Reading and Readers

Reading and Readers

By Terence TanReligion & SpiritualityChristianityArtsBooks
Download on the App Store

Reading and Readers episodes

  • Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to Holy Land Theology by Gary M. Burge

    It's a nightmare that never ends. A nightmare of rape, murder, of unspeakable evil to the young, to the old, to pregnant women and babies. A nightmare that is all too real. What does the Bible say about the Israel-Palestine conflict? Or more specifically, what does the New Testament say about the Christian's posture towards the Holy Land?
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to 'Holy Land' Theology" by Gary M. Burge. 168 pages, published by Baker Academic in April 2010. Available in Amazon Kindle for USD15.99 and was USD3.99 last month, December, in Logos.
    Theologian Writing on the Land
    Burge is a New Testament scholar who has written, amongst many of his works, extensive commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John. I have reviewed his commentary on the Letters of John from the NIV Application Commentary series. So from there I know what to expect of his views on modern day Israel. If you don't know them, you will certainly know them by the end this review.
    This book was published in 2010, but it might as well have been published today. The conflict in Israel-Palestine is still ongoing. The Jewish people and the Palestinians are still making exclusive claims to the land.
    In his introduction, Burge writes:


    This book asks how Christians should understand these competing land claims. Given our theological framework, what is the relationship between land and theology in the New Testament? What did Jesus and the New Testament writers think about the territorial claims of ancient Israel? Did they retain the view of the sanctity of Jerusalem and its Temple? Were they rethinking the relationship between faith and locale? Or were they confident that a sacred place was still to be held for believers?
    Old Testament in Brief
    Burge starts the book, in the Old Testament, in the time when God promises Abraham, "To your descendants I give this land..." This land, this promise, Burge charts the relationship of the children of Abraham to the land, from the Promise to the Conquest, from the Warning of Exile to the Return from Exile.
    We see that the Old Testament doesn't portray the Holy Land as prime real estate. Burge writes:
    While it will be a good land, it will not be an easy land. This will be a land that demands faith. Far from being paradise, this is a land that will hone a people. For instance, without a central river system, agriculture must rely on God, who supplies the land with water through rainfall. Culturally the land will not be empty but will be filled with Canaanites (and others) who will tempt Israel to compromise its unique commitment to God. And politically, armies moving from Egypt to Mesopotamia will run through this land as if it were a highway and Israel will be forced to decide whether its security will be found in local treaties and alliances or in God, who promises to sustain its welfare.
    Throughout the book, Burge makes his points from Scripture. For example, I quote:
    Before Israel enters the land under Joshua’s leadership, Deuteronomy records Moses’ final words of encouragement and warning to the people. (Deuteronomy 4:25-27) When you have had children and children’s children, and become complacent in the land, if you act corruptly by making an idol in the form of anything, thus doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, and provoking him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to occupy; you will not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among the peoples; only a few of you will be left among the nations where the Lord will lead you.
    Burge comments:
    The severity of these words is stunning. This land is not simply a gift the giver has forgotten. It is a gift that has expectations for covenant holiness and justice. God is watching this land. He has personal expectations for this land. It is a land that should evoke memories of his own holiness.
    Diaspora Jews
    Burge covers the whole Old Testament in one chapter. Before he goes into the New Testament, Burge describes the world of the Diaspora Jews through the writings of Philo and Josephus. What happened during this time?
    For one thing:
    More Jews were living outside the holy Land than they were living in it. And this brought major implications to Jewish thinking and perspective.
    What surprised me is that the Jewish people, before Christians came to the scene, were already moving the theological focus away from the land.
    The Jews who were born outside of Israel, who married, did business and made a life outside, were still Jews in their customs and relationships. They were still making pilgrimages to Jerusalem, still paying the Temple tax and many wanted to be buried in the Holy Land, but many did not believe that to be a good Jew meant to rebel against the Romans, retake the Temple and reconstitute the Kingdom of Israel.
    Jesus and the Land
    This brings us to Chapter 3: "Jesus and the Land" and Chapter 4: "The Fourth Gospel and the Land". Burge is a Johannine scholar so it makes sense for him to dedicate an entire chapter for the Fourth Gospel.
    In these two chapters, Burge makes an incredibly persuasive case for how Jesus of the Gospels must have thought of territorial theology.
    At one point, he notes:
    First, Jesus is surprisingly silent with regard to the territorial aspirations and politics of his day. The national ambitions of Judaism under Rome constantly pressed Jewish leadership to respond. Either Judea was capitulating to the occupation or Judea had to organize to defeat it. However, Jesus is oddly silent about the debate. Moreover Jesus is curiously receptive to contact with the occupiers. In Matthew 8:5–13, he responds to the request of a Roman centurion whose valued servant was ill. Here we find no repulsion of the soldier, no condemnation of Gentiles, but rather we find receptivity and welcome. He says of the Roman: “Not even in Israel have I found such faith” (8:10). What emerges is a general impression that Israel’s national ambitions tied to reclaiming the land live on the margin of Jesus’ thinking.
    If Christians are to give the land of Israel-Palestine some kind of special treatment (whatever that means), then we should get some cue from Jesus. But if Jesus did not care much for the dirt under his feet, then should we?
    Do you remember how the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus, "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" We hear Jesus give the famous answer, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Burge tells us, "We can fairly interpret this as a refusal to support the tax revolt" and later "The kingdom Jesus advocated could not be co-opted by a nationalistic movement that sought to win back the land by force."
    Speculative Points    In one section, Burge prepares a list of seven critical passages. I can't go through them one by one but I want to share two of them. Not the most persuasive, but the most speculative.
    In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declared, "the meek shall inherit the earth." The earth can also be translated as the land. And what would a Jew think when the words 'inherit' and 'land' come up? Well, he would be thinking of the Holy Land. And who does Jesus say will inherit the land? The meek, not the strong.
    In Matthew 25:14-30, a rich man entrusts three servants with cash. Two of the servants invest and make a profit. But the third buries the money in the ground. Or as Burge suggests, ground can be translated as land. Is this parable a cautionary tale against territorial theology? Burge himself admits:
    Such an interpretation is far from certain since it requires an allegorising of the story that is foreign and arbitrary to the story itself.
    When a writer is willing to point out when his point is weak, more credit to him. Too many make too much out of too little. We should call it like it is, not as we hope.
    We get the same level of insight and care as Burge gives us a sweeping survey of land theology in Acts, Galatians, Romans, Hebrews and Revelation in chapters 5, 6 and 7.
    This excerpt is representative of his conclusions:
    At no point do the earliest Christians view the Holy Land as a locus of divine activity to which the people of the Roman empire must be drawn. They do not promote the Holy Land either for the Jew or for the Christian as a vital aspect of faith. No Diaspora Jew or pagan Roman is converted and then reminded of the importance of the Holy Land. The early Christians possessed no territorial theology. Early Christian preaching is utterly uninterested in a Jewish eschatology devoted to the restoration of the land. The kingdom of Christ began in Judea and is historically anchored there but it is not tethered to a political realization of that kingdom in the Holy Land. Echoing the message of the Gospels, the praxis of the Church betrays its theological commitments: Christians will find in Christ what Judaism had sought in the land.
    What Burge Does Not Say
    As I grow to appreciate from this book, Jerusalem and the surrounding lands are important, Burge does not diminish their importance, but they are important historically, not theologically. Historically because Jerusalem is not Shangri-La. Abraham, David, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Peter and Paul walked on the same dust Christian tourists walk on. The same dust, I observe, that Israel and Palestine spill blood for.
    That's my observation. As I read Burge's analysis and conclusion, I marvel not just in what he says, but what he does not say.
    He does not say anything about the current Israel-Palestine conflict, when he could easily do so.
    For example, when he explains how the meek shall inherit the earth, it would be easy to take a shot at Christian Zionists. "When Israeli settlers take the land, are they meek?"
    Burge mentions settlers once in the introduction to describe the relevance of the topic, says nothing about them for seven chapters, and he only mentions them again, and this time extensively, in the last chapter, chapter 8, where he discuses modern day Israel.
    This approach to separate biblical interpretation from contemporary application respects the reader.
    I don't need to consider the righteousness of a particular cause, I just need to consider whether his interpretation is right.
    I don't need to wonder if it is correct the way he connects our 21st century concerns with the writings of 1st century Christians. If we interpret properly, we will know that 1st century Christians think a lot about the land. More than we do!They see Romans marching up and down it every day!
    The Problem with Those Supporting Holy Land Theology
    The absence of the modern day conflict in the earlier chapters does not mean the author is detached. Far from it! It is obvious he has strong passions but he aims to develop his theology first, before applying them to his concerns.
    He writes:
    Numerous writers have critiqued this movement extensively and found in its bold claims to territory (linked to eschatology) an angry and dangerous synthesis of theology and politics. Engaging their writings directly is difficult because it is a populist movement fueled by preachers who use its schema evangelistically. No carefully argued theological study has come from within its own ranks. No New Testament scholar has written in its defense. Its advocacy groups, such as Christians United for Israel, and Camera, are generally run by political activists. Its books come from the pens of popular television preachers or lobbyists. I have been invited to debate some of their leaders and find myself with people who have no training in theology. How can such a widespread movement in the Church be successful without a thoughtful theological undergirding?
    He then continues with a scathing critique which I can only give you the headings without the detail:
    1. They fail to point out the indisputable biblical motif that land promise is strictly tied to covenant fidelity.
    2. They use the prophets to build their worldview, but they fail to hear what else the prophets had to say.
    3. They need to call Israel to live by biblical standards of life. The alien and sojourner should be protected because Israel was an alien and sojourner in Egypt.
    4. They are naive in applying the historic text of Israel's ancient history to modern Israel.
    5. They fail to think Christianly about the subject of theology and the land. A scholar was able to affirm Zionism from the Old Testament, but Burge points out how he neglected to bring the New Testament to bear.

    Explain The OT to Me
    This brings me to my critique on the book as a whole.
    The subtitle of the book is, "The New Testament Challenge to 'Holy Land' Theology", but if one wants to make a deathblow to Holy Land Theology, we need as rigorous an interpretation of the Old Testament as well. We need an OT scholar writing alongside the NT scholar. The book would be thicker. Right now, it's easy to read at 168 pages.
    But one chapter for the Old Testament is too short. It's not enough to convince supporters of 'Holy Land' theology who quote the OT.
    Burge's critique that territorial theology does not consider the New Testament is valid. But Christians at the pulpit and the pew, need help to make sense of the Old Testament text. It's not enough to just say what the New Testament text says. As it is, it can look as if the OT and NT are shouting over each other.
    Can a Two-State Solution Exist?
    My second criticism is only a criticism because he did not address the question that emerged in my mind as I read his conclusions. Basically, Burge tells us that territorial theology is wrong because Jesus, Paul and all the New Testament writer has shifted the attention away from the land beneath their feet to the kingdom of God.
    But is it possible that it's a matter of timing? For example, Jesus said he was sent only to the lost children of Israel and with some exceptions, he kept to a tight area. Jesus did not preach in Athens, heal in Malta, or die in Rome. If we only had the Gospels, and didn't have Acts or the epistles, we could conclude that the Gospel is limited to where Jesus worked.
    "Ah hah!", someone says, "That's why we have Acts and the epistles."
    Which is my point, perhaps there is something in the Old Testament that would support some form of Holy Land theology.
    Or consider how John the Baptist had to ask Jesus, "Are you the one, or should we expect another one?" He asked that because Jesus did not fulfil many of the prophecies expected of the Messiah.
    Maybe the remaining Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled in a time or manner that we do not expect?
    In short, what I am asking is does Burge's interpretation necessarily exclude territorial theology? Can both exist alongside just in different periods?
    Based on my reading of this book, I think I know what Burge's answer would be, but I would have liked to know definitively if a Two-State Solution can exist?
    So Good, It's Scary
    Because, I'll tip my hand now, I am as convinced as I can be that Burge's approach, exposition, analysis and conclusion is right.
    I always wished I had the time and ability to study the theological framework behind the Israel-Palestine conflict, and if I had half the ability of Burge, I would have attempted what he did, just go through Scripture, expound it and arrive at a conclusion that informs us on how we are to understand the world today.
    I found myself agreeing so much with everything he writes that I questioned myself, "Am I living in the same echo-chamber as Gary Burge?" So near the end of the book, I told myself that if I wanted to make sure that my position here is stress-tested, I need to read a good book that argues the opposite.
    And what do you know, Burge gives us a long list of books for further readings.
    One list is for theological books. He introduces them:
    There have been a limited number of treatments of the land motif in the Bible. Many work directly on the problem of land conflict in Israel-Palestine and then provide theological reflection as a feature of the ethical discussion. Others—Jewish and Palestinian writers—inevitably express their own narratives within the struggle.
    Another list is on the modern day conflict itself. He recommends books from both sides of the debate written by ex-American President Jimmy Carter, current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Palestinian Lutheran pastor and more.
    In conclusion, to the Christian who has an opinion on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I won't say you must read this book, but I would say you must have a theological underpinning for your opinion. Your opinion needs to be informed by both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And if you want to be as well-informed as you can be on this issue that is often played on Christian sentiments, then I would recommend "Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to 'Holy Land' Theology". It's just as relevant as it was the day it was published 14 years ago, which is one of the rare cases where the writer must wish his book was less relevant today.
    Outro
    This is a Reading and Reader's review of "Jesus and the Land" by Gary M. Burge. 168 pages, published by Baker Academic in April 2010. Available in Amazon Kindle for USD15.99 and was USD3.99 last month, December, in Logos.
    I am currently reading the Logos free book for January. What better way to start the new year than to read "The Legacy of John Calvin: His Influence on the Modern World" by David W. Hall. If you are predestined to listen to it, I'll see you then. Thank you for listening. Bye bye.
    Book List

    • "Jesus and the Land" by Gary M. Burge. Amazon. Logos.

    32 min
  • Saint Augustine: Four Anti-Pelagian Writings

    A theologian writes a critical response to a popular teaching. He destroys it. The teaching and teacher are irredeemably branded as heresy and heretic. Augustine vs. Pelagius, the battle of the ages. Today I read what nobody else wants to read to find out was Saint Augustine correct? Is Pelagianism a heresy and Pelagius a heretic?"
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "Saint Augustine: Four Anti-Pelagian Writings" translated by John Mourant and William Collinge. 372 pages, published by The Catholic University of America Press in January 1992. It's available in Amazon for USD42.24 (as of the date of recording) and in Logos for USD30.99.
    Pelagius Was Not A Heretic
    "Pelagius was not a heretic. The church has gotten him wrong."
    This was news to me. When I first started reading theology, I learnt that Pelagius taught that man, by nature, is able to live completely sinless lives and that this was heresy. And the man who succeeded in destroying this heresy is a hero of the church, the same man who wrote Confessions and City of God, Saint Augustine of Hippo.
    So I was surprised to hear that heretic Pelagius was misunderstood and great man Augustine wrote a hit job on him. I have no skin in the game, if Pelagius was truly innocent of the charges, then let justice be done.
    I began by reading Pelagius in his own words. I found Pelagius' Letter to Demetrias, which is available for free online. And I was shocked!
    Let me read from that letter:


    Nor is there any reason why it is made difficult for us to do good other than that long habit of doing wrong which has infected us from childhood and corrupted us little by little over many years and ever after holds us in bondage and slavery to itself, so that it seems somehow to have acquired the force of nature. We now find ourselves being resisted and opposed by all that long period in which we were carelessly instructed, that is, educated in evil, in which we even strove to be evil, since, to add to the other incentives to evil, innocence itself was held to be folly.
    Pelagius does not believe that we inherit the sinful nature from Adam, but instead we copied what we see around us. In short, Pelagius does not believe in, what we know today as, Original Sin, an idea we have Augustine to thank for. Augustine was right to condemn it!
    Without reading Augustine, I already know I am against Pelagianism. Someone might say that's because I have already been corrupted little by little over many years by Augustine. In response, I concede that the books I read favour Augustine, but I truly believe my convictions come directly from the Bible.
    I could leave it as that. Sustaining my position on biblical grounds. But since the discussion is on two separate but related questions: Is Pelagianism a heresy? Is Pelagius a heretic?
    If we want to properly answer these questions, we should read the man who was instrumental in the condemnation. We should read Augustine's own words and not what other people said he said. We need the primary source.
    Read The Primary Source
    I searched and bought a translation of Saint Augustine: Four Anti-Pelagian Writings. I hope to find out answers to a few questions like: What did Augustine understand of Pelagianism? Was he fair in his criticism? Did Augustine respond with biblical truth or philosophical arguments or did he just rile up religious fervour?
    Most, if not all, of the answers to those questions can be found in the first two writings collected in the book. They are On Nature and Grace and On the Proceedings of Pelagius. They were written in 415-416AD, shortly after Pelagius went to court. These are hot off the press responses from Augustine on the events of the day.
    The other two are shorter and written much later. The titles are On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance. These were not written to address Pelagianism directly but they are here because Augustine is dealing with a related problem.
    Working Out Theology is Not Neat and Tidy
    The first thing that struck me was how messy everything was. Let me explain. Any good book on Systematic Theology will say this is what Augustine believed, this is what Pelagius believed. If the book had a bit more space to spare, they quote a sentence, a paragraph from Augustine and/or Pelagius. Everything is neat and tidy.
    When you read this book, it's not. Here, you see Augustine trying to get a handle on Pelagius. "Did he really say what he said?" Christian leaders are pestering Augustine to respond to Pelagius' teaching. Augustine is reluctant to go after the man but is compelled to go against the teaching.
    Listen to this.
    The love we have for him [Pelagius] now is different from the love we had for him formerly; then we loved him as one who seemed to be of the true faith, whereas we now love him in order that, by the mercy of God, he may be set free from those antagonistic views which he is said to hold against the grace of God. It was not easy to believe this about him, when the rumor began to be circulated some time ago -- for rumor is usually a liar -- but what brought it home to us and made us believe it was a certain book of his which aims to set forth theories intended to destroy and remove from faithful hearts any belief in the grace of God bestowed on the human race through the one Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus.
    Some have accused Augustine of misrepresenting Pelagius. They say, "If only we had his writings, then we could show how arrogant Augustine villainized poor Pelagius."
    To those people I say, "Have you actually read Augustine?" Because I didn't before and what I see here astounds me. He liberally quotes Pelagius. Augustine tells us that he was himself accused of saying things he did not say. So he does not want the same thing to happen to Pelagius. Over and over again, he gives Pelagius the benefit of the doubt, saying in effect, "While it is possible that we have misunderstood him, to the best of our knowledge, what I quote here is what he wrote and what he wrote should be condemned."
    Are Man Able To Lead Sinless Lives?
    Pelagius says that Man are able to lead sinless lives. Augustine says that Man cannot for all man are born sinners.
    Let me read from the middle of the argument. Listen to how Augustine interacts with Pelagius.
    He [that is Pelagius] adds still further, Because indeed the possibility of not sinning does not depend upon us, even if we should want not to be able not to sin, we cannot not be able not to sin. He has said this in a convoluted manner and for this reason somewhat obscurely. But it is possible to put it more clearly as follows: because the possibility of not sinning does not depend upon us, then, whether we wish it or not, we are able not to sin. For he does not say, “Whether we wish it or not, we do not sin” — undoubtedly we do sin if we wish to. Nevertheless, whether we wish it or not, we have, he asserts, the possibility of not sinning, which he says is inherent in our nature. Yet it can reasonably be said of a man with healthy feet that whether he wish it or not he has the possibility of walking, but if they are broken, then even if he wishes, he does not have this possibility. Thus our nature is corrupted, of which it is written, “Why is earth and ashes proud?” It is corrupted and it implores the physician: “Save me, O Lord,” it cries; “Heal my soul,” it cries. Why does Pelagius block these cries, and thus hinder the future health [of the soul] by defending it as a present possibility?
    I Do Not Think Grace Means What You Think It Means
    Defenders for Pelagius are quick to remind all that Pelagius was cleared of the charges brought against him.
    The church leaders asked Pelagius whether Man could live sinless lives by the grace of God. He answered yes, by the grace of God, yes. And, if I can paraphrase Pelagius, he says, "As I have said many times, it is possible to lead a sinless life by the grace of God. Maybe it has not happened yet but how can we deny that possibility? Why do people accuse me of denying the grace of God?"
    Surely what Pelagius said doesn't sound so bad after all? If God saw fit to empower, through the Holy Spirit, a man to lead a sinless life, who are we to deny God? And for that reason, on this position, the church leaders heard Pelagius and declared him orthodox. His belief is acceptable within the church.
    Augustine was anguished. He does not blame the council for their decision. They were good people. The problem was they were not familiar with Pelagius' teaching and so they did not ask the right questions, namely what does Pelagius mean by the grace of God?
    This is how Augustine responds to Pelagius affirming the grace of God:
    When I read these words, I confess to you, dear ones, that I was suddenly filled with joy, because the author did not deny the grace of God, through which alone a man can be justified. It is such a denial that I detest and dread above all else in controversies of this sort. But in continuing to read further, I began to be suspicious, at first because of some of the comparisons he presented. For he writes, Now if I were to say that a man can dispute, a bird can fly, a rabbit can run, and I were not also to mention the means by which these acts can be accomplished, namely, the tongue, the wings, and the feet, then have I denied the conditions of these activities, when I have recognized the activities themselves? It certainly seems as if he has mentioned things which are effective by nature, for these members, namely the tongue, the wings, and the feet, have been created for natures of a particular kind. Nor has he proposed anything that we would want to understand to be of grace, without which no human being is justified, for there the question concerns the healing rather than the formation of natures. From here on I began to read with misgivings and soon discovered that my suspicions were not unwarranted.
    Why does Augustine have such deep misgivings? If both can agree that it is possible to lead a sinless life by the grace of God, does it really matter whether the grace of God is God creating in us a human nature able to overcome sin, so Pelagius, or the grace of God is the Holy Spirit indwelling in us, so Augustine?
    This is how Augustine and the church has understood the implications.
    Augustine writes:
    Could he [a man], or could he not, have become just by his own nature and free will? If they say he could have, then see what amounts to rendering the cross of Christ void: to contend that without it anyone can be justified by the law of nature and the choice of his will. Let us also say here: “Then Christ died in vain."
    If a man can be just without Christ, then Christ died in vain. It would actually be a cosmic joke because the son of God descended, suffered and died, when he didn't have to. If it was possible, if I only needed to try harder to be sinless, then I can rightly boast that all I needed was the body or nature that God gave me in the beginning, and I have no need for the cross of Christ. This religion of works is contrary to the Gospel.
    And yet, despite all the evidence, Augustine is still willing to give Pelagius the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Pelagius did not mean what he wrote.
    For it is “the grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord,” the grace by which Pelagius has nowhere been willing to say we, when we pray, are helped, so as not to sin. If by chance he implicitly acknowledges this, he must forgive us for having suspected otherwise. In that case, it is he himself who is the cause of all the discredit which he suffers on this matter, for he is willing to acknowledge it and yet unwilling to confess or declare it.
    Internet Forums in Antiquity
    You know what this book reminded me of? It reminded me of the drama in some internet forums. There are some who are quick to put words in other people's mouths. This is what you say, what you mean, and you are bad for even saying such things. Then there are some who genuinely try to understand what the other guy is saying, even when it sounds wrong, but he hopes that it was all a misunderstanding. That would be Augustine. When you read this book, you don't just learn the proof text and theological points, you also sit under a saint.
    Familiar
    There is more to the Pelagian controversy than I can get into in this review. There were multiple charges against Pelagius, not just one, but the one I described was one of the main charges.
    As you read the book, there are many things familiar and many things foreign.
    When Augustine writes on the Grace of Final Perseverance, he expounds from the Lord's Prayer, and concludes that people who pray to God, by their actions, admit God to be sovereign. This is what J.I. Packer presented in his book, "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God", which I reviewed in Episode 87.
    Almost like a side remark, Augustine points out that we believe God puts people in earthly kingdoms, so why should we find it difficult to believe that God puts people in his heavenly kingdom? John Piper elaborated on this and more in his 800-page book "Providence", which I reviewed in Episode 7.
    Let me share one more familiar note:
    Faith, then, both in its beginning and in its completion, is a gift of God, and let it not be doubted by anyone who does not wish to contradict the most evident sacred writings that this gift is given to some, but to others it is not given. Why this gift is not given to all should not disturb the believer, who believes that from one man, all have gone into condemnation, a condemnation undoubtedly most just, so much so that even if no one were freed therefrom, there would be no just complaint against God.
    If God did not save anyone, he would still be just.
    I am not saying that Augustine originated these ideas, I would argue everything I just read comes from Scripture. The sense of familiarity makes reading easier and gives the reader confidence to read further and push through unfamiliar territory.
    Unfamiliar
    One that comes up often is baptism. Pelagius, Augustine and the early church have a different understanding of baptism than I do.
    Pelagius is quoted to say, "through baptism the Church is purified from every spot and wrinkle."
    The synod approves of this saying.
    And Augustine? He writes:
    For who among us denies that the sins of all men have been remitted through baptism and that all the faithful arise without spot and wrinkle from the bath of regeneration?
    Because of this, I have to adjust my understanding to make sense of some of the points made in this book. And I'll be honest, sometimes I fail to make sense of it, so I skip.
    I have learnt to not let what I don't understand prevent me from getting what I do understand. If I insisted on understanding everything that I read, I wouldn't be able to read past Genesis 1:1. With the Bible, we get help from commentators. With Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings, we get help from the translators.
    Translators
    There are four writings in this book and each of them has their own introduction from the translators. They give the background, synopsis, translation issues and appendix.
    You could jump straight into Augustine's writings, just like you could jump straight into the middle of a TV series. But if you want to understand what is going on, it helps to have someone next to you explain who are the characters, what is the motivation behind their actions and what are they aiming for.
    Before this book, I only knew Pelagius, as well, the heretic. This is how the translator presents Pelagius:
    Pelagius must be understood as primarily a moralist, a religious teacher calling for a reform of Christians’ lives according to a more demanding standard than that which he perceived to be prevalent, and not as a speculative theologian. Nevertheless, his moral teaching drew on (and perhaps also issued into) a distinctive and fairly well articulated theological anthropology.
    If we keep this in mind, it helps to understand Augustine's reluctance to go on the attack and also his annoyance in having to do so. It also helps explain why Augustine had written a letter to Pelagius commending him, which Pelagius read out in his defence, much to the consternation of Augustine.
    I found it useful to read the synopsis first so that I have a mental map of where Augustine is going. Hearing this, a purist might argue that I'm letting the translator influence my interpretation of Augustine. I am aware of the danger. But as I said, I found the translator's sypnosis helpful, otherwise I would be lost. And I make a conscious effort to read Augustine's text for myself. That's why I am reading this book and not someone's write up of Augustine.
    Redeeming Pelagius
    Let's go back to where I started this review.
    "Is Pelagianism a heresy? Is Pelagius a heretic? Was Augustine fair in his treatment of the teaching and the teacher?"
    Can the answer to these questions be found in today's book? Yes.
    And anyone who is serious should read this book because no one can give the excuse that this book is too difficult to read. It's harder than what we are used to reading today but it's not inaccessible.
    There are some today who wish to see justice done for Pelagius, for they believe he was wrongly accused of heresy. I commend them for desiring justice but I think they are redeeming the wrong guy.
    Consider this, if there is a court, with a proper judge and jury, who are sincerely doing their duty to evaluate the evidence and make the right verdict, and they find a man guilty. Then later, much later, people raise doubts on the verdict. The right way is to review the case, are there are new evidences? Was there a mistake? If there was a miscarriage of justice, then let justice prevail, though delayed. There are people who wish to overturn the verdict, by ignoring the original witnesses, by relying on what others heard from the witnesses.
    In the case against Pelagius, Augustine recorded his words and his own words bear witness against him. If Pelagianism is accepted, then Christ died in vain. Then anyone who accepts Pelagianism, also shares in Pelagius' condemnation. Am I being too harsh here?
    I don't enjoy calling others heretics. Neither does Augustine.
    If you are not particularly motivated to read Augustine's Anti-Pelagian writings, a better place to start on Augustine is his Confessions or City of God. I haven't read them yet, they are in my bucket list.
    Before I end this review, let me read the concluding paragraph in "On the Predestination of The Saints". Augustine writes:
    Therefore, we undertook, as far as we could, to show that even this very beginning of faith is a gift of God. And if we have done this at greater length than might have been desired by those for whom it was written, we are ready to be reproached by them for it, provided that they nevertheless will admit that, even if at much greater length than they would like, even at the cost of boredom and weariness on the part of those who understand, we have accomplished what we set out to do: that is, have shown that even the beginning of faith, like continence, patience, justice, piety, and other things of which there is no dispute with our brothers, is a gift of God. Therefore, let us conclude this volume, that too great a length of one book may not be displeasing to the reader.
    Isn't that every writer's hope? That too great a length of one book may not be displeasing to the reader.
    Outro
    This is a Reading and Reader's review of "Saint Augustine: Four Anti-Pelagian Writings" translated by John Mourant and William Collinge. 372 pages, published by The Catholic University of America Press in January 1992. It's available in Amazon for USD42.24 (as of the date of recording) and in Logos for USD30.99.
    Book List
    • Saint Augustine: Four Anti-Pelagian Writings" translated by John Mourant and William Collinge. Amazon. Logos.

    37 min
  • Year End Reflection 2023

    RR90 Long Term Reflection
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Except today, I don't review a book. Instead I do my annual Year End Reflection where I look back and consider what are the books that have, thus far, made a lasting impression on me.
    This year, unlike previous years, I did not give myself much opportunity to reflect or to practise what I read.
    Having said that, I was surprised by how much the printed word has managed to make an imprint on me. Like a gardener who neglected his garden which is now overrun with weeds, I found to my delight that in some corners, seeds have survived and grown and bear fruit.
    As I look back at all the books I have reviewed in this podcast, there were a few titles that come to mind over and over again. In brief, in order of appearance in the podcast, these are the seven books read in the past that was meaningful to me this year:
    Episode 7: Providence by John Piper. When I have conversations with anyone on the sovereignty of God, I try to recall as much as I can from Piper's brilliant exposition. He left me utterly convinced of God's Providence in every part of creation. And most wonderful of all is this truth is not just a talking point I use in conversations but it has shaped my spiritual posture towards God, always rejoicing, always trusting. Providence is a thick book, 752 pages. I thank God that I read this big book earlier because I don't think I would have the mental, emotional, spiritual strength to lift this book this year. But because I did, it has laid a strong foundation for how to receive God's Truth, to rejoice in it and to rely on the wonderful providence of God.
    Episode 17: Cultivating the Fruit of the Spirit by Chris Wright. I don't know whether this would offend Chris or make him smile, but the one thing I remember from his book is from his introduction, on how John Stott would every morning pray the Fruit of the Holy Spirit and how Stott was considered by many to be the most Christ-like person they know. I do pray the Fruit of the Spirit, but not everyday, only when I face trials. I also remember how after finishing the book, how I wished to be more Christ-like. I have made pretty bad decisions, and I own those bad decisions, but where I have made good decisions, it is out of this desire to be more Christ-like, and I thank the Holy Spirit for this.
    Episode 25: Death of Porn by Ray Ortlund. A book that has given me some anguish, often despair, and after some preaching to myself, that despair turns to repentance. Two insights that have continued to guide my thoughts. First is when we look for porn, what we are really looking for is Jesus. I was shocked how Ortlund put porn and Jesus in the same sentence. I'm still shocked. It reveals our desperate futility for something that can only be found in Christ. The second insight is we make a budget for sin. I never thought about it as a budget. If I do this and that for God, then surely all the good I do will offset the little sin I do here. It's a lie I tell myself and Ortlund exposes it.
    Episode 30: Sunsets: Reflections on Life's Final Journey by Deborah Howard. The author is a Certified Hospice and Palliative Nurse. She takes care of people who are going to die soon. Death is an icky subject. It's taboo. But the reality is people around me have died, some this year. The people around me will die, maybe sooner than expected, maybe suddenly, maybe it's me. Howard has helped me process dying, death and life after death. Since everyone dies, this book should be required reading for all.
    Episode 33: God, Technology and Christian Life by Tony Reinke. These are early days of drone warfare. Soldiers can work from home to kill the enemy in a far away land. That is if they can keep their jobs after A.I. has taken everyone else's jobs. It is easy to get carried away by the headlines. In Reinke's book, he reminds me that when everything is changing, everything is still the same. God is still in control. He never lost it. And so every exuberance, every anxiety must be tempered by the truth that God is over all, including technology. My Christian life is all the better for this truth. Better than the latest Apple, Google or Facebook product is the firm knowledge that God is over all.
    Episode 42: Theology of Reconciliation by Ruth Khoury Mansour. I bought this book because it was written by a Palestinian Christian on reconciliation. It's a monograph, so I paid for a research thesis. Every research thesis I read is dry as dust. But because of the subject matter and her writing style, through her literature review and methodology, analysis and conclusion, I managed to get a picture of life as a Baptist in Palestine, living amidst conflict, Israelis vs. Palestinians, Muslims vs. Christians, Baptists vs. other Baptists. With the kidnapping, war and airstrikes constantly in the news, I wonder how are my Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ. Reconciliation seems so impossible, yet we have hope in Christ.
    Episode 72: On Getting Out of Bed by Alan Noble. The title sums up the year for me. There are days when it is difficult to get out of bed. You open your phone to the rest of the world posting their achievements, the rewards of success and you can join them too, all you need is a bit of direction and effort, just do steps 1, 2 and 3, and you can be a success too. Alan Noble's book is a comforting hug when all one can muster is just to get out of bed. If you have problems getting out of bed, this short book is better than the loudest alarm clock you can buy.
    That's it. Seven books. Let me emphasise, this is not my list of top seven books. Nor would I necessarily recommend these books to you because, where you are in life right now, you may need other books.
    These are seven books that have sustained me in my faith through my trials and my temptations in 2023. What I read a long time back has helped me to think through what concerns me today: the emergence of A.I. and the Israel-Gaza war. I invested my time in good company and they have helped me in ways unexpected.
    Today's episode is less on the books and more about me. It's less on the reading and more on the reader. And through my sharing, I hope in a small way, it encourages you to read a good book because what you store in your heart and mind may one day be providentially what you need.
    To read my full reviews or get the links to the books I mention, you can scroll to the bottom of this episode description or visit readingandreaders.com. You can also drop a note in the contact page of the website, that's readingandreaders.com.
    If you are not a reader yet, I hope you will be in 2024. Happy New Year. Bye bye.
    Book List

    • Providence by John Piper. Review.
    • Cultivating the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. Review.
    • Death of Porn by Ray Ortlund. Review.
    • Sunsets: Reflections on Life's Final Journey by Deborah Howard. Review.
    • God, Technology and Christian Life by Tony Reinke. Review.
    • Theology of Reconciliation by Ruth Khoury Mansour. Review.
    • On Getting Out of Bed by Alan Noble. Review.

    15 min
  • After Acts: Exploring the Lives and Legends of the Apostles by Bryan Litfin

    Every good book or movie or TV series ends with closure for the characters. After so many years, Rachel and Ross finally got together. After so many doubts, Chandler finally accepts he is going to be a father. But the Bible does not give us such closures. What happened to Peter? He just disappears halfway through Acts. What happens to Paul? We left him in house arrest. We expect to turn the page to find out what happens next and it just ends like a canceled Netflix series.
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "After Acts: Exploring the Lives and Legends of the Apostles" by Bryan Litfin. 200 pages, published by Moody Publishers in January 2015. USD9.99 via Amazon Kindle. It was available for free via Logos for November.
    Author
    According to bryanlitfin.com:


    Bryan Litfin is a professor in the School of Divinity at Liberty University. Previously, he was Head of Strategy and Advancement at Clapham School, after serving for 16 years as Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, and 3 years as an editor and writer at Moody Publishers. He is the author of Constantine’s Empire Series (Revell, 2020-2022), the Chiveis Trilogy, Wisdom from the Ancients (Harvest House Publishers, 2022), Early Christian Martyr Stories (Baker, 2014), After Acts (Moody, 2015), and Getting To Know the Church Fathers (Brazos, 2007), as well as several scholarly articles and essays.
    This is a surprise! He writes novels. He is a storyteller. And I'll come to why this is such a surprise at the end of this review.
    What is not surprising is he is a scholar, a professor of theology with an interest in the early church. In the book, he casually refers to Eusebius, Irenaeus and Jerome. He picks out the best bits from the Acts of Peter, Proto-Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas and more. He is familiar with early church writings and it shows.
    And that expertise is critical for us to figure out what happened after Acts. The Book of Acts closes with Paul under house arrest. If the Bible was submitted to a publisher, the publisher would reject it: "Great story, but you gotta fix the ending".
    Well, in God's infinite wisdom we get the Bible as it is but that has not stopped others from writing to finish the story of Peter, Paul and others. Some of these stories read like fan fiction or some kind of fantasy, alternate history. But is there a kernel of truth in them?
    Litfin goes through the Bible, archaeology and extra-Biblical sources to tell us not only what likely happened but why he is convinced. He even gives us a report card at the end of every chapter. A for almost certainly true. F for almost certainly false.
    Peter
    I started the episode by asking what happened to Peter. Litfin tells us. First, he explains who is Peter, what he did, what he wrote, and why he is important. Tradition has it that he was crucified upside down. You may have heard the reason was because he found himself unworthy to be crucified the same way Jesus was.
    Litfin writes:
    Peter may well have been crucified upside down, for the Romans were known to do this. Since the martyrdom story in the Acts of Peter was already developing in the early second century, it might have been recording an actual eyewitness remembrance. However, the victims of Roman crucifixion were not given the chance to make requests about the method of their impalement. The intent was to shame them in a grotesque way, not accomodate their wishes. Therefore, the upside-down crucifixion of Peter is historically plausible, though not for any spiritual reasons.
    Now that we know what happened to Peter, this should give us enough closure on the character, on the man. But there is more!
    He tells us the story of how the Apostle Peter's bones were discovered! Although Litfin cautions us that it is still an open question, yet the sequence of events he describes, the forensic analysis done, shows that it is possible, it is possible that we have recovered the bones of the Apostle Peter. Huh!
    In the report card, on the event that Peter died by crucifixion, Litfin gives it an A-. On whether his bones were recovered, Litfin gives it a B.
    Thomas
    Let's look at another disciple's story. This one is of personal interest to me because many years ago, I went on a church mission trip to India. It was an eye-opening trip that has helped form many of my convictions. I saw people hungry for the gospel, coming for prayer and a demonstrating sincere desire to worship and obey God.
    Our host brought us to a hill where the apostle Thomas was memorialised because according to tradition the apostle Thomas went to India to spread the Gospel.
    So we went to this hill and to us it was a sight-seeing trip, but to the people around us, it was a spiritual pilgrimage. I vaguely recall the pictures on the walls describing the miracles performed by Thomas. I visited the cave where he died and later the tomb where his bones are kept. I remember not knowing what to make of all of it and after reading today's book, I am glad I did not make too much of it.
    He writes:
    The tradition of Thomas’s martyrdom has come to be associated with a little hillock called St. Thomas Mount in modern Chennai on India’s east coast. Though the ancient accounts do tell us that Thomas died in India by spearing, the suggestion that it happened at Chennai is the stuff of pious fabrication. Only in the medieval sources do we begin to see a connection between Thomas and the eastern side of India. The sixteenth-century Portuguese explorers who sought to convert the indigenous Indian Christians to Roman Catholicism are responsible for the hilltop shrine at Chennai and its supposed bone fragment from the apostle.
    I doubt any of this matters to those who make the pilgrimage to St. Thomas mount but the truth matters and Litfin is keen to tell the true story of the disciples.
    And next to Peter, I would say the most famous apostle would be Paul. And Litfin saves the best for last, for Paul appears in the final chapter.
    Paul
    I will just share this wild story and move on:
    When Paul’s severed head hit the ground, it bounced three times as it uttered the words “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” which caused three springs of water to well up. Today the church of St. Paul at the Three Fountains marks that very spot -- but it is clearly the result of later legends that carry no historical validity.
    Wild Stories
    I wish Litfin would tell me these stories even if they aren't true. That's strange coming from me because if you listen to my reviews, you will know that I don't like my commentary writers to make wild guesses. I much prefer them to stick to the facts and let me come to my own opinion.
    Litfin does an excellent job at giving me the facts but how I wish he would tell more stories.
    Listen to this: In the chapter on Peter, Litfin writes:
    In the early second century, a collection of oral folklore began to solidify into a narrative trajectory now called the Acts of Peter. In addition to such thrilling episodes as a duel between Peter and the heretic Simon Magus, in which Peter causes the flying Simon to crash and burn (chapters 31–32), we also find a detailed account of Peter’s martyrdom (chapters 33–41). Emperor Nero is the villain in the background of the story, which proves the second-century Christians believed Peter died during that ruler’s reign.
    Does anyone want to hear more about Peter causing the flying Simon to crash and burn? I would. But if you want to know more, you won't get it from Litfin in this book. Instead, Litfin directs us the website, earlychristianwritings.com, which has the translated text for us to read in full.
    And every time he hints of a great story but doesn't tell it, I groan.
    He writes:
    ... in the apocryphal Passion of Simon and Jude, Judas Thaddeus travels with Simon the Zealot to Babylon, where they debate with the Persian magi. The characters proceed through a series of adventures until at last they are martyred by the priests of the sun god.
    What are the adventures?! And again:
    ... an early medieval text incorrectly attributed to a certain Babylonian bishop named Abdias recounts Matthew’s daring exploits and miraculous adventures in the land of Ethiopia.
    Come on, what are the adventures?
    I was so crushed he didn't tell these stories. I thought he couldn't and was not interested because was a dry bones academic.
    So imagine my surprise, when I found out that he writes novels. He wrote a book titled, "Early Christian Martyr Stories". He is a story teller but for this book he didn't want to just spin a yarn, he wanted the inquisitive believer to know with certainty what happened.
    And in my opinion, he has done that and more. He has surprised the reader with some amazing stories to whet the appetite and has show us how he sifts through the source materials to get to the his conclusions. In that sense, I would recommend this book for both the casual reader and the thinking Christian.
    Before I end the book review, I want to share how this book aroused my curiousity of Peter's adventures. So I went to the website Litfin recommended and I skimmed through translation of "The Acts of Peter".
    Here I read how Peter tells a guy Marcellus that if you believe in the Lord, just sprinkle water over a broken statue and it will become whole. And it did.
    Peter comes knocking at Simon the sorceror's house and Simon instructs a dog, "Tell Peter that I am not within."
    And the dog answers!
    Thou exceeding wicked and shameless one, enemy of all that live and believe on Christ Jesus, here is a dumb animal sent unto thee which hath received a human voice to confound thee and show thee to be a deceiver and a liar.
    Peter sees a herring, a sardine hung on a window and tells the crowd, "If you see this swimming in the water like a fish, will you be able to believe in him whom I preach?" The crowd say yes. Peter takes the herring, "In the name of Jesus, swim." And he throws the herring into the waters, it comes alive and swims.
    I can see why Litfin didn't tell these stories because once you start, you can't stop. And not so edifying. We don't expect our preachers to bring cans of sardines to evangelistic rallies.
    But what this shows is Litfin has succeeded to make the early church writings more attractive and more accessible than I had thought possible. And I think if you read this book, you will feel the same too.
    This is a Reading and Readers review of "After Acts: Exploring the Lives and Legends of the Apostles" by Bryan Litfin. 200 pages, published by Moody Publishers in January 2015. USD9.99 via Amazon Kindle. It was available for free via Logos for November but it's USD7.79 now.
    If you like to know more about books, especially good Christian books that are offered for free for a time, subscribe to Reading and Readers, the podcast where I review Christian books for you. Thank you and bye bye.
    Book List
    "After Acts: Exploring the Lives and Legends of the Apostles" by Bryan Litfin. Amazon. Logos.

    22 min
  • Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

    Evangelism. The Great Commission is so important which is why people get upset when it's done differently or wrongly or not according to what the Bible teaches.
    Sovereignty of God. Arguably the greatest of all the great doctrines. And people do argue about it, what it means and how it changes our lives.
    Put Evangelism and Sovereignty of God together and it's like the fusion of two atoms. You get a tremendous release of energy that can either power up or destroy your faith.
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by J.I. Packer. 122 pages, published by Inter-Varsity Press, the first edition was published in 1961. You can get the 2012 edition via Amazon for USD10.25 or via Logos.com for USD9.99. Don't have ten bucks to spare? A pity cause it was only USD1.99 a week ago! To make sure you don't miss out on great book deals, subscribe to this podcast or follow me at Twitter. You can find details at www.readingandreaders.com. That's www.readingandreaders.com.
    J.I. Packer passed away in 2020 at the age of 93 years old. He wrote "Knowing God", revived the Puritans and gave us the ESV Bible translation.
    In my mind, J.I. Packer is the theological-equivalent of an explosive engineer or bomb expert. Where ever there is a theological controversy, there he is, calmly, precisely defusing the bomb. By careful design, he channels all that destructive energy and puts it to good use.
    I give you one example, one of the hottest topic in the recent past is the charismatic/pentecostal movement. It was so hot that churches were splitting left and right on this issue. Yet, any hothead, regardless of where he stands on the issue, will find good sense in Packer's book "Keep in Step with the Spirit". He has the uncanny ability to describe the issue in a fair way, bring out the essence of the debate and channel all the energy towards mutual edification.
    Evangelism and Sovereignty of God are as explosive as any doctrine can be. But under J.I. Packer's pen, Evangelism and Divine Sovereignty come together in a way that shines forth the glory of our awesome God.
    Divine Sovereignty
    Let me read an excerpt from the first chapter, titled, "Divine Sovereignty":


    I do not intend to spend any time at all proving to you the general truth that God is sovereign in his world. There is no need; for I know that, if you are a Christian, you believe this already. How do I know that? Because I know that, if you are a Christian, you pray; and the recognition of God’s sovereignty is the basis of your prayers. In prayer, you ask for things and give thanks for things. Why? Because you recognize that God is the author and source of all the good that you have had already, and all the good that you hope for in the future. This is the fundamental philosophy of Christian prayer. The prayer of a Christian is not an attempt to force God’s hand, but a humble acknowledgment of helplessness and dependence.
    When Packer says, "I do not intend", we hear his strong voice coming out of the pages. He knows where the issue lies and here he believes that every Christian whether they admit it or not, in their heart of hearts know that God is sovereign simply because they pray; simply because they credit God for their salvation.
    I find Packer here to be generous to a fault. While no Christian would ever deny the Sovereignty of God, they have a different definition and deny that God has absolute control over all creation. But why deny it?
    Packer writes:
    The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the church -- the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic. People see that the Bible teaches man’s responsibility for his actions; they do not see (man, indeed, cannot see) how this is consistent with the sovereign lordship of God over those actions. They are not content to let the two truths live side by side, as they do in the Scriptures, but jump to the conclusion that, in order to uphold the biblical truth of human responsibility, they are bound to reject the equally biblical and equally true doctrine of divine sovereignty, and to explain away the great number of texts that teach it. The desire to oversimplify the Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds, and it is not surprising that even good people should fall victim to it. Hence this persistent and troublesome dispute. The irony of the situation, however, is that when we ask how the two sides pray, it becomes apparent that those who profess to deny God’s sovereignty really believe in it just as strongly as those who affirm it.
    Packer concludes Chapter 1 by fervently asserting that those who deny Sovereignty of God actually believe it. And he knows the sticking point. If God is always in control, how can humans be responsible for their actions? And that is where Packer brings us to in Chapter 2.
    Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
    As I read through this second chapter, I find myself sympathetic to Packer's attempts to convince the reader of the truth. It took me years to reach what Packer hopes to achieve with the reader in these pages.
    The truth is, well, listen to how Packer puts it:
    God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are taught to us side by side in the same Bible; sometimes, indeed, in the same text. Both are thus guaranteed to us by the same divine authority; both, therefore, are true. It follows that they must be held together, and not played off against each other. Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. God’s sovereignty is a reality, and man’s responsibility is a reality too.
    Packer recognises that it sounds like a contradiction. He calls it an antimony. And rather than attempt to solve the supposed contradiction, Packer attempts to convince us that what we really need is to know God is wise in ways that we are not. What we see as a problem is not a problem in the mind and counsel of God. What would be wise for us is to accept this is the way it is and we should work with what we got.
    But we don't.
    We are tempted to only focus on human responsibility. Or in the other extreme, we only focus on divine sovereignty. And Packer shows us the folly of falling into such temptations.
    Instead what we should do, is as Packer exhorts:
    ..., we shall try to take both doctrines perfectly seriously, as the Bible does, and to view them in their positive biblical relationship. We shall not oppose them to each other, for the Bible does not oppose them to each other. Nor shall we qualify, or modify, or water down, either of them in terms of the other, for this is not what the Bible does either. What the Bible does is to assert both truths side by side in the strongest and most unambiguous terms as two ultimate facts; this, therefore, is the position that we must take in our own thinking.
    As I revisit this controversy, not I think for the last time, I thought of an illustration. Have you been to a 3D cinema where you have to put on glasses to see the images pop out from the screen? If you saw the image with only your left eye, you will not see the 3D image. Same goes if you tried looking with only your right eye. You need to look with both eyes to see the image pop in front of you.
    But the natural man is blind. Or partially blind. In one eye or both. The solution is to read and study the whole counsel of God, so that we can see with both eyes the reality of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.
    We have not talked about Evangelism. Let's go to that now.
    Evangelism
    Chapter 3, titled "Evangelism" is, to me, the most surprising chapter of the book. 60 years after this book, and still the questions Packers poses here is still as relevant as ever. What is evangelism? What is the evangelistic message? Why do it? And how?
    The chapter is surprising because it scratches an itch I have had for a while and Packer managed to describe the itch and give me the relief.
    I have some misgivings on evangelistic rallies but I never sat down to arrange my thoughts on the subject because everybody accepts it. They have accepted it for a long time. To question evangelistic rallies would be to question the work of people like Billy Graham and to question such faithful servants of the Lord seems petty and mean.
    I don't know what is Packer's opinion of Billy Graham's ministry but this book was published in 1961, six years after Billy Graham launched a big evangelistic rally in London. Evangelistic rallies were drawing big crowds and many thought organising special meetings was the way to bring people to Christ.
    Packer writes:
    If in our churches “evangelistic” meetings, and “evangelistic” sermons, are thought of as special occasions, different from the ordinary run of things, it is a damning indictment of our normal Sunday services. So that if we should imagine that the essential work of evangelism lies in holding meetings of the special type described out of church hours, so to speak, that would simply prove that we had failed to understand what our regular Sunday services are for.
    Packer does not condemn evangelistic rallies. Nor is he just listing the pros and cons. He looks at the essence of the matter.
    And gives us this wonderful gem:
    Evangelism is to be defined not institutionally, in terms of the kind of meeting held, but theologically, in terms of what is taught, and for what purpose.
    Ah, what clarity! There are whole pages here that I would like to read to you, pages of methodical reasoning and thought-provoking questions that every Christian should consider, but I will just read to you two paragraphs.
    So, in the last analysis, there is only one method of evangelism: namely, the faithful explanation and application of the gospel message. From which it follows—and this is the key principle which we are seeking—that the test for any proposed strategy, technique or style of evangelistic action must be this: will it in fact serve the word? Is it calculated to be a means of explaining the gospel truly and fully and applying it deeply and exactly? To the extent to which it is so calculated, it is lawful and right; to the extent to which it tends to overlay and obscure the realities of the message, and to blunt the edge of their application, it is ungodly and wrong.
    Later, he writes:
    We need to remember here that spiritually it is even more dangerous for a man whose conscience is roused to make a misconceived response to the gospel and take up with a defective religious practice than for him to make no response at all. If you turn a publican into a Pharisee, you make his condition worse, not better.
    Again, "If you turn a publican into a Pharisee, you make his condition worse, not better." And how are our misguided efforts to evangelise to blame? At its root, it's because we don't know what is evangelism. For the details, you got to read the book.
    Divine Sovereignty and Evangelism
    Before I go into the fourth and last chapter, just a brief recap:
    Chapter 1 confirms that we all believe in Divine Sovereignty. Chapter 2 assures us that Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility are both true and we should not pit one against the other. Chapter 3 brings us to the heart of evangelism.
    In chapter 4, how does everything come together? God controls everything including Man's ability to respond to his call, yet he also command us to make that invitation? Since God has absolute sovereignty over everything, why should we bother?
    I think the force of the argument in chapter 4 does not really work unless one has properly read and appreciated chapter 1, 2 and 3.
    This is how Packer puts it.
    The biblical answer may be stated in two propositions, one negative and one positive.
    The negative is:
    The sovereignty of God in grace does not affect anything that we have said about the nature and duty of evangelism.
    He breaks it down into subsections, titled:
    1. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the necessity of evangelism.
    2. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the urgency of evangelism.
    3. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the genuineness of the gospel invitations, or the truth of the gospel promises.
    4. The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the responsibility of the sinner for his reaction to the gospel.

    Each part is explained in Packer's powerful and concise ways to support the negative statement: The Sovereignty of God in grace does not affect anything that we have said about the nature and duty of evangelism.
    The positive statement is:
    The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism.
    Packer believes if we are certain, if we are confident that God is in control this will make us bold, patient and prayerful in our evangelism. And so we note, we began the book by prayer and we end the book with prayer.
    I also said in the beginning that Packer is the theological-equivalent of a bomb expert because of how calmly and effectively he deals with explosive topics.
    I didn't realise when I started that explosions is a good way to describe these controversies.
    For it got me thinking: What is the most explosive thing in our solar system? It's not dynamite, C4 or even the nuclear bomb. The answer is hinted in the question. In our solar system, the Sun is this giant ball of fire, a perpetual chain of nuclear explosions powerful enough to destroy all life on Earth many times over yet also the only source of heat and light for us to live.
    And perhaps that's one way to think of these difficult doctrines. We try to figure out how they work and sometimes it ends up well, sometimes not. But we should not forget that the doctrines are expressing something greater than us, realities that to a certain extant will always be beyond us.
    Packer reminds us of these truths in this book. No wonder it is considered a Packer classic.
    Today I review "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by J.I. Packer. 122 pages, published by Inter-Varsity Press, the first edition was published in 1961. You can get the 2012 edition via Amazon for USD10.25 or via Logos.com for USD9.99.
    Book List
    • "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by J.I. Packer.Amazon. Logos.

    29 min
  • The Message of Discipleship by Peter Morden

    In every church you will hear that the most important thing is discipleship. "Get discipleship right, and you get everything else right", "Christians are disciples of Jesus" and so on. Is discipleship a trending buzzword or is it rooted in Scripture?
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "The Message of Discipleship: Authentic Followers of Jesus in Today's World" by Peter Morden. 276 pages, published by Inter-Varsity Press UK in January 2019. Available in Amazon Kindle for USD8.99 and free in Logos until 15 November.
    Peter Morden is the Senior Pastor at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Leeds, England. He did his PhD on Charles Spurgeon, wrote a book on Charles Spurgeon, and worked at Spurgeon College, previously as the Vice-President and Director of Training, now Distinguished Visiting Scholar. Morden doesn't only have Spurgeon in his mind, he also has Andrew Fuller, Baptist history and discipleship, which is the topic of today's book.
    Today's book comes from that stable of utmost pedigree: the Bible Speaks Today series. The series editors are Alec Motyer, John Stott and Derek Tidball. I can easily recommend the Bible Speaks Today as your first commentary series. And before you buy the whole set, you would want a taster, for that I recommend any one written by John Stott. Or even today's book by Peter Morden.
    The series aims to:

    1. To expound the biblical text with accuracy
    2. To relate it to contemporary life, and
    3. To be readable.

    While I have not read every book in the series, of the many I have read, they all achieve those three aims. And today's book is no exception.
    Introduction
    In the introduction, Morden starts by making the case for discipleship, what is it, why do we need to learn it and where do we start.
    Morden lists four features of his book.
    The first feature is a focus on Jesus. He writes:
    Some studies on discipleship concentrate more on the life we are to lead than they do on the one we are to follow.
    He later writes:
    It stands to reason that if we are to follow Jesus closely we are going to need to look to him more than we look to ourselves. So, I have tried to give space in this book to contemplating Jesus, his character and his ways. This explains some parts of chapters which may — at first sight — seem to have little to do with discipleship. Their inclusion springs from a deep conviction: it is when we fix our eyes on Jesus that we grow most as disciples.
    The second feature is "A Focus on the Gospel". The third, "A stress on whole-life discipleship". The fourth, "Grace and glory".
    These four features unify for the reader the key principles behind discipleship and they undergird every chapter here.
    The book is structured as follows, I quote:
    This book has three main parts. The first, which has four chapters, gives ‘foundational’ teaching for our journey of discipleship; the second, also four chapters, points us to the resources for that journey; the third, consisting of eight chapters, encourages us in the day-to-day practice of following Jesus. Finally, there is a chapter on finishing the race that is the life of discipleship.
    Let's jump into my reflection on the three parts.
    Part 1: Foundations
    What do you think is foundational to discipleship? And what would be the supporting verses?
    What do you think is Morden's answer to this question? I have already told you his answer. The foundation to discipleship is Jesus Christ.
    In Part 1, there are four chapters, which are: Chapter 1: Following the Crucified Lord (Mark 8:22-38) Chapter 2: Following the Exalted Lord (Mark 9:1-13) Chapter 3: Following the Missionary Lord (Mark 9:14-32) Chapter 4: The Disciples Call (Isaiah 6)
    I like how Morden does not assume that reader knows the Lord Jesus well enough and they just need to get on to some pointers to be a good disciple.
    "I already know Jesus, I just need you to tell me what to do."
    No, no, no. Don't go off in a rush. Morden brings the reader to the Gospel of Mark. Let us see what the Bible says about following Jesus. We don't read about Morden's discipleship journey, this is not a memoir disguised as a how-to book. We don't learn how to grow one church to be a hundred. The foundation to discipleship is not your personal growth or even salvation or the great kingdom expansion, but the most basic, core, fundamental basis of discipleship is following the Lord. Let us not assume this is understood, let us stay here and Morden stays here for four chapters.
    And what do you get here, I give you one example. Consider these verses, Mark 8:34–38.
    And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
    Taking that passage, Morden breaks it down. These are his five expositional points:
    1. The way of the cross is for all who want to follow
    2. The way of the cross means embracing the possibility of death
    3. The way of the cross requires complete consecration
    4. The way of the cross involves loss of rights
    5. The way of the cross is the way of life

    Here, Morden quotes Richard France:
    The metaphor of taking up one’s cross is not to be domesticated into an exhortation merely to endure hardship patiently.
    And in the same quote, a bit later on:
    While it may no doubt be legitimately applied to other and lesser contexts of suffering involved in following Jesus, the primary reference in context must be the possibility of literal death.
    Morden does not smooth out the difficulty of discipleship. Yet, even as he stresses the glory of the cross, the radical nature of discipleship, as he elaborates later, Morden is also quick to stress the radical grace of discipleship. We need grace because despite our best efforts, we will fall.
    If you paid attention, you will notice that the structure of his five point outline follows closely with the Bible passage. That is what Morden does for the whole book. He puts his nose to the Bible and he shoves our noses so close to the Bible that we can smell the ink off the pages.
    Some readers may find this approach to be tiresome. I say to you, please for the sake of your soul, adapt yourself to this writing style. Let the Bible's outline be your outline. Follow the contours of Scripture. Let its thoughts, be your thoughts. Not every book needs to be written in this way but when it comes to core beliefs, we need more Scripture not less.
    Part 2: Resources
    Let's move to Part 2: Resources for Discipleship. If you could pick four resources for discipleship, what would you pick? What do you think every disciple needs in order to be a true disciple?
    Let me tell you Morden's pick and see how do you compare.
    First, the Bible. I'm sure you picked that!
    Then, prayer.
    We also have here the Holy Spirit. "How dare we take the Third Person of the Trinity to be a resource!" Before anyone gets too uppity, all Morden means is disciples need to lean on the Holy Spirit. We cannot do discipleship without the Holy Spirit.
    Fourth and lastly, Morden picks the church as an essential resource for discipleship.
    Do you have anything else you would consider important? If you do, just keep it and we will come back to that before the episode ends. I'll tell you where to put your idea.
    Now that Morden has picked his four resources: Bible, Prayer, Holy Spirit and Church, what are the best supporting Bible verses? How can you demonstrate from Scripture that this is important for the disciple.
    For the Bible, how about that verse... "All Scripture is God-breathed"? Good, good. It's here. How about something from the Old Testament? Well... what about that super-long Psalm... where it goes on and on about the law, precepts, commands? Great. That's Psalm 119 and Morden has got that down.
    What about Prayer? What Bible verse would you pick to bring out prayer? That's easy! The Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-15. Yup, Morden has the chapter built on the Lord's Prayer.
    We are on a roll!
    Third one. What about the Holy Spirit? Hmmm... would it something from the Gospel of John, that passage where Jesus tells the disciples about the Holy Spirit? Good choice but that's not the one he uses. Morden picked Ephesians 5:15-20, "do not get drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit" and 2 Timothy 1:6-7 to speak on the spiritual gifts. I would have picked 1 Cor 12-14 but Morden's choices are just as good.
    Lastly, the church. What verse would you pick? This is hard. You have lots to choose from and Morden picked Hebrews 10:11-25. Not the easiest verse to link to the church. It would have been easier to speak about the body of Christ (1 Cor 12), the bride of Christ (Eph 5, also in Revelations) or the living stones or the royal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter).
    Why did I ask you about your choices?
    Because I want you to see that you could have picked those topics and those Bible verses. And if you didn't know anything about discipleship, if you called a friend, they would have told you something similar.
    Then you could very well ask, "If I have the answers, why read this book?"
    It is comforting to know that the answers are not new. As Christians we are not in the business of creating new products, we are in the business of the old rugged cross. We are literally doing things by the book, the good book.
    What Morden offers is point by point clarity. He unpacks what Scripture says and if there is someone who can do it better, he lets them.
    In the chapter on the Holy Spirit, Morden begins with these words:
    If we are going to follow Jesus faithfully then we need God the Holy Spirit. Yet many disciples today do not pay sufficient attention to the Spirit, at least in practice. Jim Packer expresses powerfully what happens when we fail in this area.
    Here is Packer's quote. Packer here describes the consequences of neglecting the Holy Spirit:
    You slip, he says, ‘back into orthodoxism and formalism’, getting stuck in a ‘religion of aspiration and perspiration without either inspiration or transformation, the religion of low expectations, deep ruts, and grooves that become graves’.
    Morden loves this phrase because he brings it up a few more times in the chapter. I love it too so I am going to read it again.
    religion of aspiration and perspiration without either inspiration or transformation, the religion of low expectations, deep ruts, and grooves that become graves.
    Morden is clearly a man who likes a good turn of a phrase. And I am happy to be served his collection of quotes related to discipleship.
    Part 3: Practices
    After finishing Part 1: The Foundations of Discipleship and Part 2: Resources for Discipleship, we are now ready for Part 3: The Practices of Discipleship.
    So let me ask for the final time, what would you like to include in practices of discipleship? Morden has included a variety of subjects including Love, Evangelism, Finance and Daily Work. And if you think he could have included more, Morden agrees! In the introduction he writes:
    This is emphatically not 'the complete book of discipleship'.
    If he had more space, he would have included a chapter on the environment and a chapter on the home.
    As Morden stated clearly, discipleship is a 360 thing. It's not just about prayer with the family or worshipping on Sundays, discipleship touches every aspect of our lives so there are more topics than there are space in this book.
    Among the eight topics Morden gives, I found one topic that stands out. It's the chapter with the title, "Discipleship in the Dark". It's an exposition on Psalm 88.
    If you can, you should read Psalm 88 now to see why it's such a strange choice for a book on discipleship. It starts in despair and it ends... well... listen to how Psalm 88 ends.
    But I, O LORD, cry to you; in the morning my prayer comes before you. O LORD, why do you cast my soul away? Why do you hide your face from me? Afflicted and close to death from my youth up, I suffer your terrors; I am helpless. Your wrath has swept over me; your dreadful assaults destroy me. They surround me like a flood all day long; they close in on me together. You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me; my companions have become darkness.
    It ends with darkness.
    Let me read at length Morden's explanation:
    The psalm is, in fact, extremely bleak—from beginning to end. Taken at face value, there is little obvious hope. This is the reality—the bleak reality—of Psalm 88.
    So, why expound it in a book on discipleship? In fact, I have a feeling that a detailed consideration of Psalm 88 in a book on Christian discipleship may be a first! Why do it? It is a fair question. The psalm seems at first sight irrelevant—no explicit mention of Christ, no explicit mention of discipleship, no mention of community, no mention of disciple-making mission.
    Later on...
    And yet ... As I have preached on this psalm and talked to Christian disciples about it, I have found it resonates with many. Yes, Psalm 88 is a bleak psalm and yet this is one of the very reasons it is a fine psalm and a vitally important part of God’s word for followers of Jesus. It relates especially to the times on our journeys of discipleship which are incredibly tough. The darkness closes in and we feel utterly alone. God himself feels distant and seems deaf to our prayers. Many fine believers have experienced such a time, memorably described by John of the Cross as a ‘dark night of the soul’. For all who find themselves in such darkness, this psalm speaks both to us and for us. It is a vital resource for all who want to live under the lordship of Jesus, the suffering servant who said, ‘Take up your cross daily and follow me’.
    I was so impressed by what he wrote that I read it that night with my family before we went to bed.
    And I asked them, where do you bring your sadness? Many go to alcohol, to girls (and the children giggle here), or go to movies and games, but where does the Psalmist go to? Or to who does he go to? He goes to God.
    If we are to judge any book by any measure, it should be by how the book makes you read the Bible. How it makes you take the Word of God seriously. And by that measure, this is a wonderful book.
    Conclusion
    Here are my final thoughts. I finished this book in nearly one seating.
    The book has the right focus: Jesus and the Gospels. It has the right approach: Just unapologetically expound the Bible. It has the right tone: Humble and helpful.
    If I could, I wish this to be the first book on discipleship for every Christian. But for many it wouldn't be because even though this book is easy to read, some prefer a book that stands alone and doesn't trace through Scripture. And that is a pity.
    If it's not going to be your first book, then make it your main book. Let this book be the framework for you to hang your thoughts on discipleship.
    What do I mean by that?
    Remember how I kept asking you for your thoughts on what you would include in the book? What you thought were important?
    Well, you could follow the outline of today's book. Part 1: Foundation of Discipleship, Part 2: Resources, Part 3: Practices, and whenever you have deepening or broadening thoughts, you can put that thought into the way Morden has structure the whole thing.
    I dare not say that this is the definitive book on discipleship, but I would say that it's very difficult to go wrong with this book. It would guard you from many excesses, like putting a practice, for example evangelism, to make it the foundation for discipleship. The foundation is following Jesus.
    It's not flashy. It doesn't promise a way to a million disciples. It just promises to let the Bible speak on Discipleship today.
    Outro
    This is a Reading and Reader's review of "The Message of Discipleship: Authentic Followers of Jesus in Today's World" by Peter Morden. 276 pages, published by Inter-Varsity Press UK in January 2019. Available in Amazon Kindle for USD8.99 and free in Logos until 15 November.
    I just want to point out something that has happened at Logos for a while now. I used to review the free books from Faithlife. Well, they have moved the free books from Faithlife and renamed it to be free ebooks in Logos. That's not all.
    It used to be that there is one free book for the month. Now, the offer is a free book for two weeks, then they give another free book for another two weeks. So that is great news. More good books for free!
    However, it is hard to read and review a book within two weeks. Unless the books is so readable like today's one. Since I don't intend to break myself to read and review a book in two weeks, I will just tell you that Logos has a free book. And you should get it since it's free. Whether you read it or not, is one thing. But I hope my reviews will help you make the decision to read it or not.
    Thanks for listening. Bye bye.
    Book List
    "The Message of Discipleship: Authentic Followers of Jesus in Today's World" by Peter Morden. Amazon. Logos.

    32 min
  • Romans (Interpretation Bible Commentary) by Paul J. Achtemeier

    While others collect seashells, I collect interpretations. And I seem to have a growing collection of interpretations on Romans. And today's book offers a different definition of righteousness, a different understanding of election and more.
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review a commentary on Romans from the Interpretation Bible Commentary series written by Paul J. Achtemeier. 256 pages, published by Westminster John Knox Press in 1986. It was a free Logos book for October. So it's no longer free but you can continue listening to know what the book is about and hopefully learn a few things on the way.
    Author
    Paul J. Achtemeier passed away in January 28 2013. Elmhurst College, where he studied and later taught, published an obituary. I'll read an excerpt:


    Achtemeier earned his bachelor of divinity and doctor of theology degrees at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. He spent more than four decades teaching at colleges and seminaries in the United States and Europe, including Elmhurst, Lancaster Theological Seminary and the Graduate School of Ecumenical Studies of the World Council of Churches in Switzerland. For 24 years, he was a professor at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Richmond, where he retired in 1997 as Herbert Worth and Annie H. Jackson Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation.
    Clearly a distinguished and learned scholar. He was a prolific writer having written 18 books and numerous scholarly journals. For the purpose of today's review, he is both the author of the commentary on Romans and also the New Testament Editor for the entire series, "Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching".
    I can't comment on the entire series but this commentary on Romans certainly is aimed at the teacher. At the end of every chapter, Achtemeier signals the teacher or preacher. He offers guidance for the Sunday school class or the pulpit.
    "This is what the passage says, this is not what the passage says, here are some other useful Bible passages, you can connect them in this way, here are some questions to ask the people, here is how you can encourage, warn, guide and lead them to Christ."
    For pastors who plan around the lectionary, you will like how he relates the passage to Lent, Advent, Pentecost and so on.
    God's Lordship and The Problem...
    The book is divided into four parts, each part broken down into many chapters to cover all 16 chapters of Romans. The four parts are:
    1. God's Lordship and the Problem of the Past: Grace and Wrath
    2. God's Lordship and the Problem of the Present: Grace and Law
    3. God's Lordship and the Problem of the Future: Israel and God's Gracious Plan
    4. God's Lordship and the Problem of the Daily Living: Grace and the Structures of Life

    That's the outline of the book, now the outline of today's review. The bulk of today's review will be on two major criticisms. The list is long but I have narrowed down to the two issues that run through the whole book. Then I will spend some time to talk about it's redeeming features and conclude with how you can benefit from this book.
    So let's move on to the first of my criticism.
    Righteousness Is Not God Declaring You Are Just
    When it comes to Romans, the key is to understand what does "righteousness" mean. 500 years ago, Roman Catholic Europe was turned upside down because faithful Bible students discovered that "the righteous shall live by faith" did not mean it is do-gooders who are saved.
    Rather, the righteousness of God described here refers to the righteousness that Christ imputed to us. This is the Great Exchange, we gave Jesus our sins and he gave us his righteousness, and so we live by faith.
    Knowing the history of the Reformation, we should be alert when anyone offers a different definition of "righteousness". Not because it's wrong. We don't know whether it's wrong until we study it. We should be alert because we are approaching a non-trivial definition that affects not only our interpretation of Romans but also the framework of our faith.
    The Reformation gave us a definition of righteousness which is sometimes described as forensic or legal. When God sees us, he sees Jesus, thus God declares us to be just.
    Achtemeier writes:
    The difficulty with such an understanding of “righteousness” is that God appears to regard us as something we are not, that is, sinless. Some have wanted to say God regards us “as if” we had no sin, but then God’s judgment is based on an untruth, hardly what one would expect from a just and impartial God. The second problem lies in the fact that Paul can say God is “righteous,” and one must then wonder who is in a position to pass judgment on God and say that he has conformed to some legal norm. If this is juridical terminology, who has brought God into court to try him, to see whether he can “justify” himself and can then pronounce him righteous?
    My quick answers to the two problems:
    No matter how you define righteousness, a Christian understanding of God will always show a just God forgiving sinners who don't deserve grace and mercy. We sin but Jesus paid the price. God rewards Jesus for his obedience until death. Why should I gain from His reward?
    In Psalm 51:7, David pleads, "Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." Is this not alluding to a purity, a sinlessness, that only God can provide, and that through Jesus Christ?
    Next problem: "If righteousness is juridicial terminology, who has brought God into court to try him?"
    The idea of bringing God to court horrifies us but we should not let that image play on our piety and frame the argument in error. Listen to Hebrews 6:13:
    For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself,
    If God can swear by himself, is it really so wrong for God to declare himself righteousness?
    Righteousness Is A Relationship
    Since Achtemeier rejects righteousness in a legal sense, what is his definition? He refers to how righteousness is regularly used in the Old Testament to refer to the covenant. So he defines:
    To be “just” or “righteous” is to uphold the covenant; to be “unrighteous” is to act in such a way that the covenant is broken. In that context, righteousness is used to describe a relationship. What upholds the relationship is “righteous”; what destroys the relationship is “unrighteous.”
    He backs this up with scholarly support. There is some merit to seeing righteousness as a relationship. But in supporting this definition, does he go too far to utterly reject another? He writes:
    All of this means “righteousness” is not a “quality” or a conformity to some legal norm. Rather, it is a positive relationship to God growing out of his power to restore through Jesus Christ his gracious lordship over us, a lordship which our idolatrous rebellion had turned into a wrathful lordship.
    This is my first encounter with this righteousness is a relationship definition. And I foresee, for the coming years, when this review is long forgotten, I will test this definition against Scripture. But I wonder, clearly our covenantal relationship with God is linked to righteousness but is it the definition?
    When I say I am righteous at home, righteous in marriage, righteous with my wife, there is little tone or shade of a covenantal relationship. When I say I am righteous, it sounds like a boast. I have not done anything wrong. Nobody hears me and thinks, "He is righteous in the marriage means his relationship with his wife is good." Having said that, I accept that it is possible that the Bible defines righteousness in a technical way that refers to relationships but look forward to see how Achtemeier defends it.
    And so we reach an especially juicy passage, Romans 5:16-17:
    And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    What is this free gift? I understood the free gift to be Christ's righteousness which is mine by faith. I am now gloriously clothed in the royal robes of Christ.
    What is this free gift to Achtemeier? Is the free gift an unbroken relationship? But there must be a basis for the restored relationship, right? Of course, that is faith in Christ. Yes, that is the basis, but what has changed? How has faith in Christ changed the relationship. God is still holy. I am still... sinful?
    Perhaps the next verse in Romans will shed some light. Romans 5:18 says:
    Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
    I can understand act of righteousness to mean a good act, a sinless act but I don't know how to read act of righteousness as an act of an unbroken relationship. Maybe that's not how Achtemeier interprets it and I am making a fool of myself. Let's just hear from Achtemeier.
    Except he doesn't go into it. This is not a verse-by-verse commentary. Exposition is written as essays covering large swathe of verses. Achtemeier has a chapter on Romans 5:12-21, he titles it, "Adam and Christ: Disobedience and Obedience".
    The focus of the essay is on the contrast between Adam and Christ. He has already explained righteousness-as-a-relationship in earlier chapters and he refers eager readers to various scholarly works. So maybe he thinks he doesn't need to expound on Romans 5 anymore. I think he is badly mistaken. Surely he knows that this is a passage to counter his definition and is worthy of a defence. What is the free gift? What is the act of righteousness? I wish Achtemeier had explained.
    At the risk of sounding harsh, he seems to take the easy verses which amply support his definition but he avoids the hard verses that complicate his interpretation.
    Predestination, Election, Hardening, So Maddening
    Let's move away from righteousness and go to my second critique which is in Part Three of his book, which covers Romans 9-11. This is a battleground for many faithful Christians which is why we should expect commentators to give their best effort in exposition.
    Who is Romans 9-11 dealing with? Is it peoples, specifically Israel, or individuals? The question is whether this is corporate election or individual election. If the verses refers to individual election, then they strongly support a view that God determines who will be saved.
    This is a big, big, question. Too big to take on in this book review podcast. I promise you, I will give you good resources to tackle this topic before the episode ends. Because I will not be tackling the topic directly, instead I will demonstrate the frustrating way Achtemeier deals with it.
    In his commentary on Romans 9:14-29, he writes:
    Paul knows, to be sure, of the danger which exists if one resists God’s gracious offer of mercy to us rebellious creatures. If we reject that offer of mercy, we run the risk that God will honor our choice. But nowhere does Paul hint that such refusal is willed, let alone predetermined, by God. Were it so, the apostolic office would be a sham; and the proclamation of God’s gracious act in Jesus of Nazareth and its call to trust in the One whom Jesus called “Father” would be a snare and a delusion.
    Later he writes:
    The passage is therefore about the enlargement of God’s mercy to include gentiles, not about the narrow and predetermined fate of each individual.
    Achtemeier writes as if it is obvious that the first half (the enlargement of God's mercy to include gentiles) negates the second (predeterminism of each individual) but it is possible that the first half encompasses the second.
    I don't know anybody who would deny that Romans teaches that God's mercy is now extended to the Gentiles. So bring all the heavy guns you want, I am already a believer. The question is whether the verses can be interpreted as, what Achtemeier calls, predeterminism.
    And I look for the argument that nullifies predeterminism. I only see repetition of assertions, telling us how terrible it would be if it were true. But there is no death blow to predeterminism, only indignation. Worse, he shoots himself in the foot.
    A few chapters later, he comments on Romans 11:1-12. Let me read Romans 11:7-8 first and then Achtemeier's comment. This is Romans 11:7-8.
    Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
    Isn't hardening people to reject salvation a form of predeterminism? Knowing his views on that, what do you expect Achtemeier to say? He writes:
    God is in control. He hardens whom he will. Israel has been hardened. What other conclusion is there than that God has hardened them? No other, and Paul is ready to concede that point (v. 8). Indeed, how could he not concede it, since Scripture itself, to which Paul so readily attributes authority in these matters, says that very thing. God has hardened a part of Israel (vv. 8–9). He has dimmed their eyes and stopped up their ears, and the inevitable result is that they have missed the import of God’s act in Christ.
    Nowhere does he explain how God, who he concedes, has personally, actively, hardened individuals within Israel, is the same God, who he claims, does not predetermine any individual's fate?
    He never explains! Instead, he goes on about the impact of the hardening, so that Israel might be jealous; the purpose of the hardening, so that they might be saved. That's what Paul wrote but, come on, surely anyone can see there is a knot to be untangled here.
    I am not saying that God's hardening of Israel is a slam dunk. I have heard good explanations for this. What I am saying is Achtemeier seems oblivious to the need to defend his interpretation for crucial verses in Romans.
    This commentary does not do enough to prepare the preacher for what happens after he comes down from the pulpit. What is he going to say when someone asks, "Pastor, if God does not predetermine any individual's fate, then why does the Bible say God hardened parts of Israel?"
    There are answers to that question but they are not found in this book.
    It's Not All Bad (Not Exactly A Rousing Recommendation)
    I know I have spent a lot of time on the criticisms but I think it reveals the main doctrinal contention and also his approach to some of the tough questions.
    But the book is not all bad.
    When Achtemeier expounds on verses that deal with who we are and who we should be, he is very good.
    In Romans 2, there is a danger that Paul's harsh criticism of the Jews would lead to smugness in us. Achtemeier rightly warns us of this.
    In Romans 13, on Christians and the government, he poses the problem of evil government, and rebellious citizens. He explains the role of government according to Scripture and honestly, humbly, states that it is not so clear cut at what point the Christian is to refuse to obey the government.
    And I just want to say again, his instructor's guide at the end of every chapter is helpful.
    Not Recommended
    You can sense that I won't be making a strong recommendation for this commentary. I had a hard time reading this book, and not just because I had to figure out in my head his and my theological positions. It's tough going because asserts something and I have to read and re-read a whole essay to see whether he addresses my concerns and I find that he fails to defend when he should.
    This should not be your main commentary for Romans. If you only have money for one or two or three commentaries, I would recommend Douglas Moo or Thomas Schreiner.
    But if you are flushed with cash and there is space in your bookshelf, physical or digital, then Paul J. Achtemeier's commentary on Romans gives an alternative perspective on key doctrines. The problem is even if you hold his positions, he does not make a good case for them.
    That's the end of my review on Achtemeier's commentary but I did promise resources for the corporate vs. individual election question. So here goes.
    In another commentary, "Romans: A Concise Guide to the Greatest Letter Ever Written" by Andrew David Naselli, which I reviewed in Episode 55, Naselli had even less space to discuss the debate, so he left it as a footnote. But what a great footnote!
    Naselli recommends readers to read this exchange between Thomas Schreiner and Brian Abasciano. Schreiner wrote a paper titled, "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?" Abasciano writes a paper titled, "Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner". Schreiner then writes, "Corporate and Individual Election in Romans 9: A Response to Brian Abasciano". I read all three papers, I enjoyed the back and forth and if anyone wants to do a deep dive into the topic, this is the gold standard for that vigorous debate.
    Outro
    This is a Reading and Reader's review of a commentary on Romans written by Paul J. Achtemeier from the Interpretation Bible Commentary series. 256 pages, published by Westminster John Knox Press in 1986. I struggled to finish the book which explains why today's review is not in time for people to grab it as a free book from Logos. It was free in October. Now it's November. If you missed it, just make sure you don't miss the November deal.
    Thank you for listening. Bye bye.
    Book List
    Romans, Interpretation Bible Commentary, by Paul J. Achtemeier. Amazon. Logos.

    33 min
  • A Christian's Guide to Mental Illness by David Murray and Tom Karel Jr.

    If you need a guide to navigate through mental illness for yourself or someone you know. Today's book is for you.
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "A Christian's Guide to Mental Illness: Answers to 30 Common Questions" by David Murray and Tom Karel Jr. 256 pages, published by Crossway in September 2023. Available in Amazon for USD21.99. I got a free review copy from Crossway. Crossway has no input on today's review.
    Those Who Help and Have Been Helped
    By way of introducing the authors, let me quote them:


    As the authors of this book, we want to assure readers that God is our hope and help. For a combined total of about fifty years, we’ve both been involved in helping Christians with mental illness and their families. Tom has served as a psychologist in a Christian healthcare setting and David has served as a pastor, counselor, and professor of counseling, as well as authoring various books on the subject.
    Later they write:
    We approach this problem as Christians who not only believe but who have experienced that God provides hope and help for Christians with mental illness and those who care for them. While mental illness often has spiritual consequences, it is rarely only a spiritual problem that can be fixed simply with repentance and faith. God provides hope and help through his word and a word-based view of his world. This word-directed, holistic approach is the most honoring to God and the most beneficial for sufferers and their families.
    Question Time
    The book is organised around 30 questions. I will not read out all 30 questions here but let me read a few.
    The first question is, "What is Mental Illness?" After answering that, they answer related questions on the different kinds of mental illnesses, its causes and effects.
    Here is a good question. "Can a Christian have mental illness?"
    Have you heard people say that "If you are a Christian, then you should not have mental health issues. You just need to read the Bible more, pray more, trust God more and all that mental illness problem will go away."
    Well, the authors have a good answer to that if you are willing to take it.
    Bruce Lee
    As I go down the list of questions in the table of contents, I thought of a quote:
    A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
    That's not from Proverbs. That's from Bruce Lee. None of the questions here are foolish, but we can definitely learn a lot from the 30 questions they chose here.
    For instance, it's clear that Murray and Karel have a holistic approach. Some push the sufferers to mental health professionals. "You can take care of it because I am not qualified to." Others push it to the pastors maybe because pastors are in the business of counselling, healing and miracles. While others say it's a social or relational problem, you just need to stick the fellow within a circle of loving family and friends.
    The authors think everyone has a role. We have dedicated chapters on the role of pastors, family and friends, mental health professionals, biblical counsellors and also medication in helping the mentally ill.
    Then we have a whole list of questions on how to deal with mental illness. And if you pay attention to the verbs, you might notice that the authors don't use the words solve, cure, or manage. Instead they use verbs like discern, help, avoid, care, prepare, minister.
    And some of these questions may not occur to you. As you are grappling with how to deal with the mentally ill, you may not be asking yourself, "How can we help him grow spiritually? How can we help her serve in the church?"
    The authors do not shy away from scary questions. They ask, "How can we help someone who is suicidal?" They direct our attention to ones often forgotten, "How can we care for caregivers?" And the last question in the book is an audacious one, "What good comes out of mental illness?" How can any good come out of something so terrible? If anyone else had tried to talk about the good that comes out of mental illness, we might throw him out. How dare he?
    But because we have read Murray and Karel's answers to previous questions, answers that come from a God-loving, people-loving heart, we trust that they know know how important it is to answer this question and answer it well.
    Story Behind The Book
    The book ends with a chapter titled, "The Story behind This Book". The chapter begins like this:
    When Norman Van Mersbergen’s brother, Gary, died from complications of schizophrenia, a small legacy of about $70,000 was realized from his estate. Due to their painful experience of trying to care for Gary through these traumatic years, Norman and his wife, Vicki, felt called of God to donate this money to a research project that would ultimately help Christians care for other Christians with mental illness. They reached out to Dr. David Murray, then a professor of counseling, and along with Ed Stetzer they pulled together a team from Lifeway and Focus on the Family to research this neglected subject. The resulting research is the foundation of this book. Here is a little of Norman’s (and Vicki’s) story.
    It's a sobering story. In previous chapters we get bits and pieces of different peoples's experiences with mental illness. This one is different. Here we have the life story of a man suffering through mental illness. And how it affects the people around him. It's not a fairy tale story, it will not fit with how some people, even Christians, think a Christians life with mental illness should be. It's a brief story, but it shows paradoxically how the 30 questions are helpful and ultimately not helpful enough. Not helpful because it's not enough just to know the answers, it's hard.
    Mental Illness and Spiritual Life
    That's a broad look at what to expect, let me narrow down by sharing a few tidbits from a chapter. Chapter 6 is "How Does Mental Illness Affect Spiritual Life?"
    Consider this important point:
    First, when mental illness is a sickness, it is a mistake to condemn such suffering as sin. Such misclassification turns a sufferer into a sinner, heaps false guilt on the person, and multiplies her suffering. Second, and just as damaging, is when mental illness is even partly caused by personal sin but is blamed on sickness alone. In this case, false comfort may be offered, turning a sinner into a sufferer, and depriving the person of the healing power of repentance and faith in Christ.
    This is probably what I will remember long after this review is done. Don't turn a sinner into a sufferer, nor turn a sufferer into a sinner. Again, we get a holistic, a whole physical, mental, emotional and spiritual, handle of mental illness.
    This is also the chapter that helped me relate better to those with mental illness.
    This next part spoke to me:
    For most people, especially men, sleep deprivation vastly increases the likelihood of conflict. We get grumpy, impatient, and bad-tempered. We withdraw from social situations and have no time even for close friends. We just want to be left alone. If we don’t want to be with people or talk to them, it is unlikely we will want to be with God or speak with him.
    Recently, I am going through sleep problems. So I truly get what this is saying. Then they link it to mental illness, like so:
    Mental illness tends to have a similar effect. When our thoughts, moods, and physical health are disordered, it is almost impossible for that not to injure our relationships. As our most important relationship is with God, we can expect that mental illness is going to undermine that relationship in a similar way.
    A little bit of empathy goes a long way. And for Christians who tend to tell others to suck it up, maybe it's good to remember how difficult or impossible it is to just suck it up. Maybe they still have to, but empathy helps us approach it in the right spirit.
    In every chapter, the authors give a summary that includes some action items. For this chapter, one of the action item reads:
    Think through how your last physical illness influenced your spiritual life.
    And just like that, this exercise can help you be a better person to help those with mental illness.
    As I mentioned earlier, every chapter ends with a personal story and in this chapter we have a paragraph of David Murray's reflection on how he used to look at mental illness and how he looks at it today.
    I found the choice of stories in the book interesting in how uninteresting they are. We don't have a man who mistook his wife for a hat or anything that would grab headlines.
    It's just ordinary people dealing with everyday life, a life made complicated by mental illness. And hopefully Christians will make helping them an ordinary thing as well.
    Book Better Than Q&A
    Let us now move to my general thoughts on the book.
    The style and format of the book fits with a website's Q&A. You click on a question, and you get an answer well-written for the general, non-specialist, audience in a helpful, non-condemning, tone. So why turn it into a book rather than a website?
    I am sure there are many reasons, but from a reader's perspective, a book gives you something that a website does not. With a book, you are expected to read cover to cover and for many people, I think that's what you need.
    You may have some pre-conception of what is mental illness and how to deal with it. The problem is you don't know what you don't know. What the authors offer here is a series of questions, questions that they consider most important to guide Christians on mental illness. Questions that may never have come across your mind and now have an opportunity to hear the answer from Christian mental health experts.
    Christian, underline, Christian
    I would like to underline that Christian part. If you Google search what you want to know about any mental illness, you will get tons of helpful advice from professors to sufferers.
    That part is easy. I think the hard part is finding information on mental health from Christians who don't sound like they have a problem with mental health problems.
    There are many Christians, including pastors, who would make light of mental health. There are Christians, including pastors, who don't know how to deal with it, they don't see it as their problem, you have to go see a mental health professional because they are the only ones that can help you.
    By no means, not all Christians are like that, this book is proof of that. But when you are searching online, you just don't know whether what you are reading is coming from Christians, pastors, who know what they are talking about. God-loving, God-fearing Christians, who have studied mental illness, helped people with mental illness and have themselves suffered through mental illness.
    If you are looking for a good Christian resource on mental illness that is not coming from extreme ends of the spectrum, I can tell you right now, you just got to get this book.
    Who is this Book for?    This is not a book for those who need detailed knowledge of the disease. If you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, this book does not nearly go into enough details to help you with that specific illness.
    But if you have just been diagnosed, maybe even in denial, or shame, wondering what this means for your faith and salvation, then this book is for you.
    If you know someone struggling with mental illness, whether you are a pastor, family member, friend, mental health professional, biblical counsellor, then this book is a good start to see how different people can work together. It's not all on the pastor. It's not all on the family. It's all on the therapist. We can all play a part to help a brother, a sister in Christ overcome this trial.
    Maybe what we are looking for is assurance.
    Let me end today's review with the book's answer to the question, "Are they saved?" How can we know when the fruit of their faith is questionable? Under the subsection, "There are Truths to Comfort the Heart", they write:
    Salvation is God’s work from before time began until time is no more and everything in between (Rom.8:28–29). This means that salvation is God’s work, not ours or anyone else’s, and therefore it is not dependent on a person’s work or even their sanity. God can preserve a person’s faith even when we cannot or they cannot. He can give a person with mental illness more faith than those who have full control of their faculties. This is where a strong view of God’s sovereignty in salvation can give more hope than some theological views that major on functioning human reason and “free will.”
    I have never considered the question of mental illness and salvation. And before this book, I never saw how God's Sovereignty was the comfort and answer to that question. How great is our Sovereign Lord! How wonderful are his ways!
    Outro
    This is a Reading and Readers review of "A Christian's Guide to Mental Illness: Answers to 30 Common Questions" by David Murray and Tom Karel Jr. 256 pages, published by Crossway in September 2023. Available in Amazon for USD21.99. I got a free review copy from Crossway. They have no input on today's review.

    29 min
  • When Worlds Collide: Where is God? by R.C. Sproul

    9/11 was a singular event. For a moment it united America like nothing else did. It shaped America in politics, war and religion. Today's book was written within a year of the event. Now 20 years later, are the words written for America then helpful for all Christians today?
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "When Worlds Collide: Where is God?" by R.C. Sproul. 96 pages, published by Crossway in September 2002. The hardcopy is available for USD6.14 in Amazon. It's USD2.99 in Logos but only for September. So get it before the deal ends.
    September 11, 2001
    This book was written in the aftermath of terrorists hijacking planes, crashing them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
    The book opens with these words:


    As I am writing, the United States of America is at war. It is possible that by the time you read this book the war will be over.
    Sproul describes a united America, Americans planting American flags, Americans telling one another "God Bless America!"
    If we could transport one of those Americans to today, he would be dumbstruck. Today we have Americans calling each other terrorists. Americans sounding like they want to kill each other. Americans making a shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
    With the benefit of 20 years behind us, today's book, "When Worlds Collide" gives us a theological perspective of the country's response to this national tragedy when the pain was raw. Sproul offers comfort, but a comfort many would reject. He offers condemnation, a condemnation not limited to the terrorists. To a shell-shocked people, Sproul defies convention to deliver a powerful prophetic message.
    Was that message heard? Is it still valid today? Keep listening.
    War of Ideas
    The book is divided into six chapters. I will sprint through each chapter. I will pick up and throw you an idea, a question or a bible verse. My aim is to show you how the book progresses and hopefully entice you to read it for yourself.
    Chapter 1 is titled "War of Ideas". It would be easy for Sproul to target Muslims. Or if he doesn't want to get personal, he could target Islam as a religion, philosophy or worldview. But he doesn't. Instead, Sproul sees the conflict, not as Christianity vs. Islam, or West vs. East but as God vs. Anything-But-God.
    He writes:
    Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, there has been much public discussion about the role of God in our lives, and we have seen an unprecedented response of the American people in prayer and public worship. Suddenly, the God who had been exiled from the public square, who had been banished to the other side of the wall that separates church and state, was called upon to get back into the game.
    Sounds good right? But he continues on.
    It became fashionable for the nation to stage religious rallies featuring film stars, politicians, and clerics. Televised worship services called upon the nation to put aside theological differences and come together in a show of religious unity. Ecumenism got a shot in the arm as cooperation went beyond interdenominational Christian worship to worship among people of entirely different religions. The upside of renewed religious zeal was matched with the downside of syncretism.
    While people are clamouring for everyone to come together, Sproul calls Christians to unite in the Gospel. Christianity must not be relegated to be the same as all other religions despite everyone's good intentions.
    I love this next part. It shows Sproul's insight and classic wit.
    Nothing is more “un-American” than to have an exclusive understanding of God. Yet nothing is more fundamental to the biblical concept of monotheism than the exclusivity of the God of heaven and earth. In 1 Kings 18 we read of the prophet Elijah engaging in a contest with the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel. But try to imagine Elijah giving an interview to the media assembled to watch this contest. Imagine him speaking into a microphone, saying, “Well, you know, at the end of the day, I and the prophets of Baal really worship the same God. We believe in the same religion. We just do it differently. Our religious activity is not the same. There are elements in the religion of Baal that are different from the elements of the religion of Israel, but surely the God of Israel doesn’t mind. In fact, He’s honored when we celebrate our religious unity.” Can you imagine anything more foreign to the teaching of sacred Scripture than that?
    In a time of war and amidst calls of solidarity, Sproul not only calls true believers to hold the doctrinal line, he sharpens the divide.
    He asks the question that immediately comes after a tragedy hits, "Where is God?"
    God has never left and we ask that question because we don't know who he is.
    Peace and Calamity
    In Chapter 2, "Peace and Calamity", Sproul asks, "Does God Only Bless?" He points us to Isaiah 45:6-7:
    I am the LORD, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.
    Every thinking Christian will sooner or later wrestle with how a good and all powerful God in a world where people crash planes into buildings. And the rest of the daily tragedies we numb ourselves to.
    Did God mean for all these bad things to happen?
    Sproul writes:
    If God did not ordain all things, He would not be sovereign over all things. And if He is not sovereign over all things, then He is not God at all.
    What a terrible thought! Is Sproul saying that God made it happen? He caused this to happen? Isn't it more accurate to say: "God permits or allows bad things to happen".
    But if you just think about it, saying God allowed it to happen does not let God off the moral hook.
    Consider this: a policeman who does nothing when a crime happens in front of him is morally wrong. He did not do the crime but he was powerful enough to stop it but he didn't. And God can stop every single bad thing from ever occurring. God could have struck each one of those terrorists dead the same way he struck Uriah who touched the Ark of the Covenant, or Annanias and Sapphira who lied, or King Herod who accepted praise that he was a god. God could but didn't, which means he wanted or ordained it to happen as it did.
    I don't blame anyone from pushing back on this. Sproul doesn't go deep enough in this book to answer your doubts. I recommend Scott Christensen's book, "What About Free Will? Reconciling Our Choices with God's Sovereignty", which is where I got the policeman illustration from.
    Assuming you can accept that God allows or ordains calamities, then what is the purpose?
    For that, we turn to chapter 3, "Purpose in Suffering".
    Purpose in Suffering
    How do we make sense of senseless tragedies like 9/11? First of all, Sproul points out, there are no senseless tragedies. They may be senseless from our perspective but from God's perspective, there is a divine reason.
    Two Bible stories make this clear. Sproul unpacks in detail what I can only do briefly here.
    The first story is the story of Joseph. Joseph famously told his wretched brothers, "You meant it for evil but God intended it for good." What the brothers did was bad. Clearly, bad. Yet, we also say that God ordained it to happen for His own purpose which Joseph at first did not understand, but later did. God could have struck them all down the moment they thought of killing Joseph but God did not because he wanted Joseph to save everyone.
    The second story is the story of Jesus. Jesus was crucified on the cross. The people who did it were evil. But God wanted it to happen. God could have opened up the earth and swallowed them all up, God could have sent his army of angels to rescue Jesus, God could have done so much more for his Son, but God did not, because he wanted Jesus to save everyone.
    Drawing from the Bible, Sproul gives us God's perspective on our pain. If we know that God has a purpose in our tragedies, we can lean on God, just as all the saints before us have done.
    And just as everyone is getting used to God being in control, Sproul throws in another bombshell and says God's wrath is not limited to those terrorists on the plane.
    The Grapes of Wrath
    Chapter 4 is titled "The Grapes of Wrath". He unpacks Revelation 14:18-20:
    And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia.
    Sproul writes:
    We think of September 11, 2001, as the greatest day of calamity in the history of the United States of America, but that day of calamity is not worthy to be compared with the day of calamity that God says will come in the future when the grapes of wrath are thrown into the winepress and are trampled by His judgment.
    Hey, Sproul, aren't you supposed to be condemning the terrorists, why are throwing God's Wrath against us in our faces?
    I think it was brave, I will call it brave, for Sproul to write such things so soon after 9/11. I am sure he preached this on his pulpit. But I wonder, would he preach on God's wrath in the funeral service of the victims? Can you see how such a message while the pain is so raw can be seen as insensitive at best, monstrous at worst?
    Which is why we must have chapter 5, where Jesus awaits.
    Finding Peace
    Chapter 5 is titled, "Finding Peace". We soon read Luke 13:1-5.
    There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
    Sproul writes:
    I wonder if Jesus could get away with remarks like that in twenty-first-century America? In the midst of tragedy, instead of bringing comfort and hope, Jesus was saying, “Don’t look at those people as being worse than you are, because as long as you maintain a posture of impenitence toward God, you also will perish.”
    The rest of the chapter is a Gospel plea. Sproul demonstrates our need for a saviour and only Jesus saves. Ah, the glory of the cross.
    Sproul could have ended the book here, but he gives us one final chapter, the epilogue.
    Epilogue: Resolve in Warfare
    The book begins at Ground Zero, at the tragedy of 9/11. Then Sproul takes the reader's hand and leads him to process what has happened, telling us that the answer is not found by looking deeper within but looking upward to God. And having scaled the remarkable heights of God's goodness, wrath and sovereignty, at the epilogue Sproul, like an angel who returns a saint from Heaven back to Earth, brings us back to Ground Zero.
    He writes:
    To maintain resolve in a civil war or in a world war is a different matter from maintaining resolve in a war against terrorism. In the first six months following 9/11, the nation went through the throes of pain and anger, and there was a surge of patriotism. Stores quickly sold out of American flags. Indeed, citizens displayed more flags in their yards, on their cars, even in lapel buttons, than we have seen since World War II. However, in recent months the number of flags being displayed has been dramatically reduced. The surge of resolve has passed, perhaps waning until another attack against us.
    We know that there were no further attacks like 9/11 since. But reading how Sproul ended this book, we are reminded of the fear and anxiety that gripped America then.
    This hints at what Sproul offers that other books can't.
    Theodicy of A Specific Event
    This book introduces God's Providence and the Problem of Suffering.
    If you struggle with "The God who ordains even bad things to happen", and I completely understand the horror of the thought, I truly do, I suggest John Piper's 700 page magnum opus, "Providence". That book may help you reach a conclusion or start a journey of discovery, in any case, it's the most comprehensive and readable book on God's Providence. You can read my review in Episode 7.
    If you struggle with suffering, I recommend D.A. Carson's "How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil". One thing I learnt from that book is the best time to read a book on suffering is not during suffering but before. I have taken Carson's advice to heart.
    But both of these book don't focus on a specific event. Maybe instead of something general you want to see how a Christian can process a tragedy.
    And there are bookshelves full of books on personal tragedies, but there are not as many written on a public, national-level tragedy that is shared by all.
    In fact, the only book that comes to mind is Augustine's City of God, written after Rome fell. But that happened so long ago, Augustine's writing is difficult to understand and his book is too big. The Penguin Classic edition is 1152 pages long.
    Other that City of God, I can't think of any other book that deals with the theology or the theodicy of a major national tragedy. Surely there must be one. If you know of any, please let me know, via Twitter or the contact form in my website at Readingandreaders.com.
    Thus, from where I'm sitting, Sproul's "When Worlds Collide" offers a unique look on how Christians can and should respond to something like 9/11. We don't have to be swept up by the waves of sentimental unity or furious condemnation. We can remain anchored in the transcendent truth found in Scripture.
    Does this mean that pastors should not join inter-faith or inter-denominational services? For one thing, I don't think they should be called services. But knowing what the Bible says, how Jesus responded to a question on a tragedy, helps us navigate these difficult questions.
    Questions like, "Is 9/11 God's judgment on America?" Sproul did not approve of those who insisted it was. He just said, "I don't know" but he doesn't count it out either.
    Another question, which forms the subtitle of the book is: "Where is God?" And to that question, thanks to Sproul, we have certainty. God did not go on a holiday. God was not caught off guard when it happened. God knows, God is in control. He remains all powerful and all present. He is still God, and there is no other. Give praise to the Lord!
    Conclusion
    This is a Reading and Reader's review of "When Worlds Collide: Where is God?" by R.C. Sproul. 96 pages, published by Crossway in September 2002. The hardcopy is available for USD6.14 in Amazon. For September, you can get the ebook in Logos for USD2.99. Last Day to get it!
    Another deeply discounted book for September is "The Grace of Repentance" by Sinclair Ferguson. It is USD6.49 via Amazon Kindle but USD0.99 via Logos in September. I read it, I like it but I don't know whether I will be able to review it. In case I don't, I will just say, I never knew how medieval our modern life was such that everything Martin Luther was upset about in his time so inexplicably speaks to our problems today.
    Hope you enjoyed today's episode. Thanks for listening. Bye bye.
    Book List
    • When Worlds Collide: Where is God? by R.C. Sproul. Amazon. Logos.

    31 min
  • Doctrines of Grace by James M. Boice and Philip G. Ryken

    Do you know what are the Doctrines of Grace? If you are not a Calvinist, you might fumble and try to recall your pastor's sermon on grace. If you are a Calvinist, the Doctrines of Grace means something specific. Whether you are a Calvinist or not, this book has something to offer, and today's episode will give you one tidbit to take home.
    Hi, my name is Terence and I'm your host for Reading and Readers a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review "The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel" by James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken. 240 pages, published by Crossway in April 2009. It's available in Amazon Kindle for USD9.99 and it's a free ebook in Logos.com for September.
    R.C. Sproul wrote the foreword. This is how he opened the book:


    I have often wondered how my ministry would change if I were to hear a prognosis from my physician that I had a terminal disease and only months or weeks left to live. Would I retire from active ministry to care solely for my own needs? Would I try to continue ministry with a renewed sense of urgency? Would my messages be more bold?
    I don’t know the answers to these questions. But I do know what Jim Boice did when the above scenario became real to him. From the day he learned he was dying of cancer to his actual demise, the span of time was a mere six weeks. Forty-two days. The last two of those weeks he was bedridden and extremely weak. While the virulent disease was sapping his strength daily, Dr. Boice called upon a reservoir of strength in his own soul, a strength quickened and sustained by the grace of God, to continue writing hymns and this present volume. He did not live long enough to see this work completed but was encouraged by the assurance that his colleague Dr. Philip Ryken would complete it for him.
    This book was written by a man who called upon a reservoir of strength in his own soul, a strength quickened and sustained by the grace of God.
    It is fitting that Jim Boice breathed his last writing on the doctrines most dear to his heart.
    The Doctrines of Grace are also known by the acronym TULIP: T for Total Depravity, U for Unconditional Election, L for Limited Atonement, I for Irresistible Grace and P for Perseverance of the Saints.
    James Montgomery Boice was the senior pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Jim Boice as he was known, passed away in 2000 and is still fondly remembered by many within Reformed circles.
    Philip Graham Ryken is the 8th president of Wheaton College and was the senior minister at Tenth Presbyterian Church. What a coincidence!
    Both men are respected pastors, teachers and theologians, well-positioned to write a book on the Doctrines of Grace.
    If the foreword by Sproul was an eulogy, then the introduction by Ryken is a rally cry. I quote:
    Readers will find that this is a polemical book. By this I mean that it argues for a theological position -- Calvinism as set over against Arminianism. It is our conviction that evangelicalism is in desperate need of the best kind of Calvinism. It was Dr. Boice’s intention for this book to mount a vigorous defense of Reformed theology while at the same time maintaining the highest standards of Christian charity.
    Throughout the book, the line is drawn. For example, on election, they summarise the Arminian position as thus:
    Therefore, the ultimate cause of salvation is not God’s choice of the sinner but the sinner’s choice of God.
    Part One: The Doctrines of Grace
    You would think they would start the book with a thorough exposition of Scripture. Uncharacteristically, they make the pragmatic claim first. Calvinism is good for the church and thus, good for the world.
    Part One: The Doctrines of Grace
    1. Why Evangelicalism Needs Calvinism
    2. What Calvinism Does In History

    Chapter one begins with a quote from B.B. Warfield:
    The world should realize with increased clearness that Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism.
    And if I have any non-Calvinist listeners still listening, consider whether what comes next is more palatable.
    By “Evangelicalism,” Warfield essentially meant what German Lutherans meant when they first started using the term during the Protestant Reformation: a church founded on the gospel, the good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And when Warfield spoke of “Calvinism,” he was referring to the Protestant Reformation, with its insistence on justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.
    And a bit later...
    What Warfield was really saying, therefore, is something that every Christian should and must believe: the gospel stands or falls by grace.
    If the authors equate Calvinism with grace, then would rejecting Calvinism mean rejecting grace? The chapter continues on with the five points of Arminianism, followed by the five points of Calvinism, which is unpacked in Part Two of the book. And to answer the question on Calvinism and grace, the authors write:
    Calvinism presents salvation as the work of the triune God—election by the Father, redemption in the Son, calling by the Spirit. Furthermore, each of these saving acts is directed toward the elect, thereby infallibly securing their salvation. By contrast, Arminianism views salvation as something that God makes possible but that man makes actual. This is because the saving acts of God are directed toward different persons: the Son’s redemption is for humanity in general; the Spirit’s calling is only for those who hear the gospel; narrower still, the Father’s election is only for those who believe the gospel. Yet in none of these cases (redemption, calling, or election) does God actually secure the salvation of even one single sinner! The inevitable result is that rather than depending exclusively on divine grace, salvation depends partly on a human response.
    In chapter two, they write:
    If Calvinism is biblical, then we should expect to discover that the church has flourished whenever the doctrines of grace have been taught and practiced. By contrast, we should expect to discover that wherever and whenever these doctrines have come under assault, the church has suffered spiritual, moral, and social decline.
    They lay out the evidence from history. We have Calvin's Geneva, sin city to God's city. The Puritans we love, they were Calvinists. The Great Awakening, they were Calvinists (except for John Wesley, that guy was Arminian). Do we have anything more recent and less church-y? Abraham Kuyper, theologian cum Prime Minister of Holland. Then the authors show once Calvinism receded as the primary theology, the good times left. They write:
    The pathway from Calvinism to liberalism -- and even atheism -- is well worn, and it usually passes through Arminianism.
    The problem with arguing from history is people can pick and choose. After all, what does flourishing mean?
    The Roman Catholics could say that everybody was united until the Protestants came and broke the church into a thousand pieces.
    The Pentecostals and Charismatics would point to the numerous churches flourishing all over the world as a sign that their theology is relevant today.
    And some might point out that the collapse of Reformed in history is evidence of its innate deficiency.
    Calvinism in history is just the opening. Just as how non-Christians only think of Christians as gay-hating anti-science bigots, and not know that Christians build hospitals, orphanages and schools, so in the same way, non-Calvinists only think of Calvinists as in-your-face debaters, and not know that Calvinists make up the Puritans and that Calvinists have sacrificed their lives to bring the gospel of Christ to the lost.
    Just being aware of the history might temper one's attitude to Calvinism and maybe that's enough for you to hear the main part of the book: the biblical argument for Calvinism.
    Part Two: The Five Points
    In Part Two of the book we dive into the Five Points of Calvinism.
    Part Two: The Five Points 3. Radical Depravity 4. Unconditional Election 5. Particular Redemption 6. Efficacious Grace 7. Persevering Grace
    These chapters are solid presentations of the Doctrines of Grace, as you would come to expect from Jim Boice and Philip Ryken. The authors quote Scripture, expound Scripture and most importantly, consider opposing Scripture.
    For example, on the Calvinist insistence that salvation is solely God's choice and never Man's, some argue that the Bible clearly calls people to make a choice. Boice and Ryken know it. They quote Jesus in Matthew 11:28, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." And they respond by way of Augustine vs. Pelagius, Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will" and Jonathan Edward's "Freedom of the Will". Familiar name and books if you know the topic, and if you don't, Boice and Ryken give you good reasons to.
    The careful listener will note that the chapter headings are not TULIP. Limited Atonement is Particular Redemption also known as Definite Atonement. The authors comment that Christians balk at the word limited because it seems as if we are limiting God. A bit tongue in cheek, they suggest that if we call it Definite Atonement, the word definite declares that God had a definite goal and who would like to argue that God has an indefinite goal?
    For myself and 4-point Calvinists, we will not be satisfied by the name change.
    I have heard one argument for Limited Atonement that says God will not let one drop of Christ's blood go to waste. Therefore, Christ must have only died for the elect.
    In my mind, that tells me more about the speaker and not of God. God told Moses and the Israelites not to collect manna on a Sunday. But they did and the manna spoilt. If it was going to spoil, then God shouldn't have sent it from Heaven in the first place right? Or consider how Jesus feeds the 5000 and 7000 and there were basketfuls of leftovers. Or what about the healing that Jesus did in Bethsaida and Capernaum among people who did not believe in him. That's a waste of effort. Or an expression of God's bountiful grace and mercy.
    So I can agree with Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints, but I don't see why the blood of Jesus not cover the sins of the everyone. Boice and Ryken admit this is the majority view among Christians even amongst Presbyterians and Reformed.
    One of the things I like about this book is the authors are familiar with the argument so they are able to pre-empt objections, put aside the spurious ones and address the main issue.
    Early on, the authors clarify one common ground, they believe that the blood of Jesus was "more than sufficient to atone for all the sins of all the people in all the ages of this world."
    When I read this, I thought, wait a minute, I thought this was the main contention? Thus, I admit my ignorance of this doctrine.
    The authors then write:
    Unless a person is a genuine universalist, and believes that every individual eventually will be saved, he or she inevitably circumscribes the atonement. Either it is limited in its effects (Christ died for all, but not all get saved), or it is limited in its scope (Christ did not die for all, but all for whom he died will be saved).
    So people should not get hung up on the word limited because the atonement is either limited in effect or scope. I thought this was helpful. Continuing on.
    Loraine Boettner, who has written so many helpful books explaining Reformed theology, has compared the situation to two bridges. One is a very broad bridge, but it only goes halfway across the chasm. The other is a narrow bridge, but it spans the divide. When things are put this way, anyone can see that it is far better to have a narrow bridge that actually does the job. This is the Reformed position: that the narrow way of the Cross reaches all the way to salvation.
    What are your thoughts on that? I was surprised that the authors make this argument. First of all, the illustration of the very broad bridge is inaccurate because it's not a ten lane bridge that doesn't cross the chasm. It's a ten lane bridge where five lanes cross the chasm. Some do get saved.
    And the phrase, "Anyone can see that it is far better..." is making the illustration carry the heavy load of supporting the doctrine. And if anyone is convinced by that illustration, I would say you are too easily satisfied and I have other illustrations to sell you.
    They quote Spurgeon. I like Spurgeon. But the quote is heavy on polemic, not in substance. Surely, the authors can offer more than a half-way bridge and a Spurgeon quote.
    The authors tend to save the best for later. Listen to this:
    The real question is not whether the death of Jesus Christ has sufficient value to atone for the sins of the entire world, or whether his death benefits all people in some limited sense, or whether everyone will be saved. The real question concerns the design of the atonement; that is, what did God the Father actually intend to do in sending his Son to die for us?
    Later he summaries the three options as:
    Jesus’ death was not an actual atonement, but only something that makes atonement possible. The atonement becomes actual when the sinner repents of his or her sin and believes on Jesus.
    Jesus’ death was an actual atonement for the sins of God’s elect people with the result that these, and only these, are delivered from sin’s penalty.
    Jesus’ death was an actual atonement for the sin of all people with the result that all people are saved.
    We are not universalist, so we ignore the third option.
    So we are left to think what does the atonement actually mean, what does it actually achieve. Then Boice turns to how the Bible describes what Jesus did: Redemption, Propitiation, Reconciliation and Atonement.
    Boice then concludes:
    When we put these terms together, looking at their precise meanings, we see that Jesus did not come merely to make salvation possible, but actually to save his people. He did not come to make redemption possible; he died to redeem his people. He did not come to make propitiation possible; he turned aside God’s wrath for each of his elect people forever. He did not come to make reconciliation between God and man possible; he actually reconciled to God those whom the Father had given him. He did not come merely to make atonement for sins possible, but actually to atone for sinners.
    This is why I like reading these Reformed theologians, they corner you with these questions, then push the Bible under your noses, and needle you, "Come on, what say you?"
    And I'm forced to admit that reading what the Bible says about the atonement, I struggle to say that the atonement only gives the possibility of atonement, a possibility only actualised on the sinner's say so.
    While your mind is reeling from the blows, you grasp for some support, some way to push back and hold on to what you believed before.
    The writers help you find support. In this chapter, they title the section, "The Problem Texts". And there are three categories of problem texts.
    1. Passages that seem to teach that God has a will to save everyone.
    2. Passages in which it is suggested that some people for whom Jesus Christ died will perish.
    3. Passages in which the work of Jesus seems to be intended for the entire world.

    And as you would expect, the authors take the same passage and offer an alternate, equally plausible interpretation without ridiculing people who disagree.
    Wait a minute. What are the implications of this? If limited atonement is true, then how can we offer the Gospel to everyone? How can we say on the pulpit that Christ died for all of you when he did not.
    Once again, the good teachers know the question before you arrived at them and they zestfully answer it.
    Does this weaken the gospel message? Far from weakening the message, the doctrine of definite atonement strengthens it and alone makes it a genuine gospel. Suppose we go to the lost with the message that Jesus died for everyone but without the conviction that his death actually accomplished salvation for those who should believe. Suppose, in other words, that we proclaim a redemption that did not redeem, a propitiation that did not propitiate, a reconciliation that did not reconcile, and an atonement that did not atone? That would be a fool’s errand. But if we can say, “Christ died for sinners to restore them to God; if you believe on him, you are saved and can know that he has died for you,” then we have a message worth proclaiming and our hearers have a gospel worth believing.
    So that is a walkthrough on one chapter of this book, one chapter that deals with one of the five points of Calvinism.
    But wait... there is more!
    Part Three: Rediscovering God's Grace
    If you have had the encounter to meet an enthusiastic Calvinist you may have walked away wishing you did not. Boice and Ryken know too well how some Calvinists carry themselves and Part Three offers correction and direction.
    Part Three: Rediscovering God's Grace 8. The True Calvinist 9. Calvinism at Work
    I quote:
    The “Truly Reformed” are considered narrow in their thinking, parochial in their outlook, and uncharitable in their attitude toward those who disagree. They have a bad reputation, and sadly, perhaps some of it is deserved. There is a combative streak in Calvinism, and whenever the doctrines of grace are divorced from warm Christian piety, people tend to get ornery.
    Later they argue:
    This ought not to be. In fact, it cannot be, provided that Calvinism is rightly understood. The doctrines of grace help to preserve all that is right and good in the Christian life: humility, holiness, and thankfulness, with a passion for prayer and evangelism. The true Calvinist ought to be the most outstanding Christian -- not narrow and unkind, but grounded in God’s grace and therefore generous of spirit. Toward that end, this chapter is a practical introduction to Reformed spirituality. In the next chapter we will explore the implications of Calvinism for public life.
    The book begins with a survey of Calvinism in history. The book ends with Calvinism and a glorious future(?). They tend to save their best argument for the end, so don't be too quick to dismiss them. Read till the end of the chapter, or the end of the book.
    I went into the book thinking I understood Limited Atonement and was firmly against it. I now realised my ignorance and it does seem to make sense. Enough for me to reconsider my position on it.
    Conclusion
    Which brings me to the question, Who is this book for? Calvinists would love the book. What about non-Calvinists? Well, it's always good to hear a well-presented argument from the opposing side. And Jim Boice and Philip Ryken have done a good job here.
    You know how in elections, there are candidates who have no chance of winning, but they are really good at rousing voters on a single issue. So much so that these candidates force all the other candidates to respond.
    Or consider heresies. If we can guess God's purpose for allowing heresies to happen, I would say heresies force people to respond, to clarify, to defend, what they believe.
    And so when it comes to Calvinists, they may come across as single-issue, or rather five-point-issue believers, or some believe that Calvinists have gone horribly astray in their theology. My thinking is, Calvinists force everyone to contend with what the Bible says of God's sovereignty, holiness or in this book, God's Grace. And surely, God's character is worth learning, because "Who God Is" is foundational to our worship and Christian life.
    And that is why I appreciate the Calvinists and Reformed, not because I want to pick a side. I am not looking for a football team to support. I am looking to understand the Bible better to know my God deeper.
    And wherever you land on the question of Calvinism, I think you will profit from the Doctrine of Grace.
    This is a Reading and Reader's review of "The Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice and Philip Ryken.
    Book List
    • The Doctrines of Grace by James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken. Amazon. Logos.

    39 min

About Reading and Readers

From the publisher's feed

A podcast where I review Christian books for you.