old-Testament-style rituals are necessary to salvation, or that certain foods or forms of clothing are out for Christians.

The error on the other side might be described as ‘anti-nomianism’ (that is, ‘anti-law-ism’)—the idea that we are so free from any concept of law, and so thoroughly under grace, that there are really no rules to obey, and that even if we end up doing the wrong thing, God will forgive us through Christ anyway, so what’s the big deal?

Jesus’ famous words in Matthew 5 indicate that he is interested in neither of these approaches. He has not come to obliterate the law, so that it ceases to exist or have any application to life in his new kingdom. But neither has he come simply to leave the law in place, as if his coming made no difference; as if those who lived in the kingdom of God would live under the same law as Israel.

There is a third option in Jesus’ mind: not to abolish, nor to leave basically untouched, but to fulfill.    Continue at Tony Payne

IMAGE

Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

One of the reasons I started this blog was to provide a place to talk about Arminian issues, issues related to Arminian theology. (There is no “Arminian movement” as such, so all talk about Arminianism is about theology.) One of those questions is whether open theism, “openness of God” theology, is a version of Arminianism. Does it belong under the umbrella category “Arminian theology” or is it a “stand alone” theology vis-à-vis Arminianism? Are they separate or should Arminianism be regarded as the larger, broader doctrinal perspective and open theism a particular angle on that perspective?

Generally speaking, open theists want to be considered Arminians. Most of them were Arminians before becoming open theists; they still consider themselves Arminians. (A few open theist jumped right from some version of Reformed theology into open theism.)

Generally speaking, non-open theist Arminians do not want to include open theists among their ranks or treat open theism as a variation of Arminianism.

I think there are political reasons for that. Among evangelicals, anyway, Arminianism has long been accepted as a respectable tradition even by most Reformed evangelicals who strongly disagree with it. Arminians were among the founders of the National Association of Evangelicals. Who can seriously doubt that John Wesley should be considered evangelical? Yes, of course, there are those Calvinists and Lutherans who would like to own the label “evangelical” and exclude Arminians, but that’s not widely accepted by the movers and shakers of evangelicalism. If open theism can be considered Arminian, that gives open theists more of a voice, a place at the table, among evangelicals.  Continue at Roger Olson

Blessed Self-Forgetfulness

The way many of us think about sanctification is, well, not very sanctified. In fact, it's downright narcissistic. We thinking about how we're doing, if we're growing, whether we're doing it right or not. We spend too much time brooding over our failures and reflecting on our successes. We seem to believe that the focus of the Christian faith is the life of the Christian.

Reflecting this common assumption, someone who was frustrated with something I had written said to me not long ago, "Don't you know that the focus of the New Testament is the personal holiness of the Christian?"

What? Seriously? To keep calm, I replayed Mr. Miyagi in my head, "Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out …"

The truth is, we spend way too much time thinking about ourselves, and we justify this spiritualized navel-gazing by reasoning that this is what God wants us to be doing.

There is nothing in the gospel that encourages us to focus on ourselves. Nothing! It's never honoring to God when we take our eyes off of Christ. Never! In fact, the whole point of the gospel is to get us out of ourselves and to "fix our eyes on Christ" (Heb. 12:2). The truest measure of Christian growth, therefore, is when we stop spiritually rationalizing the reasons why we're taking our eyes off of Jesus to focus on ourselves.

It's sin that turns us inward. The gospel turns us outward. Martin Luther argued that sin actually bends or curves us in on ourselves. Any version of "the gospel," therefore, that places you at the center is detrimental to your faith—whether it's your failures or your successes, your good works or bad works, your strengths or weaknesses, your obedience or disobedience.  Continue at Tullian Tchividjian

Grace for Recovering Pharisees

Pastor Bruce Brock of Faith Community Church in Tucson, Arizona, is a dear friend of mine. God has used him greatly in my own life, and over the last decade or so, we have taken something of the same spiritual and theological journey in discovering and embracing the doctrines of grace together. 

He kindly sent me his sermon notes for this last Sunday, based on Galatians 1:1-6. I thought others may enjoy reading them just as I did, so produce them here. Enjoy!:

Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul’s letters and an early defense of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It precedes the Jerusalem Council where the early church leadership all got on the same page concerning salvation by God’s free grace – Acts 15:4-11. The churches in Galatia (Lystra, Derbe, etc) were from Paul’s first missionary journey – Acts 14. 

The false teachers were Jewish (Judaizers) and wanted to add circumcision, feasts, dietary laws, ceremonial laws to faith in Christ; they would add the Mosaic Law to the Gospel. Their logic was that Jesus is Messiah and He came in fulfillment of the Scriptures (OT), so it is reasonable to stay with what God gave us so long ago and simply add it to Christ.    Keep Reading>>>

The Rapturous Loveliness of Christ

In the past few days I have been exposed to quotes and excerpts from the writings of the 16th century Scottish reformer, Samuel Rutherford.

I was brought at a wonder, for scarcely have I ever read expressions of heavenly delights from the pen of men, as similar as he was to myself, in desperate need for grace. And yet with much grace and wisdom, he would lift up gems and precious stones from the pages of Scripture almost as if it was God-breathed writing in itself.

If there was ever a man who truly knew what it was that the man in the parable experienced, perhaps one of such a man is Samuel Rutherford.

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field…”—Matthew 13:44

O for grace to know Christ as precious as He really is (2 Pet 2:7). May God grant us the grace and faith to imitate Christ in the writings of dear Rutherford.

I will be reading more of Mr. Rutherford, most notably his “Letters”. Why take the time then to read his Letters in the midst of all the things that must be read and perused? Well, I think Andrew Bonar writes a compelling thought as he closes his sketch of the life of Samuel Rutherford in the excerpt below. It is a bit long than usual, but trust me when I say you would want to read each sentence of it. Read it all HERE

The Mark of Real Gospel Preaching

The true preaching of the Gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it (i.e. the charge of  it being antinomianism). There is no better test of whether a man is preaching the New Testament Gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do. You can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of Gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the Gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding then it is not the Gospel. Let me show you what I mean. Continue reading>>>

The Message Behind the Method

The Cause and the Effect