reformed blogging.

So for the upcoming months I decided I would spent a little more time with one particular theologian. There are so many men worth getting acquainted with: the reformers, the puritans, the Princetonians, the Scottish divines, all those great Dutch theologians, the early church Fathers, etc. it’s an impossible task to know them all without compromising some depth with any particular one. John Piper recommends choosing one dead theologian and spending your life getting to him and his theology. While I’m far from making any life commitments I thought it might be worth my time to try to read up on at least the basic works of some theologian, a major biography or two, and more contemporary things pertaining to the man. And as you may have guessed by the title of this post, I decided on Martin Luther.

This decision was made for several reasons: (1) because I read Bainton’s biography on Luther and still feel like the Luther is a complete stranger. (2) Luther’s Bondage of the Will about a year ago was an invigorating read, his style of writing is so straightforward and bold that it would get any Christian’s blood rushing. It’s not hard to see why Luther was regarded as a “bull in a china shop.” He was unbounded in his zeal for the true gospel, particularly the doctrine of justification by faith alone. (3) Carl Trueman’s recommendation of The Genius of Luther’s Theology as well as his mention of the impact Luther’s theology has had on him moved me towards this direction. (4) Carl Trueman’s lectures on Martin Luther a couple months ago also did much to generate interest. (5) John Piper’s biographical sketch on Martin Luther (with an emphasis on Martin Luther’s time spent in the study). (6) Lastly, God used this man to develop the theology of the reformation! This is enough in itself to get anyone to invest some time in getting to know him.

So here are the books I’m planning on reading:

1. Biography: Luther: Man Between God and the Devil - Heiko A. Oberman
2. Works: Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (1st edition) - Timothy F. Lull
3. Contemporary: The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church - Robert Kolb, Charles P. Arand

…the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called. If you want something in addition to that I would say without any hesitation that the most urgent need in the Christian Church today is true preaching; and as it is the greatest and the most urgent need in the Church, it is obviously the greatest need of the world also.
…they [who suggest that the Church may be a hindrance to the propagation of the Gospel] argue, if you really want to influence people in the Christian direction you must not only talk politics and deal with social conditions in speech, you must take an active part in them… Not preaching, not the old method, but getting among the people, showing an interest, showing your sympathy, being one of them, sitting down among them, and discussing their affairs and problems… what is our answer to all this? I am going to suggest… that all this at best is secondary, very often not even secondary, often not worthy of a place at all, but at best, secondary, and that the primary task of the Church and of the Christian minister is the preaching of the Word of God.
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 9, 19.

Most people today have so little experience of deep, earnest, reverent, powerful encounters with God in preaching that the only associations that come to mind when the notion is mentioned are that the preacher is morose or boring or dismal or sullen or gloomy or surly or unfriendly…
Since they have little or no experience of the deep gladness of momentous moments of gravity, they strive for gladness the only way they know how–by being lighthearted and chipper and talkative.
Pastors have absorbed this narrow view of gladness and friendliness and now cultivate it across the land with pulpit demeanor and verbal casualness that make the blood-earnestness of Chalmers and the pervading solemnity of Edwards’s mind unthinkable. The result is a preaching atmosphere and a preaching style plagued by triviality, levity, carelessness, flippancy and a general spirit that nothing of eternal and infinite proportions is being done or said on Sunday morning.
- John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, 55.

Recently, International Director for Frontiers, Rick Love, responded to John Piper’s video on A Common Word, a document sent from Muslim scholars, which 300 Christian leaders have signed, expressing unity with Muslims on God’s command to love one another as central to both religions. For the full response see here. I do not question motives and I think it’s safe to assume that none who signed the document did so with any intent or motive to dishonor Christ, but were seeking that through open dialogue and discussion to share the gospel of Christ.

In his response, Rick Love mentions dialogue as a means of evangelism rather than replacing evangelism, and I find this very much agreeable. Yet dialogue presupposes common ground and I am hard-pressed to find any genuine points of agreement between the foundational beliefs of Islam and Christianity. According to Rick Love one common basis is God or Allah. Below is a portion of his response to Piper’s video and I while much of it sounds good, I think that to hold to the common ground that the document calls for is to abandon the fundamentals of Christianity.

Here’s Rick Love’s response as well as some commentary:

Q: The Yale Response seems to imply that Allah is the same God that Christians worship. Is this true?

A: I do not hesitate to refer to the God of the Bible as Allah, since Arab Christians before and after the birth of Islam use the term Allah to describe the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think if we’ve learned anything from our dealing with the Emerging Church it’s to define our terms. Over time words change their meanings, sometimes meaning something completely contrary to what it first meant. For instance, words like “bad” sometimes take on a radically different meaning and go from a negative word to a positive one. This can also occur with more important words, such as Allah. Though earlier Christians have used the word in reference to the Christian God, and some may use it even now in other cultures, I do not think it is wise nor completely honest for us, Western Christians, to refer to God as Allah for the sake of “common ground” and I think this becomes mere dishonesty if we use it with Muslims. If we are to use it we must make it absolutely clear (which Rick Love does, but this cannot be said for the general signers of the document) that the Christian “Allah” is the only God, the God of the Bible, and as it says in Scripture, He is the Triune God, one God, three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Christian and Muslim views of God are similar in that we both worship the one true God, creator of the heavens and the earth. We both believe this God will judge all peoples at the end of history. We both believe this God has sent His prophets into the world to guide His people. Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here Rick Love seems to contradict himself. If a Christian Allah is Triune, while the Allah of Islam is not, if Islam does not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the image of the Father, then we cannot properly say that we are both worshiping the same God, much less, the one true God unless we throw out any form of rationality. Until Muslims agree that Allah is the Triune God we cannot say, and ought not dare come close to saying that we worship the same God lest we dishonor the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And if God is to judge all peoples at the end of history, according to what standard will He judge? Based only on works based righteousness? Will God forgive those whom He chose through Jesus Christ His Son whom He reconciled to Himself through the propitiation of Christ? Or will He unjustly allow imperfect sinners who try hard to enter into heaven? We both believe God has sent His prophets, but to what end? And was Jesus Christ merely a prophet? Was Mohammed a prophet? The fact that Christians and Muslims differ on their views of the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity and life, teaching, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ means that they disagree with all of Christianity. What has Christ to do with Belial?

I believe that Muslims worship the true God. But I also believe that their view of God falls short of His perfections and beauty as described in the Bible. Thus, I try to model my approach to Muslims after the apostle Paul who said to the Athenians: “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).

If Muslims deny the Deity of Christ, the exact representation of God’s nature, the image of the invisible God, then we cannot say that we are worshiping the same God. Their view is not a view that merely falls short, their view is completely contrary to the Christian God. When Paul was in Athens he said what he said because he saw an altar with an inscription “to an unknown God.” The Athenians were clearly lost and confused. They were searching for something they did not know. This cannot be said about Muslims. They have already declared that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God. They do not worship in ignorance, they are very clear about their beliefs and so it would require turning our backs to what is plain to say that they are not at this moment worshiping in ignorance. Muslims do not claim to be seeking anything more than what they have, just as Christians do not claim to seek more truth outside of Scripture. Unless we show them that the basis of their entire faith is contrary to Christ, rather than encouraging them to continue in their ways, then we cannot lead them to the truth.

Muslim background believers all over the world testify that they were previously worshiping God in ignorance and now they have come to know him in Jesus Christ.

I know that Rick Love is sincere in wanting to see Muslims come to Christ, and we all should be. Yet the way to win the lost is not to give in to undefined, vague commonalities. If we are to establish dialogue with Muslims it must be on honest and open truth. We must state at the forefront what it is that we believe about the fundamentals, about Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the Triune God, etc. God is the one who changes the heart, He grants repentance. It will not come about through compromises but through the upholding of the message of Christ. Namely, we need to preach repentance to all men that they may turn to Christ. All men are under sin and no matter how religious one is, they still need to realize that they are not just confused people heading in the right direction. No, all have sinned and there is no one who seeks after God. Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, all men everywhere must repent. Why? Because we are all sinful people who have rebelled against a holy God. And the only way to get to a holy God is through His perfect Son who came and died to be punished as a substitute. And it was necessary that He be God, for none but God can pay the penalty of the Father’s wrath which we deserved. It was necessary for Christ to die and be raised again to life to demonstrate His victory over death. The message of Christ is not a message of encouraging rebellious sinners to continue in their obstinate ways but to turn to Christ! We must not peddle the gospel, but must preach the word of God without fear. Yes, people will be offended, yes, there will be those who hate us for it, but Christ has promised that persecution would come to those who followed Him. Because the world hated Him they will hate us as well.

I know that those who signed the document did so with good intentions and to win over the lost. But how will we convince Muslims of the supremacy of Christ when we leave Him out of the main discussion? We must show that there is no one greater than Christ and that He is all in all, and we cannot do this unless we refuse any form or hint of compromise. We will not allow anyone to even begin to think that Christ is not the Son of God, that He did not die, that He was not raised again, that He does not sit at the right hand of God, for to compromise Christ is to compromise the entirety of our hope and faith.

Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. - Matthew 7:13-14

“…formal professors will be brought to any outward duty, but to the inward work of religion they will never be persuaded. They will preach, or hear, or read, or talk of heaven, or pray in their families, and take part with the persons or causes that are good, and desire to be esteemed among the godly; but you can never bring them to the more spiritual duties,–as to be constant and fervent in secret prayer and meditation; conscientious in self-examination; heavenly-minded; to watch over their hearts, words and ways; to mortify the flesh, and not make provision to fulfill its lusts; to love and heartily forgive an enemy, and prefer their brethren before themselves; to lay all they have, or do, at the feet of Christ, and prize his service and favor before all, to prepare to die and willingly leave all to go to Christ. Hypocrites will never be persuaded to any of these. If any hypocrite entertains the Gospel with joy, it is only in the surface of his soul; he never gives the seed any depth of earth: it changes his opinion, but never melts and new molds his heart, nor sets up Christ there in full power and authority. As his religion lies most in opinion, so does his chief business and conversation. He is usually an ignorant, bold, conceited dealer in controversies, rather than an humble embraces of known truth with love and obedience. By his slighting the judgments and persons of others, and seldom talking with seriousness and humility of the great things of Christ, he shows his religion dwells in his brain, and not in his heart. The wind of temptation carries him away as a feather, because his heart is not established with Christ and grace. He never, in private conversation, humbly bewails his soul’s imperfections, or tenderly acknowledges his unkindness to Christ; but gathers his greatest comfort from his being of such a persuasion or party. The like may be said of the worldly hypocrite, who chokes the Gospel with the thorns of worldly cares and desires. He is convinced that he must be religious, or he cannot be saved; and therefore he reads, and hears, and prays, and forsakes his former company and courses but he resolves to keep his hold of present things. His judgment may say, God is the chief good; but his heart and affections never say so. The world has more of his affections than God, and therefore it is his god. Though he does not run after opinions and novelties, like the world, yet he will be of that opinion which will best serve his worldly advantage. And as one whose spirits are enfeebled by some pestilential disease, so this man’s spirits being possessed by the plague of a worldly disposition, how feeble is he in secret prayer! how superficial in examination and meditation! how poor in heart-watchings! how nothing at all in loving and walking with God, rejoicing in him, or desiring him! So that both these and many other sorts of hypocrites, though they will go with you in the easy outside of religion, yet will never be at the pains of inward and spiritual duties.” - Richard Baxter, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, 123-4

Ryle wrote the following to an audience of Englishmen, but I think it fair to take “Englishmen” and apply to all who call themselves Christian. Though Ryle speaks specifically of the English Reformation, if there were no Reformation (whether in England or in Europe) there is no sign that anyone but the Pope would have had access to Scripture. It would be wise, therefore, for any Bible believing Christian to go back to the Reformation and resist what Ryle calls the “unprotestantizing” of our Churches.

“To the Reformation Englishmen owe an English Bible, and liberty for every man to read it. To the Reformation they owe the knowledge of the way of peace with God, and of the right of every sinner to go standing in his way. To the Reformation they owe a Scriptural standard of morality and holiness, such as our ancestors never dreamed of. For ever let us be thankful for these inestimable mercies! For ever let us grasp them firmly, and refuse to let them go! For my part, I hold that he who would rob us of these privileges, and draw us back to Pre-Reformation ignorance, superstition, and unholiness, is an enemy to England, and ought to be firmly opposed.” - J.C. Ryle, Five English Reformers, 43-44.

Here is what Ryle strives against:

“Let us not go back to ignorance, superstition, priestcraft, and immorality. Our forefathers tried Popery long ago, and threw it off with disgust and indignation. Let us not put the clock back and return to Egypt. Let us have no peace with Rome, till Rome abjures her errors and is at peace with Christ.
“Let us read our Bibles, and be armed with Scriptural arguments. A Bible-reading laity is a nation’s surest defence against error. I have no fear for English Protestantism, if the laity will only do their duty.
“Let us read history, and see what Rome did in days gone by. Read how she trampled on your country’s liberties, plundered your forefather’s pockets, and kept the whole nation ignorant and immoral. Read Foxe, Strype, and Burnet, and Soames, and Blunt. And do not forget that Rome never changes. It is her boast and glory that she is always the same. Only give her absolute power in England, and she would soon put out the eyes of our country, and make her like Samson, a degraded slave.” - 67-68.

Here are a few passages that seem to be ignored by many professing Christians. When I say ignored, I do not necessarily mean that no mention is made of these passages or that they are verbally rejected, but that understanding of the doctrines herein expounded are nowhere evident in many lives of those who think themselves Christian. How few there are who truly examine themselves to see if they are of the faith! Many, it seems, are content with a superficial examination, perhaps in fear of finding that they do not truly know Christ.

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The gospel as preached today in many Churches does not at all resemble the above quoted passage. Many shudder at such passages thinking that it is far too negative, yet these must not be ignored for they are in the Bible. Make no mistake, these are the words of Christ. Here He preaches the narrow gate as well as the narrow way that leads to life. It is important to note here, that it is not simply entering through a gate by a single action, repeating a prayer once, or having an experience at a certain point in time (though these are not negated) that one is said to find life, but it is a continual lifestyle, walking the narrow way that leads to life. Many comfort themselves thinking they have entered the narrow gate, and so can now live at ease, yet the narrow way implies difficulty that will continue until we die. If all those who have walked the wide path and are now in hell were to be polled, very many would respond that they never expected to be found in hell, that they thought themselves safe, having entered through that “narrow gate” yet they were wrong. No one thinks that God will punish them. All men seem to wrongly suppose that God will show special favors to them alone. God is faithful to His word. He is not like the threatening parent who does not carry through with punishment. Many have grown used to empty threats and thus wrongly suppose hell to be among them. Yet God will not dishonor His name for the sake of an unrepentant sinner. If you are not walking on that narrow way, taking up your cross daily, it is likely that you are on the broad path to destruction, and are self-deceived.

In the same sermon, Christ goes on to speak of two types of hearers:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against the house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Here is another message likely to make many church-goers uncomfortable, namely, that merely hearing the Word being preached is not adequate. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Here Christ shows that two things are necessary: first, hearing, but secondly acting. The two men contrasted here are both hearers of the Word. This is not about a Christian and an atheist, but rather, two people who sit in Church every Sunday listening to the sermon. Yet there are two responses to the word. One hears and acts, the other hears and does not act. It is very simple and straightforward. Those who do not act or obey what Christ has spoken, will fall, while those who obey will be founded on the rock. It is obvious from this passage then, that mere exposure to biblical preaching/teaching is not sufficient. One needs to act upon it. And those who do not act upon it are those who are now traveling the broad path that leads to destruction. This comes as no surprise, for Jesus Himself taught that there would be many who enter through it, this in no way exempts pastors, elders, deacons, praise leaders, or committed members of any church. If there is no obedience to the word, then there is no reason to believe that regeneration of the heart has taken place.

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. (Luke 9:23)

Here is a rather obvious teaching of Christ. Namely, that those who come after Him must deny themselves and take up their crosses daily. The key word here is daily, it is to be a daily activity. Now this goes against the view that once someone “prays a prayer” they have no need for anything else since they have, once and for all, denied themselves. Yet what Christ is describing is a continual self-denial. And only in this can we properly claim to follow Christ. He also says that “No one, after putting his hand on the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). Serious consideration must be given as to what Christ means when He speaks of taking up one’s cross. No doubt this entails all those very small decisions we make to be kind to others, to crucify our desires, yet it is not limited to those small things only, but applies to every aspect of our life. To die, is to become unresponsive to all those things that once held our hearts captive. And only until we do that can we follow Christ. You who cling to worldly treasures, no matter how “good” a person you may be, cannot follow Christ. Thus it was with the rich young ruler, who could not part with all his possessions. Now I am not saying that we all need to sell everything, but what I am saying is that we should have no problem with such a demand. For anyone who has truly committed to Christ has, in a very real sense, already forsaken everything.

There is an earnestness in John Piper’s preaching that makes it very attractive to those of us tired of the shallower type of Christianity. John Piper presents a brand of Christianity that seems to be the sort that people die for. Listening to his messages, it’s not hard to see why a man will go halfway across the world to share the gospel and say “to live is Christ and to die is gain.” This is the sort of Christianity found in Scripture, in 2 Timothy 3:12, 1 Corinthians 1:23 and the sort that seems consistent with what Paul says in Philippians 3:10.

However, many of us, myself included, tend to think that mere endorsement of John Piper’s preaching is enough. We, sometimes, subconsciously equate listening to a sermon with applying it to our lives–the more we listen, the better we are. That, however, is not the case. The man who built his house on sand was not the man who was ignorant of the word, but one who listened and did not act. I fear that many of us are in danger of being, or already are, that man. True Christianity consists of more than simply endorsing the right preachers, or having sound doctrine. We must never separate our own lives from that which we know, or claim to know. The book of James describes such a man as a “forgetful hearer.” We must examine ourselves to see whether what we have is a true and acting faith, or mere mental assent. Brothers, test yourselves and take to heart the words of Christ:

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”

It is not uncommon to hear passionate living being contrasted with proper understanding. On the one side is a passionate life for Christ, full of zeal and love, spent doing the work of God, versus a life of orthodox theology, or proper understanding of God as revealed in scripture. Oftentimes, the latter is downplayed and even set against proper living as if it were its enemy. An example that one might hear is that of a man passionately praying and helping out his neighbors, loving everyone around him, living a “passionate life” while not having the deepest understanding of theology versus another man who sits in his study all day, isolated from the world reading his Bible, studying esoteric doctrines that really have no impact on life, having. The former does the true kingdom work, while the latter studies his Greek and Hebrew, doing no real work for the kingdom. Of course, consideration ought to be taken as to why such a reaction is occurring against theology, there being a degree of truth to it, but such a comparison, in my opinion, is based on a very serious presupposition that is absolutely wrong.

Just to be fair, there are some who do say the above without meaning that the two are in contrast. However, it is safe to say, that many actually do hold that orthodoxy (correct teaching) is an enemy of orthopraxy (correct practice). The fact of the matter is that the two are inseparably bound. Correct teaching, if properly accepted and truly believed, will necessarily lead to correct practice. Conversely, false teaching, if accepted and believed, will always lead to false living.

An example commonly utilized by those who set proper theology against passionate living is that of the Pharisees, who were the top religious leaders of their time, and yet were called “a brood of vipers” and “white washed tombs” by Christ Himself. They are pointed to as those who had the most orthodox beliefs, and because of their dedication to studying the Law alone, they did not please God they became heartless men who sought their own gain, rather than the glory of God. Then, in contrast to these men, were the disciples, mere fishermen, though they lacked the sort of theology that the pharisees had, yet they were passionate about following Christ. Hopefully, the reader can already see a problem. First, the Pharisees did not have the good theology. They were unorthodox. Just a few examples Matthew 15:6, they, “invalidated the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition.” They did not hold to everything that Scripture said, but placed tradition as a higher authority. They called Christ Beelzebul! Can one’s theology get any worse? Christ tells the other religious leaders, the Sadducees that they “are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (22:29) Their theology was completely off, they had a view of God that was so far off that they were called sons of the devil. Some may point to Christ’s exhortation to “do what they say, not what they do” as His affirmation of their orthodoxy, but He was affirming the Mosaic Law that they promoted, not their theology. For they wrongly thought that they were in obedience to the Law, having a false view regarding its demands.Thus, the hypocritical Pharisees were rebuked by Christ were rebuked for false living, but this was not a result of arrogance in orthodoxy, but rather, a completely false understanding of it (as a result of their depravity). Now, I do not think it necessary to show that the disciples of Christ, post-ressurection had orthodox theology, it is, after all, their epistles from which we, who consider ourselves orthodox, derive our theology.

Conversely, it is safe to say that bad theology always leads to bad living. Not saying that bad theology always leads to hell, no doubt, most of us are likely wrong somewhere (particularly in the realm of eschatology… we can’t all be right!) but incorrect theology (to the degree of its emphasis in scripture) will necessarily lead to improper living. An example of this is the church in Thessalonica. They believed that Christ had already come and so they sold all their possessions, stopped working and thus, the entirety of their lives were changed based on this one believe. Because of bad theology, Paul had to write to correct them and exhort them, based on proper theology, to live correctly. Similarly, the book of Galatians was written to fend off the Galatians from false teaching, from a works-based righteousness. This is heresy, or to put it euphemistically, bad theology. The believers were being shaken to the point that Paul had to ask them who it was that bewitched them (Gal. 3:1). The epistles were written for the sake of exhortation or correction in terms of theological beliefs. Thus, the apostles knew their theology, and wrote to correct improper theology.

Even in the case that the “living” was “right” (by this I mean moral in the world’s eyes), if such living was motivated by bad theology it would be pointed out and corrected. A prime example would be the Judaizers who promoted a “moral” life, yet did so on the basis of incorrect theology. If the goal of Christianity was merely to produce a moral person, then the means would not be of importance, but the goal of Christianity is to convert depraved men so that they might trust in Christ for their righteousness. This may cause some to sin more that grace may increase, but clearly such men do not know their theology. If Paul’s aim was to produce men who merely lived “right” lives then he would not have preached the gospel as he did, seeing that it led some to think they could use grace as a license to sin. Paul, in Romans 6, does not turn and change his mind on his doctrine of justification by Christ’s righteousness alone, but holds to it and corrects the theology of the antinomians.

The danger then, is not proper theology, but two things:

1. A knowledge of theology without an embrace of it. There are two faiths described in the Bible, one that justifies (which will also produce fruit) and one that does not (James 2), similarly there is a godly sorrow leading to repentance and a worldly sorrow leading to death. It is not an odd thing to find, then, that there are two types of orthodoxy (not a real distinction within orthodoxy, but one made because it exists) true orthodoxy, and shallow orthodoxy. It is not enough to “know” theology. The demons believe and shudder, Satan is the greatest theologian in terms of knowledge, but an embrace of it by faith must take place. If it is not affecting every part of one’s life, then it is highly probably that somewhere along the line one’s theology is “off”. Either this, or it is not truly believed. Any man who knows he is bound to hell, who has a proper understanding of both sin, hell, grace, faith and justification will necessarily see his own hopelessness and turn to Christ. Yet a man who does not understand either the depth of his own depravity, the consequences of it, the sufficiency of Christ’s work or the doctrine of justification will not turn to Christ. True orthodoxy will lead to orthopraxy. One may object and point out that even the most orthodox believer still sins, yet if viewed carefully the occassions that believers do sin are those occasions that we suppress the truth, thinking that God “will not do good or bad.” There is always a false understanding of theology (or a suppression of true theology) when a Christian gives in to intentional sin. This occurs because of the radical depravity accompanying the fall.

2. A “passionate life” without proper theology. Paul speaks of his fellow country men who “have a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge.” It is very possible to be zealous for God, and yet to be ignorant of Him. There is no possible way to live a proper life without a proper understanding. Or there is no way to have orthopraxy without orthodoxy. It is imperative to have good theology. Bad theology takes glory from God, bad theology, as evidenced in the pharisees will produce a legalistic, works-based righteousness sort of mentality. At best it will make the Christian life extremely difficult, at worst it will lead many down that broad road to destruction. Without a proper doctrine of sin, a proper doctrine of man’s depravity, and of impending judgment, and of God’s free grace in Christ, it is difficult at best, and impossible at worst for sinners to come to Christ.

Good theology, in and of itself is not sufficient, but it is absolutely necessary, and if embraced, it will lead to proper practice. Someone has put it like this, “The deeper the theology, the higher the doxology.” Proper theology and an embrace of it, is everything.

“The terrible thing is that in these degenerate times the consciences of thousands have been drugged by preachers (whom it is greatly to be feared are themselves spiritually dead, and helping forward the work of Satan) that have presented “the eternal security of the saints” in such an unscriptural way, as to convey to their poor hearers the impression that, provided they once “accepted Christ as their personal Saviour” Heaven is now their certain portion, that guilt can nevermore rest upon them, and that no matter what sins they may commit nothing can possibly jeopardize their eternal interests. The consequence has been — and this is no imaginary fear of ours, but a patent fact of observation on every side — that a carnal security has been imparted, so that in the midst of fleshly gratification and worldly living it is, humanly speaking, quite impossible to disturb their false peace or terrify their conscience.” - Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, p.618