Those, like Wright, who advocate the New Perspectives, posit that the Reformers were wrong in seeing first century Judaism as a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. As Dr. Cornelis P. Venema (President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where he is also Professor of Doctrinal Studies) writes in his very helpful little book addresing the the New Perspectives, Getting the Gospel Right:

The problem with the Judaizers’ appeal to the ‘works of the law’ was not its legalism, Wright insists, but its perverted nationalism. (p. 37, original emphasis)

Venema continues in his description of Wright’s views:

One of the unfortunate features of the Reformation and of much evangelical thinking, according to Wright, is that they reduce the gospel to ‘a message about “how one gets saved”, in an individual and ahistorical sense’.

In this way of thinking, the focus of attention, so far as the gospel is concerned, is upon ‘something that in older theology would be called an ordo salutis, an order of salvation’. Because of its inappropriate focus upon the salvation of individual sinners, the older Reformation tradition was bound to exaggerate the importance of the doctrine of justification.

Whereas the Reformation perspective understands the gospel in terms of the salvation of individual sinners, Wright maintains that Paul’s gospel has a different focus. According to Wright, the basic message of Paul’s gospel focuses upon the lordship of Jesus Christ.

(pp. 39–40, bold emphasis mine)

So, according to Venema, Wright thinks that the Reformers inappropriately focused on the salvation of individual sinners and exaggerated the importance of the doctrine of justification (how we obtain a right standing before God). Oh dear.

Venema summarizes (p. 41, Getting the Gospel Right) Wright’s understanding of the gospel like this (citing p. 61 of Wright’s book, What Saint Paul Really Said):

The great theme of the gospel is this message of Jesus’ lordship and its life- and world-transforming significance. Rather than the salvation of individual sinners, the theme of Christ’s lordship is the primary focus of Paul’s teaching.

Now, while it is true that the gospel does have life-changing consequences, these are not the Gospel itself, but its fruits.

And yes, Christ is most certainly Lord – Lord of all. But the Lordship of Christ is no comfort to a sinner standing before God clothed in his own filthy righteousness, but a terror. The lordship of Christ is a glorious truth, but it is not the Gospel. The Gospel is Christ’s life, death and resurrection for sinners.

Now, Venema’s summary of Wright’s gospel seems fair. This is, verbatim, how Wright defines his gospel in my copy of What St Paul Really Said (1997, Lion, p. 60):

[The gospel] is a fourfold announcement about Jesus:

1. In Jesus of Nazareth, specifically in his cross, the decisive victory has been won over all the powers of evil, including sin and death themselves.

2. In Jesus’ resurrection the New Age has dawned, inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel’s exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.

3. The crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel’s Messiah, her representative king.

4. Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name every knee would bow.

It is, moreover, a double and dramatic announcement about God:

1. The God of Israel is the one true God, and the pagan deities are mere idols.

2. The God of Israel is now made known in and through Jesus himself.

There’s much that is true there. Yet, somehow, Wright manages to have Jesus and the cross without ever affirming that Jesus died there for sinners. Instead, the cross is presented merely as a ‘decisive victory’ (which it is), without it also being the place where Jesus bore the punishment for our sin, being the propitiating sacrifice that reconciles us with an infinitely holy and righteous God. Wright’s version of the gospel sounds like the Biblical Gospel, but it is subtly different in critical ways. The problem lies not so much in what Wright includes, but in what he leaves out.

Contrast the Apostle Paul’s definition of the Gospel:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:1–8)

If Wright is correct, Paul is wrong, and the Gospel is not primarily about Christ’s death in the place of sinners and for their sins. If Paul is correct, then Wright is mistaken, and the Gospel is something other than the world-changing proclamation of the victory and kingship of Christ.

Wright’s views take him further, leading him even to reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Venema, again (p. 45, Getting the Gospel Right):

Though Wright affirms the forensic nature of this language in a way that is reminiscent of the Reformation view of justification, he maintains that the Reformation’s idea of the imputing or imparting of God’s righteousness to believers makes no sense.

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteous is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 99)

According to Wright, the ‘righteousness of God’, which refers to God’s faithfulness to the promises he made to Israel, cannot be granted or imputed to believers. Nothing like an act of imputation need occur in order for God to declare in favour of his people.

Wright seems mistakenly to view the Reformer’s understanding of the Biblical language of the law court through the lens of late 20th century jurisprudence. And in an attempt to bolster his position, Wright sets up a straw man, for not one of Reformers ever suggested that righteousness is ‘an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom’. (Wright’s words here are curious, because the idea of righteousness as an object imparted to the believer seems reminiscent of the Roman Catholic view of infused righteousness, something entirely antithetical to the doctrine of imputation.)

Compare Wright’s view with the words of St. Paul to the Romans:

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 [declared righteous] freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

(Romans 3:21–28)

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

(Rom. 4:1–8)

And to the Philippians:

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

(Phil. 3:7–11)

Paul speaks plainly of a righteousness from God that is accounted – imputed – to us through faith in Christ. One would have to work very hard to make those texts say something else.

By denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers, Wright has shifted the focus of the Gospel entirely away from justification by grace alone through faith alone in the merits of Christ alone. Instead, he offers a new locus of attention, the world-changing announcement of the kingship of Christ. Be in no doubt that Wright has radically redefined the Gospel.

How important is the doctrine of imputation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Martin Luther called it the ‘main doctrine of Christianity’ (Luther’s Works, vol. 26, commenting on Gal. 2:5).

In discussing the active righteousness that comes from keeping the Law, and the passive righteousness that we have through faith in Christ (that is, Christ’s own righteousness put to our account, though we did nothing to merit it), Luther makes clear the centrality of the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us:

The flesh is accused, exercised, saddened, and crushed by the active righteousness of the Law. But the spirit rules, rejoices, and is saved by passive righteousness, because it knows that it has a Lord sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Father, who has abolished the Law, sin, and death, and has trodden all evils underfoot, has led them captive and triumphed over them in Himself (Col. 2:15). In this epistle [Paul’s letter to the Galatians], therefore, Paul is concerned to instruct, comfort, and sustain us diligently in a perfect knowledge of this most excellent and Christian righteousness. For if the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost.

(The Argument of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Luther’s Works, vol. 26, Concordia Publishing House, 1999)

Like Wright, Luther makes much of the victory of Christ. Unlike Wright, Luther sees the comfort, joy, and power of this victory as originating in the perfect righteousness that Christ has won being accounted to us by faith.

Though there is much that is true and helpful in what Wright has written, his New Perspective is nothing less than an audacious challenge to what Dr. Walter Martin called ‘the historic orthodox Christian faith.’

Venema concludes Getting the Gospel Right with these fitting words (pp. 91–92):

According to the Reformation perspective, the most basic problem that any human being faces is the problem of his or her guilt before God. No human achievement or moral act can make amends before God for human sin and disobedience, No one can find favour with God on the basis of his or her own obedience to the requirements of God’s holy law. Only the perfect obedience and sacrificial death of Christ upon the cross can satisfy the demands of God’s justice and secure the believer’s right standing before him.

…

Thought it may be admitted that the new perspective has illumined some significant aspects of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, its claims to offer a more satisfying interpretation of Paul’s gospel than that of the Reformation seem at best overstated, and at worst clearly wrong. In a biblically and theologically satisfying manner, the Reformation perspective continues to capture one of the great themes of the Christian gospel: the amazing grace of God, who justifies, not the righteous, but the ungodly, for the sake of Christ.

Amen to that.

I highly recommend Venema’s gem of a book, which also gives an overview and critique of E.P. Sanders’ and J.D.G. Dunn’s views, in addition to those of Wright. Getting the Gospel Right is only 92 small pages long, so you can read it in a couple of hours.

• Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul

Resources for further study

In 2009, Dr. Albert Mohler (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) chaired a panel on N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification. I found the discussion to be a helpful introduction to the topic.

• Panel Discussion – N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification (Video) (Audio)

(My thanks to Pastor Paul T. McCain for linking to this discussion in his article, Why Wright is Wrong: Refuting the “New Perspective on Paul” Movement.)

For a more detailed treatment rebutting the claims of the New Perspectives on Paul, the following books are widely regarded (they’re waiting on my bookshelf in my reading queue):

• The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and ‘New Perspectives’ on Paul (also by Cornelis P. Venema).
• Justification and Variegated Nomism (Volume 1): The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Edited by D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid & Peter T. O’Brien)
• Justification and Variegated Nomism (Volume 2): The Paradoxes of Paul (Edited by D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid & Peter T. O’Brien)

In this superb talk, Dr. Rosenbladt explains why so many people end up leaving our churches not just disillusioned, but angry. He goes on to present the undiluted Gospel as the antidote.

You can listen to (or watch) this address for free on Dr. Rosenbladt’s New Reformation Press website:

• The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church

Patton makes a good argument: that Lewis set out to defend orthodoxy and the person and work of Jesus Christ, whereas Bell seems to delight in challenging them. And, no doubt, this provides a substantive part of the answer to Patton’s question. Much of what Lewis writes is helpful, and the broad appeal of his apologetic work undeniable. But I am not sure that Patton has quite explained the entirety of Lewis’ attraction.

Now, I am far from an expert on Lewis. I read the Narnia series as a child, along with The Screwtape Letters, and then some of his other works in my early twenties. Much more recently, I read and enjoyed his fictional Cosmic Trilogy. I very much appreciated Lewis’ essay, On the Reading of Old Books, which he wrote as the introduction to a translation of Athanasius’ work On the Incarnation. Everyone should read that essay. Nevertheless, there is very much of Lewis’ work that I have (yet) to assimilate, though his general theological perspective is apparent in what I have read.

Lewis was certainly not orthodox in a great deal of his theology, as Patton observes. Even in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for example, it is decidedly odd that Aslan pays a ransom to the Snow Queen. Lewis’ view of Scripture was rather lower than many of us would think proper. He believed in a form of purgatory. And he had inclusivist tendencies – the belief that a person could ‘belong to Christ without knowing it’ (Mere Christianity). Lewis’ views on evolution, though – particularly in later life – are perhaps not as straightforward as Patton seems to suggest.

Why, then, given his questionable-at-points doctrine, is Lewis as popular as he his among those who would – notionally, at least – subscribe to sounder doctrine?

Patton makes his case well, though I suspect a further factor is that Lewis was possessed both of an extraordinarily fine mind and the literary prowess to be able to communicate his thoughts clearly and engagingly to a wide audience. Whether or not one agrees with him, Lewis makes us think. And this, for the discerning reader, is a great benefit. However, the problems inherent in Lewis’ theology are a potential trap for the unwary. I am not therefore quite as ready to endorse Lewis’ ministry as is Patton. The danger of false doctrine is not lessened by an accomplished and affable presentation, nor by the attending presence of a great deal of truth. Quite the contrary.

And therein perhaps lies another small piece of the puzzle with regard to Lewis’ popularity. I wonder whether too many of us are insufficiently discerning, too attracted by the superficial lure of a cool well on scorching summer’s day to be concerned by reports that it is tainted by a mortal threat. For Lewis’ doctrinal foibles are not excused by his undoubted greatness, but magnified. As the writer of Ecclesiastes observes:

Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment,
And cause it to give off a foul odour;
So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.
Ecc. 10:1

Thus, if we are to read Lewis, let us exercise diligent discernment – as indeed we should do with even the most excellent of teachers (cf. Acts 17:10–11).

Like us, Lewis was imperfect, a fallen sinner prone to err. Thanks be to God, then, that we have in Jesus Christ a perfect Saviour who has paid the punishment for all our sins, whether those of doctrinal imperfection or of insufficient discernment. Believing this, we stand before God declared righteous in Christ.

Further resources

The Christian Research Institute has a brief, balanced and helpful assessment of Lewis’ theology (PDF).

A year or two ago, I started to listen to a lecture series (available for free on iTunesU) on C.S. Lewis by Dr. Knox Chamblin at Reformed Theological Seminary. Regrettably, I became sidetracked before I learnt very much. I have recently started to listen to it again, and I am thus far very much enjoying Dr. Chamblin’s manifest enthusiasm for his subject.

Our text is Matthew 1:18–25:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.’

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.’

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

❅

With all the myths of the Christmas season – Father Christmas, Rudolf, Mr Ebenezer Scrooge – it is tempting to think of the birth of Jesus as just one more made-up story among many. The nativity as an incidental artefact of a busy midwinter festival. A diverting scene to amuse the children.

But the birth in Bethlehem of a baby boy called Jesus really happened.

Not a myth, but an actual event in history.

No chance occurrence, but the beginning of the fulfilment of dozens of Biblical prophecies.

700 years before the birth of Christ, God spoke through His prophet Isaiah, further unwrapping the divine plan for salvation. Moved by God, Isaiah prophesied that ‘a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel’. (2 Pet. 1:21; Is. 7:14; Matt. 1:23)

St. Matthew explains that ‘Immanuel’ means ‘God With Us’. Of this ‘Immanuel’, Isaiah further spoke:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given,
And the government shall be upon His shoulder,
And His name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Is. 9:6)

No ordinary child, then – this Christ, this Messiah, this anointed one.

No, here in the grubby nativity manger lies the Mighty God Himself.

The Creator of the universe in helpless human flesh.

Here is Immanuel, ‘God With Us’. Christ Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man. Two natures, human and divine, united in one perfect person.

This child in a manger is the Jesus whose ancestral line we follow throughout the Old Testament.

This is the promised seed of Eve, who has bruised Satan’s head. (Gen. 3:15)

This is the long awaited Messiah, spoken of by Moses. (Deut. 18:15; John 5:46)

This is the offspring of Abraham, to whom God promised ‘In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed’. (Gen. 22:18)

This is the ‘Righteous Branch of King David’, who shall ‘execute judgment and righteousness in the earth’. (Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5)

This is the one ‘Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting’, whom Micah prophesied would come out of Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2)

This babe, then, this Righteous King and Judge, is the one of whom all the Scriptures speak. (Luke 24:27)

❅ ❅

In times past, God spoke by the prophets. In these last days, God has stooped and spoken to us by His own Son. (Heb. 1:1)

Dare we not listen to Him?

❅ ❅ ❅

The angel commanded that Mary’s son be named Jesus, reasoning that ‘He shall save His people from their sins.’ ‘Jesus’ means ‘God saves’, and this Jesus, the Man who is God, shall indeed save His people from their sins.

And how great is our need of salvation from our sins! For the Lord of Heaven and Earth gives us life. He created us to seek, worship, honour and obey Him. He gave us commandments, showing us how to live so that we might bring Him glory. (James 1:17; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31).

But we have all turned away from God, rejecting Him and His Law. (Is. 53:6)

Jesus tells us that the greatest of all His laws is that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our mind and all our strength. (Mar. 12:30)

But we do not.

I do not.

You do not.

I do not fear, love and trust in God with my whole being. I neglect His holy Word. I reject His commandments and substitute my own ideas about how I should live. I worship and serve my own desires, rather than the one true God who made me. Like the Apostle Paul, I do the things I hate – things God hates. (Rom. 7:13–25; 1 John 1:8)

The deeper we gaze into the mirror of God’s holy Law, the more of our sin we see reflected there. We have grievously offended the infinite Mighty God who is perfectly Holy, Righteous and Just. We ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ (Rom. 3:16; cf. 1 John 1:8)

John the Baptist speaks of the ‘wrath which is to come’; Jesus speaks of the day of judgment when He Himself shall separate His sheep from the goats, casting the unrighteous into the everlasting fire of hell, prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matt. 3:7; Matt. 25:41; Heb. 9:27)

That is what I deserve. What you deserve. (Rom. 6:23)

❅ ❅ ❅ ❅

But consider again the babe in the manager. The child of God’s eternal decree, foretold by the prophets. God incarnate, born into the world to save sinners such as you and me.

Where we could earn only God’s wrath, this child grew and earned the Father’s good pleasure by his life of perfect obedience to God’s Law.

Where we could die for nothing but our own sin, this Jesus, the spotless, sinless, sacrifice Lamb of God, went willingly to a Roman execution cross. (John 1:29, 10:15, 17, 18; Matt. 3:17)

There, He suffered, shed His blood and died, bearing in His body the punishment for all the sin of all those who trust in Him and call on His name. He paid the penalty in full, satisfying God’s offended holiness and righteousness. The Father showed that He accepted this perfect sacrifice, declaring Jesus to be His Son by raising Him from the dead. (Ps. 22:11-18; Is. 53:5; Acts 2:22–33; Rom. 1:4, 4:23–25, 7:4)

Through the cross, this Prince of Peace thus made peace between a wrathful, holy God and sinful men and women. (Col. 1:20, 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; Heb. 10:10; Rev. 6:17; 2 Cor. 5:19)

This is the Good News: Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead, in accordance with the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15)

The great exchange for those who trust in Christ is this: He takes our sin, and accounts to us His righteousness.

Jesus says of Himself:

‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

(John 3:16-18, KJV)

This Christmas, hear the voice of God in human flesh. Obey the command Jesus now gives you: ‘Repent, and believe in the Good News.’ (Matt. 9:13; Mark 1:13).

Trust in Him alone, His death for you, His righteous life put to your account. This Christmas, receive from Him the free gift of your sins forgiven. (Rom. 5:15–16, 18)

And if you are already trusting in Christ? Be joyful! Your sins are forgiven! May the Lord grant that we daily renew our repentance and remember that we have an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

Amen.

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jeremiah 29:11)

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10)

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

Where there is no vision the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18)

If you have read my article Spiritual growth? There’s an app for that, you’ll be aware that there is currently a big push within the Church to adopt these dangerous practices. Mike and Bob show you why this is a Bad Thing.

Still here? Quick, go read the article now – but don’t forget to come right back:

• The Dangers of Spiritual Formation and Spiritual Disciplines

For those who don’t know him, Bob DeWaay is pastor at Twin City Fellowship in Minnesota and the founder of Critical Issues Commentary. He is also the author of two superb books, both of which I highly recommend:

• The Emergent Church – Undefining Christianity
• Redefining Christianity: Understanding the Purpose Driven Life Movement

If you don’t have a copy of these books, go buy them now!

1. We are never permitted to sin.
2. We cannot avoid sinning.

Both of these assertions appear in an excellent article by Todd Wilken (of the Issues, Etc radio programme). Todd writes:

They seem so different. One person lives his life striving for moral perfection. The other person doesn’t try that hard. The first is convinced that he can avoid sinning, if he tries hard enough. The second is equally convinced that he can’t avoid sinning, so why try at all? After all, He says, ‘I like to sin; God likes to forgive; that’s a pretty good deal.’ The first is all about keeping the rules; the second is all about breaking them.

The first is a legalist. The second is licentious. They seem very different, don’t they?

Which are you? A legalist? Or licentious? Either way, you won’t regret reading the full article:

• Legalism and licence

Thank you to my friend Paula Coyle of Purpose Drivel (please visit!) for bringing this article to my attention, and for the opening question to this post.

‘Most of the preachers were dynamic, engaging, interesting and even entertaining. Most of their sermons were terrible.’

I’ve just come across this magnificent article (courtesy of Chris Rosebrough from Pirate Christian Radio), written by Todd Wilken of the Issues, Etc. radio program. It clearly shows the difference between a good and bad sermon.

• A listener’s guide to the pulpit (PDF)

Everyone who preaches, or listens to preachers, would benefit from reading this. Why not print a few copies and share them with friends?

Although entertainingly polemical, Chris doesn’t just poke holes. Rather, he equips his listeners to defend against error. He gives clear correction from the Bible and always directs us towards the true Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners. He faithfully handles the Word of God, properly understanding and explaining the critical distinction between Law and Gospel. He uses the law to crush us, and calls us to repentance, but never neglects to offer the forgiveness of sin through trusting in Christ’s death on the cross.

A highlight of most programmes is the sermon review — after listening to Fighting for the Faith for a few weeks, you’ll perhaps never listen to a sermon in the same way again.

As with Issues, Etc (mentioned in my previous post), Chris is coming from a Confessional Lutheran background. Don’t let that put you off, even if you (like me) are from a different tradition. There is gold here.

If you find yourself listening to Fighting for the Faith regularly, don’t forget to support the work by joining the Pirate Christian Radio crew or making a donation!

Download either of these files, then print using the Acrobat Reader:

• Bible Reading Chart (PDF, A4 size)
• Bible Reading Chart (PDF, US letter size)

Did you know that you can complete the whole Bible in a year if you read just 3 chapters each weekday, and 4 on Saturdays and Sundays?

You can hear this series for free via RTS on iTunes U. You can access the series here, or, once you’ve managed to get to the iTunes U area in the iTunes Store, navigate to Reformed Theological Seminary > RTS/Virtual Courses in Church History > History and Theology of the Puritans.