More helpful stuff on sanctification

A summary of Derek Thomas' talk on sanctification at The Gospel Reformation Network lunch.

And a summary of that is this:

Sanctification is not passive and is absolutely necessary

Another great article from Montgomery, Alabama

When I read this thoughtful, careful, encouraging article on understanding justification and sanctification and discovered it came from Montgomery, Alabama, I assumed it must have been the author of the stimulating article on creation and evolution.

But, it turns out that this city has at least two good writers and thinkers.

The first article was by Alan Cross, of Gateway Baptist Church, who blogs at Downshore Drift

The second was by Tom Hicks, pastor at Morningview Baptist Church.

The Wee Flea

Have you come across David Robertson? I'm not referring to the new chief conductor of The Sydney Symphony Orchestra, but to a Scots Presbyterian gentleman who writes very wisely.

I appreciate his review of Engaging with Keller.

And I am greatly awed by his patience, persistence and faithfulness in his interactions with angry atheists, which has resulted in at least a few people coming to faith in Christ.

Who dares to query evolution?

This is a good statement of why someone can dare to query macro evolution.

What do American Christian teenagers believe about Jesus?

This survey has some sobering information, but it is worth pondering.

 

Embracing contemporary values seems much more important than holding fast to the teaching of the Bible, it seems.

N T Wright: The Cross and the Kingdom

This article looks really good, but I haven't had time to read it yet.
I find Wright's comment to the effect that the creeds do not really tell the same story as the gospels interesting. He says he agrees with the creeds, but points out they omit Jesus life between his birth and death.

Sandy Grant on Biblical Authority

In the context of a discussion of Paul's words about women speaking and teaching in church, Sandy Grant, rector of Wollongong Anglican Church said this:

My other contribution is to wonder whether in the current vigour from some evangelicals to defend the possibility of women preaching in the mixed congregation (albeit under male eldership) – and hence you can see this comment is far, far broader than Mike – whether there ought to be equal or perhaps even greater vigour to be affirming the final authority of Scripture as God's Word in determining this matter.

This matters to me even more. It's why I changed my mind, reluctantly, to the conservative position. Because I was convinced that was what the Bible was teaching, and that even though I did not like it much, because of my upbringing, I ought to believe what Jesus believed: that the Scriptures (including those he 'commissioned', if I can refer to what comes in the NT that way) are the Word of God and cannot be broken. Therefore I ought to believe what they are saying.

I realise those who hold a position like Mike's also believe it because they think it is consistent with what the Bible says. And I respect that. (And that's when we do need to go to exegesis and comparing Scripture with Scripture and so on.)

But I'd like to see evangelicals - whether soft or harder on the complementarian position - pull up our friends who cheer our position (whatever it is) for reasons that make it clear that Scripture is not their final authority.

Let's urge them to grapple with this question: if you were convinced from the Bible that this [position X] is what it is teaching, would you change your mind and practice to be consistent with it, that is, with what God declares in his Word?

I like it.