The Reformed Doctrine of “faith alone” is a cornerstone of protestant theology. This cornerstone, however, is put in place by inserting into Scripture a term that does not exist, building on it a man-made theology, such as the sinners prayer, God’s sovereign choice of salvation apart from one’s free-will and interpreting the word “works” to refer to either God’s commands or to anything that a person might do (otherwise).
One advocate of faith alone theology wrote, “I won’t defend the truth of justification by faith alone in detail, but it’s clearly taught, for example, in Romans 3:28: ‘A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.’ Or, as Paul teaches in Romans 4:5, ‘God justifies the ungodly.’ Both Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 4:1–8; Gal. 3:6–9).” 
It is my intent, in this article and the next, to address these passages, noticing the context and how it does not support to teaching “faith alone” and, finally, give some attention to James 2.
This is no small matter. Continue reading
The story is told of a civil war soldier who did not want to take sides but remain neutral and be accepted by both sides. He put on a pair of Confederate britches and donned a Union jacket. He was shot in the seat by a Yankee soldier and in the chest by a Rebel soldier and died of the injuries he incurred as a result of trying to be on both sides! Continue reading
Just a day or two ago I read an article in which the brother mentioned the use of Darwin’s idea of evolution to talk about doctrine. People say their understanding has evolved after prayer and study. I cannot now find this article. I’d very much like to reference it. Can anybody help me? (I thought sure it was Hugh Fulford’s News and Views, but have not found it there.)
A well-known “mega-church pastor” has supposedly ignited some controversy over his comments concerning the birth of Jesus. I haven’t listened to the sermon, but it seems as if the sum of the matter would be that the “pastor” doesn’t mind if an unbelieving person doubts the virgin-birth of Jesus as long as they believe in his death and resurrection.
I could say a lot about this gnat and camel situation, but I believe I will sum up my thoughts like this: 1) If an individual can believe that someone left this world by “walking” out of a tomb after being three-days-dead then how does his entrance into this world become the unbelievable stumbling block, and 2) If an individual refuses to acknowledge, through faith, God’s work in the birth of Jesus then how can that individual’s faith acknowledge God’s work when it comes to being born-again?
All in all, I can appreciate one’s interest in presenting Jesus to a lost world, but I can’t appreciate one’s interest in dismissing what those shepherds found so long ago.
“So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds.” (Luke 2:15-18)
“I’D GIVE A PRETTY . . .”
One of the fond memories of my childhood is spending several days each summer with each set of my grandparents. All of my grandparents lived within thirty miles of our home and we spent much time together, not only in the summer, but throughout the year during holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, as well as at other times. Continue reading
THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE
Over the years since I started sending out these weekly essays, I have addressed a wide variety of matters, but some subjects get more attention than others. Brotherhood journals likewise address a wide range of subjects, but some subjects are addressed more frequently than others. In their annual Bible lectureships, Christian universities that have remained true to the purpose of their founders, Bible Institutes, and Schools of Preaching will be careful to address the entire gamut of Bible teaching, but some items will get more attention than others. Local churches in their teaching and preaching programs, in their gospel meetings, and in other special events will address some subjects more often than others. In all of these various venues, why do some subjects receive more attention than others?” Perhaps the following little ditty will explain why. Continue reading
Doctrine isn’t that big of a deal…so says the school of thought from which some of our “tribe-less” brothers and sisters have graduated.
The whole idea (or should I say bleached out doctrine?) isn’t new, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less wrong.
When someone says that doctrine is an antiquated and useless topic, they just don’t know what they’re talking about. They might know what they’re saying, but they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Jesus once told his disciples to, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:6)
Now, what kind of bread producing substance was Jesus talking about? It was the spiritual kind: “Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:12) It’s along the same spiritual idea (only in a positive sense) that Paul had in mind when he told Timothy, “If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.” (1 Timothy 4:6)
You see, the yeast truly makes a difference in the bread that we spiritually eat; so don’t get sandwiched in the thought that says doctrine is a dirty word.