My Response to Why I Warn Against the Wilsons

 A friend of mine recently asked me why I didn't like Rachel Jankovic (author and daughter of Pastor Doug Wilson) and thought she was a hypocrite. Here is my response. (I will probably add to this as time goes on and I have more time to write more specific things.)

So my primary concern with Rachel is her affiliation and similar teaching/theology as her father (thus this post is about "the Wilson's"). I have done extensive digging into his theology, character, and handing of church/other matters and would put him in the category of a false teacher. There are too many serious concerns to not to. I believe his teaching to be dangerous. In fact, I consider Doug Wilson a dangerous false teacher and an abusive narcissist. So, while I will admit I have not thoroughly examined Rachel's writing/speaking very specifically, as she and her father work together and teach/hold to the same things I haven’t felt it was necessary to spend the time to do that. 

 

As for their hypocrisy... a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. If someone claims to be an orthodox, Biblical teacher, but teaches things that are opposed to, even offensive to the truths of Orthodox Christianity, than umm yeah that makes them a hypocrite. So the real issue here is whether or not what the Wilson's teach is consistent with Scripture and Orthodox Christianity.

 

I will below list my main areas of concern with the Wilson's (and by this I mean Doug Wilson, his family or really anyone associated with him). Please note I don’t necessarily agree with everything his critics say or believe themselves, but when it comes to the topic(s) at hand, I believe they are absolutely right in their critique and concerns. Those who have gleaned good things from the Wilson's may think they are just throwing stones, but most of them have tried very hard to be fair in their critiques and concerns. Some of these are or seem small, but small things add up as well. Small flaws in character add up to bigger ones. The more small things I saw, the more I slowly became concerned. It will take some time for you to get through all this…. It was several months of me listening, reading and researching to come to the convictions I have now.

 

Doug Wilson’s questionable (heretical?) theology: It is important to say that a lot of what the Wilson's say, *seems* orthodox and right, and a lot of it IS orthodox. However, their false doctrine/teaching is extremely sneaky and subtle. I will share a lot of what others have written/said since they have done more extensive work and say it better than I could.

 

His view of Justification This is one of the biggest and most serious concerns. I really don’t have time to write out a whole explanation and argument, plus the two below do it very well:

https://theocast.org/is-doug-wilson-a-false-teacher/

https://thelondonlyceum.com/on-justification-doug-wilson-and-the-moscow-doctrine/

 

On Federal Vision: This is rather complex, but to summarize for you, Wilson says he’s Reformed, but the views he holds on the Covenants and on justification do not line up with traditional/orthodox Reformed theology. A lot of Reformed people outside his camp have serious concerns with views on this (and obviously Arminians would strongly disagree with him in this area of theology as well).  https://carm.org/about-theology/what-is-federal-vision-theology-and-is-it-biblical/

 

(P.S. Doug Wilson has claimed he no longer holds to “Federal Vision” however, it is very important to note that he has NOT rejected the theology that Federal Vision holds to - and that is the problem. In other words, he’s rejecting the label but keeping the theology. Tricksy… and completely hypocritical.)

 

Views on men’s/women’s roles:  The more I have read/heard from the Wilson's on this topic, the more I have been seriously concerned - and downright disgusted. The extreme patriarchy is very subtle at times, but I would assert is NOT in line with Biblical complementarianism. Again, they say a lot of things thare are actually right or at least *seem* right, but digging deeper I have often seen some red flags and have thoughts like “ehhh I’m not sure that’s quite right/balanced”. And on further study, I've found their view to not be in line with Scripture. As Rachel has written more about the area of womenhood it's important to address her specifically here. But as she is collusion with her father, I cannot freely trust her view on being a Biblical woman/wife/mother. While I have seen she does have many good and right things to say, there are also some huge concerns and wrong theology... At best, I would have to give too many cautions to feel I could recommend her to anyone. 

 Here's an article documenting the abusive teaching on a wife's obligation to submit to rape: https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-church-that-preaches-wives-need-to-be-led-with-a-firm-hand/

Here is something from Rachel's own mouth... she's being grossly mistreated/controlled and doesn't even see it... seriously? What Christ-like husband would treat his brand new wife like this???: https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow/videos/346749201336488 

And while we're at it, here's another video from Rachel with a rather shocking condemning and hypocritical attitude. Other's "know for absolute certain?" You're a woman, you can't do anything right - that is the main message I've gotten from Rachel.  https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow/videos/1920306348165019

And one more for you: 

I can also talk about Nancy Wilson and her parenting advice.... you can watch clips of her "Biblical parenting advice" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75lZfjq_GWg  The whole Wilson family also appears in this video - notice the gaslighting from several of them - Dean (the host/critic) is really good at pointing out the red flags you should notice. (P.S This is very similar to the Pearl's borderline(at best?) abusive parenting advice - STAY AWAY! P.S.S. I am not at all anti-spanking, I think it can be fine done correctly, but it can very easily be done wrongly.)

I will add here that I have personal experience of having to submit to and respect a husband who was in the wrong - who was going the wrong direction theologically - it was hard, I had to learn and grow a lot in my obedience to God in my submission and attitude towards my husband, however, my complementarianism/beliefs about submission are NOT the same as the Wilson's. I would absolutely not put them in the same category.  

I have seen too many quotes and heard things Doug Wilson himself has said that are downright demeaning to women and completely unbiblical. Here’s an example: It might just be a woman's fault if she gets raped.... “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.” (Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage, p. 13) (And no, I’m not taking this out of context, you can read more in articles I’ve shared).

 

Here’s some people who have written about concerns in this area:

https://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/category/doug-wilson/

https://mereorthodoxy.com/sex-submission-and-evangelicals-doug-wilson-controversial-words

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/01/15/pastor-doug-wilson-on-rape-submission-feminists-and-boobs/

 

Doug Wilson/Christ’s church handing of sexual sin and sexual abuse:

This is another HUGE concern. I'm not sure there is another area of all of life that makes me more angry than the ignoring/injustice of abuse in "Christian" environments. If I were to curse like Doug Wilson and his crew does, this is where I'd do it. Not only do the above patriarch views allow for this kind of thing to flourish, there continues to be very little accountability or serious concern for protecting others and dealing with abusers appropriately. There has been NO admission of “hey maybe we got this wrong” only defensive tactics. I have looked into this probably the most extensively - I have listened to the victims and others who witnessed the situation(s), read reports, the actual court cases, etc.

You can find more information about the abuse cases at this link (which also provides links to actual court cases): https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/

 

Another article on this issue:

https://religiondispatches.org/sexual-abuse-is-inevitable-in-christian-patriarchy-just-take-a-look-at-doug-wilsons-christ-church-and-its-new-documentary-eve-in-exile-the-restoration-of-femininity/

 

Other personal/character concerns:

His crude language and sexualized content. This is mentioned in several of the resources I’ve shared, but worth stating again. Much of it is downright disgusting and inappropriate for a Christian. I have directly read and personally listened to SO many crude things, and swear words (F-word, s-word, d-word and so much more) from Doug Wilson and from others who work closely with him. I will not link any videos or proof of this one but it's easy to find. They literally throw these words around the same as an unbeliever would. Is this really the kind of people you want to recommend to others?

 

Also, when he first was trying to become pastor of his current church, the elders didn’t think he conformed to their statement of faith (mainly having to do with his view of justification above). They asked him to either conform or step down. Instead, he mobilized church members to support him and basically forced the other elders to resign/leave and took over the leadership of the church. It was a forcible power struggle that he won. This is not an appropriate way to be any kind of respectable leader and I consider this a very bad indication of his character - but it lines up with other control issues that are reported. (This whole thing is common knowledge and a number of people have written about it - it’s mentioned in several of the resources I shared.) The main reason Wilson formed his own denomination is that none of the other main (Presbyterian Church of America is where he first tried to join) denominations would accept him. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with starting your own denomination, but if it’s because you can’t find a single one you could at least be acceptable in - that indicates a problem. Not to mention I'm pretty sure he's just a narcissist who wants to be in complete control.

 

 

Other resources:

I would recommend checking out this facebook page (they are also on Instagram) - I wouldn’t agree with all their angles or everything they say, but they bring to light a lot of what I mentioned above and a lot of provide evidence in videos, quotes, documents, etc. https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow

 

This is written by a unitarian, so obviously there are some things in there we wouldn’t agree with him on, however he tries to be fairly fair and goes through some of the other things mentioned above as well as some I didn’t take the time to mention (i.e. Doug Wilson’s controlling nature, sloppy writing and references in writing, his view on slavery in America, his extreme patriarchy, extreme political views, etc. - all of which I would agree are concerning).

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsonempire.htm

 

 

In closing, so yes, I absolutely warn against the Wilson's, and anyone associated with them. If you're not convinced yet, take the time to listen to/read through the links provided.

Major Views on Baptism

When you start looking into specifics, it is rather astonishing how many different views there are on the subject of Christian baptism. It’s actually a little disheartening that there’s so many different views since we should hope that Christians would agree more on important doctrines like this one, but here we are. In this post I have laid out a summary of each of the major positions trying not to show (much) bias. These are just the major ones, there are often variations within each group as well. Each group will appeal to Scripture for support and often many of the same Scriptures, some better than others, but the real difference in the views usually comes down to Biblical interpretation, which is why figuring out how to properly interpret Scripture is so important. Everyone is prone to interpret Scripture in light of their own denomination or church tradition and being able to break out of that and look at Scripture with fresh eyes is super important. We should never just believe something because our church or pastor or tradition teaches it.

A few things to keep in mind as we think about baptism and it's relationship to salvation: Scripture talks about believers as those who have been saved (past tense, usually referring to conversion), who are being saved (present tense) and who will be saved (future tense). In the discussion of baptism, “conversion” is rather central to the argument and whether that comes before baptism, after baptism, or during or partially through baptism. The discussion comes down to these two key questions: What does it mean to be in the New Covenant? And when/how does God change the heart and give new life to someone?

I did not cite Scriptures in each view since again most views will use the same Scriptures to defend their view. Key verses on baptism used by most or all groups in their defense are: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:1-41; 8:36-39; 16:30-33, Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11-12, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, I have discussed many of these Scriptures and more in a previous post here.

 

Major Views on Baptism:

 

Symbolic-Only Credo-Baptist View: Baptism is the proper response to God’s grace in salvation through faith and repentance. It is an act of obedience through faith, and an initiation into the church. It symbolizes and demonstrates the death and resurrection of the soul through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a visible sign and seal of the person’s entrance into the visible church and a confirmation to those witnessing it of the individual’s faith and repentance. Thus, baptism should only be given to professing believers. Baptism is not a "means of grace" it is strictly symbolic, and a testimony to one's conversion. It is not essential for someone to be considered "saved," however, as it is commanded by Christ/Scripture, true believers should be obedient to the Lord’s command.

Here’s a longer explanation on this view: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-baptism.html

 

Low-sacramental/Reformed Credo-Baptist view: This view is very similar to the last, but slightly different and views it as a little more important. Baptism is the proper response to God when He has converted the heart and brought about faith and repentance. It is an act of obedience through faith, and an initiation into the church. It symbolizes and demonstrates the death and resurrection of the soul through the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, baptism should only be given to professing believers. Furthermore, (and this is what distinguishes this view from a strict symbol view) Christ (and the Holy Spirit) are spiritually present in the act of Baptism and thus it is also a “means of grace” and an opportunity for spiritual blessing/encouragement. It is a visible sign and seal of the person’s entrance into the visible church, a confirmation to those witnessing it of the individual’s faith and repentance, and a grace-filled, powerful reminder of their position in Christ. While this view sees Baptism as more than just a physical act and more accurately as also a spiritual one that Christ meets us in in a rather mysterious way, baptism does not bestow forgiveness, wash away sin, or put the person "into" Christ. It is Christ that accomplished our forgiveness/justification on the cross, and new life/adoption is bestowed upon us the moment we believe by the Holy Spirit. Baptism could be considered the culmination of the "salvation experience," but it is not “essential” in the sense that one can temporarily or ignorantly delay their baptism and still be considered saved. However, it is commanded, and true believers must be obedient to the Lord’s commands to have true assurance of their salvation and for admission of their "official" membership in the visible Church. Like a wedding where the witnesses give their testimony to what has occurred, baptism is an important moment where the individual is outwardly joined with the visible church. While baptism can be said to “save” (lower case “s” referring to our ongoing salvation) or be an “effectual” means of grace, baptism doesn’t “save” (justify) us or put us "into Christ". It is meaningful and important, but still largely a symbol and outward sign of the work God has already accomplished internally.

Longer discussion and Q&A here: https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html

 

Presbyterian/Low Anglican View: Baptism is “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or one’s ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of one’s giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” (WCF) Baptism is the act of God bringing a person into the Covenant family. In addition to adult believers, children of believers should also be baptized. Like circumcision in the OT brought children of Israelites into the Covenant, so baptism also brings the children of believers into the visible church and the New Covenant. By itself it is incomplete. It is an outward sign that must be completed/fulfilled through personal faith and repentance. Therefore, baptism is not a guarantee of regeneration or salvation, faith and repentance must (eventually) be evident. Baptism is required to be considered a Christian but one can be saved prior to being baptized.

The Presbyterian view is based largely on the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) here: https://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c28.htm  

For the official Anglican position see below.

(These last 3 views are the most controversial, and [in my opinion] the furthest from Scripture.)

Efficacious Church-of-Christ View: Man’s response to God in salvation is six-fold: Hear the Word, Believe, Repent of sin, Confess faith in Christ, Be baptized, Be faithful to the end. Baptism is but one aspect of the being saved. Furthermore, baptism is the “occasion of salvation,” the moment that God brings a person into Christ, into His body, His Church. It is not a work that we do, rather it is God’s work in which He washes away our sin, gives the Holy Spirit and bestows new life. Baptism is absolutely necessary for one to be a Christian and be saved. Therefore, baptism should only be given to those who make a profession of faith and should be administered with no delay.

Depending on who you talk to, some COC folks will say that one may still go to Heaven if they die on the way to their baptism, but others will say that God would not allow a genuine believer to die before being baptized (thus that person would be lost). However, all would agree that if a professing Christian delays their baptism for any reason they cannot be considered saved.

See a longer defense of this view here: http://www.christianlandmark.com/the-church-of-christ-teaches-the-truth-on-baptism/

 

Sacramental High Anglican/Lutheran view: Baptism is a means of grace whereby God gives or cultivates the gift of faith and graciously bestows new life on the individual, bringing them into his family. It works forgiveness of sin and eternal life for all who believe. Baptism should thus be administered to believing adults or children of believers. Although baptism kindles God’s grace and turns our hearts towards God, it does not necessarily “convert” our heart. God’s work in baptism may be resisted because for baptism to truly be beneficial, it must be combined with a personal profession of faith (will be later if they are baptized as an infant) and continued faith and obedience, otherwise the baptism becomes ineffective. We should look to what God did in our baptism and trust His ability to save us. Most would believe that one can ignorantly delay baptism and still be saved, but their salvation may still be questioned. This view also usually believes that the grace given in baptism can be lost, and the person baptized be unsaved.

The “official” Anglican position on baptism in the 39 Articles is rather vague. Some Anglicans hold to this higher sacramental view, for others, it’s more a “sign and a seal” (similar to Presbyterian above). For a more thorough explanation see: https://anglicancompass.com/holy-baptism/

The main difference of Lutheranism from Anglicanism is that Lutherans believe infants can actually have faith and that baptism cultivates that faith. The official Lutheran position is largely based on Luther’s shorter catechism: “[Baptism] works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe”. The official Lutheran position believes in security of the elect, and while they believe baptism does "work forgiveness" they will also say that baptismal grace can be lost if the person does not continue to believe. Further Lutheran explanation: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/what-is-the-lutheran-view-of-baptism/

 

Sacramental Roman Catholic View: Baptism is a means of grace whereby God cleanses one of original and previously committed sin. Faith is not given at baptism, rather the faith of the parents sustains them until confirmation. Thus, those baptized must be confirmed later when the child is older for it to be truly effective. Baptism is to be administered to infants or professing adults for forgiveness of original sin without which there is no entrance into Heaven.

Catholic explanation: https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/a-guide-to-catholic-baptism/

A few observations from this study: In case you didn't already know, I personally am convinced of the Reformed Credo-Baptist position. Baptism is very important and special and there is "grace" given in it, but it is still completely separate from conversion and, other than being a spiritually encouraging/enriching experience, and an affirmation/witness of one's acceptance into the visible church, it does not change anything spiritually. Every other view in this post falls short of what I see Scripture teaching and/or adds to it in some way.

-It is interesting to note that the more "sacramental" one gets, the more (conscious) personal faith is separated from baptism. And the more unique spiritual conversion is blurred and ultimately eliminated altogether. Baptism becomes something done in order to attain forgiveness, which completely distorts the Gospel message.

-Also, the more sacramental you go, the more baptism becomes what "makes" someone a member of the New Covenant, or even a "Christian", and, the more likely it is that they could lose that status. At the very least, "baptismal grace" can be lost and thus the meaning/symbolism of baptism is ultimately lost. 

-When it comes to Infant Baptism, faith and/or salvation is often assumed unless it is not confirmed, the individual rejects their baptism, or they show themselves to be unrepentant. In keeping with this, there is sometimes not a clear calling of the child to personal saving faith in Christ and their need for salvation/conversion. There may be a call to "keep their baptism vows," the need to be confirmed, or something like that, but especially the more sacramental you get, the less there is a call or an emphasis on the need for conversion.  My biggest concern with infant baptism is exactly this, and it's one way the Old Covenant failed: If they are already part of the "covenant community" what need is there for conversion? The New Covenant is better than the old - those that are in it, are truly saved not just quasi-members. You cannot be a member of Christ by birth or by baptism. Let's make one thing clear: One is united with Christ by the Spirit and by the Spirit alone. No circumcision or water baptism needed. To deny this is to deny basic Biblical teaching on justification. Furthermore, if baptism ingrafts one into Christ or into the New Covenant, it minimizes (or even destroys) the deep symbolism and meaning of baptism and ultimately, what Christ has accomplished for His people.

 

P.S. I highly recommend this sermon series by James White on this subject. It goes through all the various Scriptures and arguments.

Doctrinal Divides

There are various “camps” within Christianity today. People often ask “why so many denominations?” or “why can’t all Christians just get along?” To our shame we do not get along as well as we should. But where some would blame it on “doctrine”, I would say that most of the time it is not doctrine that divides us, it’s arrogance.

To start off I want to clarify that it’s not that doctrine never divides, because it sometimes does. In fact, when it comes down to essentials of the Christian faith it should! There is such a thing as truth and that is found in the Word of God. There are things that "Orthodox" and those should be non-negotiable. There may also come a time when a Christian doesn’t agree with their church or a ministry on some non-essential but important points of doctrine or other things and the best course is to move elsewhere. That happens. However the division I am talking about here is relational division. I have seen brothers go through relational division because of doctrine to the point where they no longer speak or have contact, but I have also seen two people disagree over doctrine and yet have no “division” in their relationship. Certainly it takes both parties to do this; if one party is humble but the other is critical and arrogant, relational intimacy is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. There are times when you may have to cut yourself off from that person (even if they might not have intended to bring division) (Titus 3:10).

Also in writing this I am rather keenly aware of the pride within my own heart, although still probably not as much as I should be. I have been far too defensive, often judged or looked down on others and avoided people because I disagreed with them. But I have experienced grace too. God has been patient with me. But also I have experienced love and friendship from others towards me even when I know they don’t agree with me. It is for these people that I have come to have the utmost respect, despite any doctrinal disagreements and I am forever grateful. 

Does doctrine matter? Of course it does! Knowledge is essential for growth. In fact, John Piper writes “We are not safe from pride if we neglect serious thinking and turn away from knowledge. ‘My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge’ (Hos 4:6).” Doctrine matters. But as Sam Storms writes, “Theological truth is not the problem. Arrogance is.” When it comes down to the more minor, non-essential points of theology it is not actually the doctrine that divides. In other words, it’s not just about precise theology, it’s about our attitude. As 1 Cor. 13:2 says, we can have “all knowledge” but if we do not have love, it’s nothing. We ought to love truth, but it ought to lead us into a deeper humility. Does your doctrine humble you? Does it lead you to have a gracious attitude towards others? If not, you may need to re-examine your heart, and if you think you're not prideful, you very well may be in danger of it. (1 Cor. 10:12)

In our doctrine we all want to be on God’s side. But sometimes in claiming this we imply that the other person is not. This really is arrogant because we are only human; we don’t know everything. The truth is, we could be wrong!  We can start off with good intentions of being on “God’s side”, but then we end up fighting for our own because “certainly I’m right on this point” so I have a "right" to be defensive and critical. Jesus said, “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt 12:36-37). In all things we are called to be humble, and to love our brother/sister. Our words are to bring grace and encouragement to those who hear, they should not be used for tearing down. In the end, how much of our theology is really about God, and how much of it is really about us being right?

No one likes to think they are divisive, but I think most of us are more so that we’d like to admit. Can you be a divisive person at times? Here are some questions that may help:

·         Do you seek to have a high respect for over-all character of the person you disagree with?

·         You seek to love them as a brother/sister?

·         Do you speak negatively about them to others?

·         Do you avoid them?

·         Conversely, do you seek to maintain the friendship?

·         Do you get defensive?

·         Do you criticize them in a way that degrades (tears down) their reputation and character?

These questions are hard… they make me cringe, because I am guilty. But I also hope that I am learning. On that last question, criticism has become somewhat of a norm in Christianity today. Being critical of fine doctrinal points is something to be admired, we do want our doctrine to be “pure” after all. But do we realize how arrogant that is? Do you suppose that you have just a little more understanding (“smarts” we could say) or a little more of the Holy Spirit and you “know better” than someone else? I am so grieved at times at the critical spirit of so many Christians. They give some positives, but there’s always a “but” or a “however”. It’s like a disclaimer, “this was pretty good, but I don’t want to be known for totally agreeing with this… after all it doesn’t completely line up with exactly what I believe”. Why can’t we learn to be more gracious towards others, to praise the good we see and leave it at that? Must we always bring correction along with our praise? Is it really necessary and helpful?

One prayer I have for myself and for the church today is that we might learn to disagree with others more graciously, to let love cover a multitude of sins (or “misguided doctrine”), and learn to truly love others despite our disagreements that we might be the unified body Jesus prayed we would be (John 17).

Reading List! (July 31, 2015)

Finished this month:

The Law of Christ by Charles Leiter

OK. If you’re going to buy a book – get this one. Ohhhh I LOVED this book! On a couple of occasions it actually made me so joyful in the Lord it made me want to jump up and down and shout Hallelujah! This book lays before you the supreme excellence and glory of Christ, and it is so freeing, and so beautiful!

“The way of holiness is ultimately a love relationship with Christ,

empowered by the Holy Spirit.” (p. 220)

How is one to understand the law? Is the law of Moses and the law of Christ the same thing? How do they relate? What does it mean when the Scripture says that we are “free from the law” (Romans 8:2) or are no longer “under law” (Gal 5:18)? In sum: How should we live out this Christian life? Charles Lieter does a wonderful job exploring these questions, showing from the Scriptures how we should live in light of the example and commandments of Christ. We are indeed set free from the law and “in-lawed to Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). Throughout Scripture we have contrasts: flesh/spirit, law/grace, Moses/Christ. “It is not that the law of Christ overthrows the ‘holy and righteous and good’ law of Moses. God forbid! Rather, it fulfills and surpasses it!” (p. 94) We actually live by a higher standard – Christ! Over and over he emphasizes, our standard is Christ, and it is in light of the New Covenant and the supreme law of love that we interpret and “keep” the law. It’s not by rules, it’s by walking in the Spirit, by walking in love. Charles writes, “The Christian lives in a realm of glorious freedom, a freedom that brings with it the responsibility to serve others through love” (p. 104). It was convicting of course… how short I fall of Christ’s example to love!!!

If you have questions about this area, about what the law means or how you should be living out the Christian life and applying Scripture’s commands you need to read this book! If you are a Christian this will SO encourage you! There’s also a whole appendix in the back with some further discussion as well as a whole bunch of “frequently asked questions” which Charles does a fabulous job answering!

You can buy this book for just $11 (plus some shipping) here: http://www.grantedministries.org/law-of-christ-book-charles-leiter/

There’s a great summary of the book on this page as well. And on the same website you can get the e-book for $8.

OR – for  a free download of a 3-part message on this topic from Charles Leiter see here: http://www.grantedministries.org/law-of-christ-charles-leiter/

This month I also read four books on prayer.  It was interesting to compare, but also learn from each of these authors:

Answers to Prayer by George Muller

This one was less teaching and more just stories of answered prayer. At some point I want to read George Muller’s 2-part Narrative, but this little book gave a number of its highlights. In it you also find a section on how George Muller “found” (discerned) the will of God and how he knew what to pray for. Great little book that will give you great encouragement in your prayers!

The Prayer Life by Andrew Murray

In this book Andrew Murray very seriously addresses the sin of prayerlessness. Prayerlessness is really self-dependence and pride. We think we can control or change the situation so why pray? But at the heart of Christianity is the need for humility and dependence on God, thus we pray. Andrew Murray also address the importance of realizing one’s position in Christ. Thus he spends several chapters discussing sin and our need for Christ, and how our salvation secures for us victory over sin, assurance and enables us to pray with boldness. The relationship with Christ must be cultivated though and the Christian must learn to abide in Christ if he/she is to have a strong and effective prayer life. We must pray by faith, in dependence on God and with full surrender. There are one or two things in this book that I didn’t really like – but it was mostly phrasing… for clarity. Some do not like Andrew Murray for his association with Keswick, but for him (and I would agree) Keswick theology was simply emphasizing the truth that God can be trusted to keep us – we simply need to trust Him to do it and seek to abide in Him instead of relying on our own efforts.

“Nothing, nothing but the constant nearness and unceasing power of the living Christ can make it possible for you rightly to understand what sin is and to detest it.” (p. 59)

“Prayer is not merely coming to God to ask something from Him. It is above all fellowship with God and being brought under the power of His holiness and love…” (p. 40-41)

Draw the Circle by Mark Batterson

This is one of those books that within Reformed circles there is much criticism. I can understand why, but I will start off by saying that this book did challenge me. It challenged me to pray more boldly, more specifically and to not be afraid to pray (which is really doubt). The chief complaints from critics about this book (which would also include Mark’s first book The Circle Maker) involve two things: Mark’s use of Scripture (how he often makes a point, and then uses Scripture to back it up when we should normally be doing the opposite – Mark’s sermons, from the few I listened to are the same way), and his mysticism. Mysticism can be hard to define. There are many examples of extreme mysticism and many false religious are big on mysticism, thus naturally we should be wary of it. However, I am of the opinion that we can also go too far to the other extreme and become rigid in our religion and lose all passion. Christianity is in a sense a "mystic" religion - it is spiritual. How easy it is to simple believe in a sovereign God and become apathetic. I do love what Mark says, “In His omniscience and omnipotence, God has determined there are some things He will only do in response to prayer. The Bible puts it bluntly: ‘You do not have because you do not ask God.’ If we don’t ask, God can’t answer.” (p. 96, emphasis his). I would probably say I’m about 25% mystic, but this book is more like 50% mystic… less theologically precise and more experiential. That said, I would read this book with some caution. I would NOT give it to an unbeliever or even a Christian who was not very grounded in their walk with the Lord or in their knowledge of Scripture. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I read it and there are sections in this book that I loved (like I put exclamation points and a yes! next to it). His thoughts on prayer and fasting were really good, and throughout I was inspired and encouraged in a God who does indeed answer prayer – even the ones that seem impossible. He talks about how the answer to prayer is not the goal, the process is, because that’s often what changes us. He also shares how God’s answer to our prayers may be a no – and we need to be willing to accept that. But, if we are praying something that is His will then He will answer – although in His time and in His way. I love this quote:

“Our biggest problem is our small view of God. God is so much bigger than our biggest problems. God is so much better than our best thoughts. He is infinitely wiser and more glorious and powerful than anything we can imagine.” (p. 206)

Personally, my biggest problem with this book was that I was left with this question: How does one discern the will of God? How do we discern if what we want, what we feel is the will of God? Also, if we think we know what it is, how do we know that’s what it is? Where do we cross the line into presumption? These are important questions and unfortunately Mark does not really address them.

There are some who sharply criticize this book as a “name-it-and-claim-it” type of praying but I do not think this is accurate. This quote will sum up Mark’s view of prayer nicely:

“Drawing circles is a metaphor that simply means ‘praying until God answers’. It’s a determination to pray as long as it takes, even if it takes longer than you ever imagined. Drawing prayer circles isn’t some magic trick to get what you want from God. God is not a genie in a bottle, and your wish is not His command. His command better be your wish. If it’s not, you won’t be drawing prayer circles, you’ll end up walking in circles. Drawing prayer circles starts with discerning what God wants, what God wills. And until His sovereign will becomes your sanctified wish, your prayer life will be unplugged from its power supply. And getting what you want isn’t the goal; the goal is glorifying God by drawing circles around the promises, miracles, and dreams He wants for you.” (p. 119)

Amen! So, go ahead and draw circles around your prayers if that will help you grow in your prayer life!

A Praying Life by Paul Miller

If you're going to read a book on prayer though, this one should probably be it. This book was excellent! Immensely practical with helpful stories and it covers so many things in the area of life and prayer! Many of us tend to separate our real life from prayer – as if they exist in different realms, but in reality prayer is to be a part of our reality! Paul Miller has had his share of suffering and through this he really has learned how to have a praying life.

There were a number of similarities to Mark’s book above… like this quote: “Prayer is simply the medium through which we experience and connect to God” (p. 20), and his emphasis on asking God for the dreams and things on our hearts – even if they seem unrealistic or impossible: “We can dream big because God is big” (p. 206). In contrast with Mark’s though, it is much more Scripturally precise and also more practical. There’s a whole chapter on “hearing God” and how to discern what He’s saying to us. It was excellent – I rather wish he’d write a book just on that chapter! One criticism or weakness is where Andrew Murray is strongest – out identity and position in Christ gives us great boldness in prayer. Yes, we are to come like children, but we are also called to become mature. But he had such great thoughts on the reasons we don’t pray, the number one being cynicism, and writes on how we can guard and fight against these false ideas. It gave me so much to think about! He is very practical and very wisely answers questions that many have in the area of “unanswered” prayer. There were so many beautiful thoughts in this book! It drew me to adore my Savior more, and to be more aware of times when I should/could be praying instead of resuming I have it under control. Towards the end of the book he gives some practical advice on how to have a prayer time that is organized so that you can pray specifically.

“Prayer is strikingly intimate. As soon as you take a specific answer to prayer and try to figure out what caused it, you lose God. We simply cannot see the casual connections between our prayers and what happens…The only way to know how prayer works is to have complete knowledge and control of the past, present, and future. In other words, you can figure out how prayer works if you are God.” (p. 128)

“The great struggle of my life is not trying to discern God’s will; it is trying to discern and then disown my own.” (p. 157)

“When we don’t receive what we pray for or desire, it doesn’t mean that God isn’t acting on our behalf. Rather, he’s weaving his story.” (p. 187)

 

Conclusion: Each of these 4 books emphasizes that the driving force behind having a life of prayer is summed up in one word: Abiding. Each of them encouraged me to seek the Lord, to pray and not rely on myself. Again, I would say that if you want a book on prayer, I’d definitely recommend starting with the “A Praying Life”. The others are fine additions if you want to read further and for other recommendations, I’d also recommend the following: “A Treasury of Prayer” by E.M. Bounds, edited by Leonard Ravenhill, “The Power of Prayer in A Believer’s Life” by Spurgeon, “A Hunger for God” by John Piper, “Rees Howells Intercessor” by Norman Grubb, and any of George Muller’s books on his prayer life. For Tim Challies top 5 recommendations see here.

Currently Reading:

Plugged In: Proclaiming Christ in the Internet Age by Marie Notcheva (This is a newly-released book I will be reviewing in a separate post – look for it in about 2 weeks!)

Additional books I want to read this next month:

Found in Him by Elyse Fitzpatrick

How to Live Right When Your Life Goes Wrong by Leslie Vernick

The 5 Sola’s of the Reformation: Sola Deo Gloria!

The final “Sola” of the Reformation is Sola Deo Gloria which means, “Glory to God alone!” In the Roman Catholic Church salvation was achieved (as mentioned previously) not by grace through faith alone, but Christ/faith + works. You needed to do x or y, pray this prayer, take this pilgrimage, pay this tithe or indulgence, etc. or you could have no hope of salvation. As a result, if and when one did attain salvation, who really got the credit? Man did.

The more shocking thing about this, is that there are many protestants who would like to give themselves more credit than is due. After all, we did something didn’t we? We choose to believe, choose to follow Christ right? And we continue to choose to obey Him, to do what’s right, so we deserve some credit, some reward right?

No. You and I do not “deserve” anything. Remember our discussion on grace? It’s ALL grace, and it’s nothing that we do. Thus how can we dare presume that we deserve anything? God promises to reward us yes, but He rewards us based on His grace and mercy, not because of what we do.

According to Scripture, God’s main passion is for His own glory.There are some who have actually argued that that is “selfish,” but umm He is God you know… For God to pursue His own glory is NOT selfishness, in fact, it's the highest virtue! If He’s not concerned and jealous about His own glory then He’s not really the Supreme One. Someone has to be in charge - the problem is that we usually want it to be us. In doing so, or even by taking some credit for ourselves, we rob God of glory; we steal from the Divine One the honor due His name. But in this we find joy, because giving glory to God is what we were meant to do! Jonathan Edwards wrote, "God's purpose for my life was that I have a passion for God's glory and that I have a passion for my joy in that glory, and that these two are one passion."

Who ALONE gets the glory? “Well, yes, God” is usually the reply. But do you really live as though that were true? Does how you live your life and use your words line up with this truth? Or do you see your salvation as being mostly God and a little bit of me?  How about your sanctification, is it something God starts but you have to finish? Now, I’m not saying we don’t have responsibility, we clearly do, but my questions are probing to find out who really gets all the credit for all of this. Jesus counseled his disciples, “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’ ” (Luke 17:10) We have merely done our duty, and even that ability was given to us by His grace. Do you realize that there's nothing you can do to make God love you more and there's nothing you can do to cause God to love you less? Our salvation is based on His grace in Christ - it's not our work, it's no credit to ourselves. Paul writes, "But 'he who glories, let him glory in the Lord' " (2 Cor 10:17). He is our "boast" as other translations put it, He is our glory and our praise. To God be the glory - great things He has done! 

For more about this I'd encourage you to watch this short clip from Louie Giglio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3sWGlJMj4Q

The 5 Sola’s of the Reformation: Sola Gratia & Sola Fide

The concepts of these 2 sola’s were often grouped together. The reason is that one flows from the other. It’s by grace, through faith that we are saved.

The Roman Catholic Church taught (and still teaches) that it is not grace alone that saves us, its God’s “grace” + our work. Their definition of grace makes salvation possible – more like a general or common grace. It’s not a grace that actually and completely saves. But grace is the wellspring (source) of our salvation. Further, to spring from the previous post, Christ’s life, death and resurrection are the grounds to our salvation, but faith is the means. We attain this salvation not through our good works or merits, but simply by the grace of God and through faith in Christ’s atonement.

Grace has been defined in many different ways. Unmerited favor, or de-merited favor.  Simply put, grace is receiving what you do not deserve. The fact of the matter is that we do not deserve God’s mercy even to the degree that we live and breathe. But then there’s justification from sin which we can in no way earn as it’s outside of our ability to accomplish. This saving grace is an active grace that brings about new birth.

Here’s where even many Christians split. The Catholic church along with many protestants today believe that this saving grace is only active after an individual puts their faith in Christ. It’s a long-debated question: Which comes first, faith or salvation?

To find the answer we need to go to Scripture - as it is our "sola" authority! Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.” We are saved BY grace, THROUGH faith. It is very clearly the grace that saves us, but it’s through our faith that this becomes real to our experience. Thus, I believe salvation does theoretically precede faith. Our faith springs from the saving grace that God gives us through the new birth. We were dead in sin then “made alive” as Eph. 2:1 says. And that life in Christ gives birth to faith.

This is key as we remember that our salvation is not dependent upon our faith, it’s dependent upon God. Too many people look to their past, to a moment of “faith” they once had and that gives them their assurance. Many also look at their Christian life and think their standing with God is dependent on their continued efforts and faith. But those are both faulty. That is works-based justification and sanctification. We cannot depend on what we did (or did not do) in the past we must be looking to Christ! Yes, our faith may waver, it’s not perfect, but it’s through persevering in faith that it proves to be genuine. This process is called sanctification and that involves more of us cooperating with the Holy Spirit to grow and change. But justification (our salvation) is all (sola!) of grace not of ANY of our work or effort. And it’s realized all through faith not through any independent effort on our part.

Since it is grace is the source of our salvation and not our faith it gives us nothing to boast in, rather it paves the way for the last “sola” on the list… Stay tuned!

The 5 Sola’s of the Reformation: Sola Christus

“Christ alone”. For most reading this, that is rather obvious… of course we’re saved by Christ alone. But the Roman Catholic Church (not to mention EVERY other religion out there) did not (and still does not) really teach that. They believe and teach that Christ died for sin yes, but His sacrifice alone was not sufficient to take away sin. It’s Christ + works. However, the Reformers believed from Scripture that it was Christ’s sacrifice for sin that alone could justify us before God and that our own righteousness and works could have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Christ, His person, His work, His life, death and resurrection are the grounds for our salvation. There is no hope without them. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Why Christ? Because God demands a perfect sacrifice, and no mere man could suffice. Why blood? Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23). It is only through the sacrificial death of a perfect “second Adam” that we could have the hope of forgiveness of sin. In the Old Testament the Israelites offered the blood of lambs and oxen, but they were shadows of the perfect sacrifice that was coming. They were only a temporary covering of sin – they could not take it away. The author of Hebrews argues this throughout his letter as He shows the supremacy of Christ, His person and His work. He wrote,

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:11-14)

This is how Jesus just before he died could cry out “It is finished!” (John 19:30) – the work He had come for, to “seek and to save” sinners was completed. And by finished He meant just that – there was no more work to be done.  “Now where there is remission of [sin], there is no longer an offering for sin.” (Heb 10:18). What offering or sacrifice can we offer for our sin? There is none, because first of all, no sacrifice or work could be enough, and secondly, Christ has already offered it!

 

Paul writes, “In Him (Christ) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace…” (Eph 1:7)

Also Romans 3:21-25:

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith…”

Does this put you in awe of Christ? In amazement of His life lived and death died on our account? This is indeed a great Savior and although we may be great sinners, we can run to Him and find forgiveness! How does one attain this forgiveness? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Believe; trust; put your faith in Christ as sufficient to take away your sins and make you righteous before God! And what this faith is we shall discover more in my next post.