Loving Wisdom

The writer of Proverbs exclaims, "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding." Proverbs 4:7 (NIV) This urgent imperative motivates Loving Wisdom, the latest book from Christian apologist and philosopher Paul Copan. I have to say, this is probably not a book I would have tackled, but for the fact that Paul is a friend and fellow member of the church Shannon and I are a part of. We're also blessed to have him as one of our Sunday School teachers. Thankfully, I did tackle it, for it's a most rewarding book.

Loving Wisdom is a book that's difficult to summarize, and I gather that was intentional. In groundbeaking fashion, Paul has written an extraordinarily wide-ranging book that's exhaustive enough to serve as a textbook on many subjects within apologetics and philosophy of religion, but concise enough to serve as "a kind of launching pad" to further exploration. This is one of the densest books I've ever read -- dense in ideas not words! Paul can cover a remarkable amount of ground in a relatively few pages. Coming to it as a layman, I found it readable and accessible -- even when comprehension of difficult concepts proved elusive. Although a serious and scholarly treatment of serious topics, Loving Wisdom is never ponderous, mainly because Paul's writing is suffused with his good humor and trademark wit. What also comes through is his charitable and fair treatment of opposing viewpoints, which is in marked contrast to the attitudes that often characterize the "New Atheists" (and the old atheists).

So why should the average Christian believer be concerned with difficult questions and arguments raised by those who don't share our beliefs? Isn't it enough to fall back on bumper-sticker slogans? i.e. God said it, I believe it, that settles it! Why should Christians "do philosophy"? Paul writes:

Unfortunately, some Christians speak disparagingly about philosophy, as though it's always done in an anti-Christian manner. They may cite Paul's caution, "Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies" (1 Cor. 8:1), or his warning against "philosophy and empty deception" (Col. 2:8). They may claim to promote a Spirit-given knowledge that seems foolish to the "natural" person (1 Cor. 1-2). While such passages remind us that our thinking shouldn't be detached from God's self-revelation and his Spirit's workings, they hardly undermine the importance of defending our faith in the marketplace of ideas and of engaging in the discipline of philosophy as Christians. (p. 6)

Paul goes on to write that being "reasonably prepared to address important questions non-Christians typically ask" will make our Christian witness vastly more effective. In fact, "good reasons for believing the gospel are part of it's attractiveness." (p. 7) Yes, as fallen creatures our reason is limited, "but we are still endowed by God with the capacity to appreciate good reasons for belief. If Paul reasoned and sought to persuade others in the first century, why think that today God can't use good reasons for belief?" (p. 8)

Loving Wisdom is organized according to the flow of the Biblical narrative: God, Creation, Fall, Redemption and Re-creation (the "triune theodrama"). Difficult concepts and questions that Christian thinkers have been wrestling with for centuries are discussed. For example -- God's relation to time, the relationship between divine omniscience and human freedom, the problem of evil and the Incarnation. Even if one doesn't agree with all of Paul's assertions, they will be provoked (as I was) to think more deeply. And they'll be made to see that just because something can't be rationally explained, this doesn't make belief in it irrational. Writing on the Incarnation:

This doctrine, along with the other great things of the gospel, is glorious and not reducible to logical formulas. But this hardly implies the doctrine is illogical. (p. 155)

One of the strengths of the book is the compelling case Paul makes that the existence of a personal, creator God is by far the best explanation for many of the phenomena we observe. The case is boiled down in a nifty "God vs. Naturalism" chart on pp. 103-104 which is the centerpiece of my favorite chapter in the book "God-The Best Explanation". For instance: a phenomena we recognize/observe is that "the universe began to exist a finite time ago." This makes sense in a theistic context if "a powerful, previously existing God brought the universe into being without any preexisting material. (Here, something comes from something.)" -- but the naturalistic conclusion is that "the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing-or was, perhaps, self-caused. (Here, something comes from nothing.)" Or how about the even more foundational fact that "Personal beings exist." This isn't surprising if "God is a personal Being", but quite surprising if (as the naturalist believes) "the universe was produced by impersonal processes." Who's making the biggest leap of faith here? Which explanation fits the facts?

In closing, what should Christian philosophy look like?

Christian philosophers, lovers of God's wisdom, won't get lost in abstractions, but will attend to the implications of the divine-human interaction--namely, love for God and neighbor, trust, humility, charitability, perseverance, and a host of other virtues necessary for the task. (Preface ix)

If our philosophizing about God fills us with pride and self-sufficiency so that we lose touch with God and have no patience and grace toward others, then we are no longer lovers of wisdom. (p. 8)

Thanks for your example, Paul. May we all be lovers of God's wisdom!


Check out Paul's website.

Machen on the Cross of Christ

I did want to share one more post from Christianity and Liberalism. You can find previous posts in the series here, here, here, here, here and here. These two excerpts are plucked somewhat out of context, nevertheless, I think they tell us what it was (and who it was) that animated J. Gresham Machen.

The Christian doctrine of the atonement, therefore, is altogether rooted in the Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ. The reality of an atonement for sin depends altogether upon the New Testament presentation of the Person of Christ. And even the hymns dealing with the Cross which we sing in Church can be placed in an ascending scale according as they are based upon a lower or a higher view of Jesus' Person. At the very bottom of the scale is that familiar hymn:

Nearer, my God, to thee,
Nearer to thee!
E'en though it be a cross
That raiseth me.

That is a perfectly good hymn. It means that our trials may be a discipline to bring us nearer to God. The thought is not opposed to Christianity; it is found in the New Testament. But many persons have the impression, because the word "cross" is found in the hymn, that there is something specifically Christian about it, and that it has something to do with the gospel. This impression is entirely false. In reality, the cross that is spoken of is not the Cross of Christ, but our own cross; the verse simply means that our own crosses or trials may be a means to bring us nearer to God. It is a perfectly good thought, but certainly it is not the gospel. One can only be sorry that the people on the Titanic could not find a better hymn to use in the last solemn hour of their lives. But there is another hymn in the hymn-book:

In the cross of Christ I glory,
Towering o'er the wrecks of time;
All the light of sacred story
Gathers round its head sublime.

That is certainly better. It is here not our own crosses but the Cross of Christ, the actual event that took place on Calvary, that is spoken of, and that event is celebrated as the centre of all history. Certainly the Christian man can sing that hymn. But one misses even there the full Christian sense of the meaning of the Cross; the Cross is celebrated, but it is not understood.

It is well, therefore, that there is another hymn in our hymn-book:

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

There at length are heard the accents of true Christian feeling--"the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died." When we come to see that it was no mere man who suffered on Calvary but the Lord of Glory, then we shall be willing to say that one drop of the precious blood of Jesus is of more value, for our own salvation and for the hope of society, than all the rivers of blood that have flowed upon the battlefields of history.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 126-128

Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often evasive. The preacher in question, it is said, is of good standing in the Church, and he has never denied the doctrines of grace. Therefore, it is urged, he should be called to the pastorate. But shall we be satisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied with preachers who merely "do not deny" the Cross of Christ? God grant that such satisfaction may be broken down! The people are perishing under the ministrations of those who "do not deny" the Cross of Christ. Surely something more than that is needed. God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross, whose whole life shall be one burning sacrifice of gratitude to the blessed Saviour who loved them and gave Himself for them!

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 175-176

I believe that last sentence is an apt description of this great contender for the faith "once for all delivered to the saints."

Here is an excellent biographical portrait of J. Gresham Machen.

Roy Scheider (10 November 1932 - 10 February 2008)

So long, Chief Brody...

Another one of my heroes

Tim Keller

BTW, the article is incorrect that The Reason for God is Keller's first book. That would be the indispensable Ministries of Mercy. Read it!


UPDATE: More on Tim Keller and Newsweek (from Ed Stetzer)

Bicycle Thieves

"It would be no exaggeration to say that Bicycle Thieves is the story of a walk through Rome by a father and his son."
-André Bazin


Veritá e Poesia (truth and poetry) was the battle cry of Italian neorealist cinema, a development forged in the crucible of prostrate post-war Italy. "Life as it is" would replace the idealized and star-driven studio films of the Mussolini years and provide an alternative to imported Hollywood fare. Perhaps the fullest and finest expression of this school is Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves "Ladri di Biciclette", and Criterion has done their usual superb job in making it available on DVD so a new generation of viewers can discover anew it's power and poetry.

Neorealism self-consciously turned the typical action-oriented protagonist on it's head, instead condescending to document the travails of the common man, especially the common man victimized by societal and economic forces beyond his control. European cinema has always been more entangled with politics than it's American cousin. In post-war Italy political parties of the left and right, as well as the Catholic Church, published dueling film journals castigating or praising the latest releases based on their supposed ideological biases. Not surprisingly, neorealism became associated with left-wing politics. The hugely influential French critic André Bazin, writing in 1949, called it "the only valid Communist film of the whole past decade" even though it has no explicit (or even implicit) ideological message.

In fact, it has no explicit plot. Basically nothing happens beyond the seemingly insignificant: Antonio Ricci, a newly employed poster-hanger, has his bicycle stolen and spends a day fruitlessly searching for it with his son Bruno tagging along. Bazin again: "the whole story would not deserve two lines in a stray dog column." Yet, for those with eyes to see there are layers and layers of significance in every frame of this masterpiece. Part of the neorealist's effort to do away with the typical "man of action" was to do away with the convention of star-driven movies in favor of casting untrained actors. The three leads in Bicycle Thieves are played by a factory worker, a journalist, and a boy that De Sica saw walking in the street one day. The only star in this film is Rita Hayworth, who appears on the poster we see Antonio Ricci rather haplessly pasting up just before it all goes wrong.


The naturalness of the actors fit with the naturalistic style -- no studio sets and almost none of the typical moviemaking artifice (De Sica did bring in the fire brigade to manufacture the rain in one famous sequence). These tactics were enormously shocking for audiences of 1948, and later films like The 400 Blows, Breathless and Wings of Desire seem inconceivable without, at least, the stylistic influence of Bicycle Thieves and Italian neorealism in general. Another homage of sorts is Robert Altman's use of Bicycle Thieves in his darkly comedic take on Hollywood, The Player. You may recall that the unfortunate, proletarian writer played by Vincent D'Onofrio spends his last night on Earth taking in a late-night showing of De Sica's anti-Hollywood ode to the common man.

One wonders what happened to Antonio and Bruno. Did they ever recover the bicycle? Will Maria, the longsuffering wife and mother, have to pawn off another valued possession to keep the family afloat? Earlier she pawns the family's bedsheets so Antonio can get the bicycle out of hock in the first place. This is a world where the poor steal from the poor simply to survive, and an item as banal as a bicycle becomes the most important thing in the world. We'll never know. The film ends abruptly, but perfectly, as Bruno takes his father's hand and they trudge down their own Via Dolorosa into filmic immortality.

One of my heroes

Chris Tress

Ash Wednesday meditation

From the The Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 3. Whence knowest thou thy misery?

Answer: Out of the law of God.

Question 4. What does the law of God require of us?

Answer: Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Question 5. Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?

Answer: In no wise; for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.

Question 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?

Answer: By no means; but God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him.

Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin.

Question 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?

Answer: Indeed we are; except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, and his own wilful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

Question 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

Answer: By no means; but is terribly displeased with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, as he has declared, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?

Answer: God is indeed merciful, but also just; therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

Question 88. Of how many parts does the true conversion of man consist?

Answer: Of two parts; of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man.

Question 89. What is the mortification of the old man?

Answer: It is a sincere sorrow of heart, that we have provoked God by our sins; and more and more to hate and flee from them.

Psalm 51, Joel 2:12-17, Mark 1:14-15

The pastor as father and son

The Desiring God pastor's conference started yesterday. Go here for the latest audio and video. This year's theme is "The Pastor as Father and Son". Both John Piper and D.A. Carson were "preacher's kids" and they'll be giving tributes to their fathers later today. You don't have to be a pastor -- or play one on TV -- to benefit. Carson has just come out with Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor: The Life and Reflections of Tom Carson in which he writes eloquently and movingly of his dad:

Tom Carson never rose very far in denominational structures, but hundreds of people ... testify how much he loved them. He never wrote a book, but he loved the Book. He was never wealthy or powerful, but he kept growing as a Christian: yesterday’s grace was never enough. He was not a far-sighted visionary, but he looked forward to eternity. He was not a gifted administrator, but there is no text that says “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you are good administrators.” His journals have many, many entries bathed in tears of contrition, but his children and grandchildren remember his laughter. Only rarely did he break through his pattern of reserve and speak deeply and intimately with his children, but he modeled Christian virtues to them. He much preferred to avoid controversy than to stir things up, but his own commitments to historic confessionalism were unyielding, and in ethics he was a man of principle. His own ecclesiastical circles were rather small and narrow, but his reading was correspondingly large and expansive. He was not very good at putting people down, except on his prayer lists.

When he died, there were no crowds outside the hospital, no editorial comments in the papers, no announcements on the television, no mention in Parliament, no attention paid by the nation. In his hospital room there was no one by his bedside. There was only the quiet hiss of oxygen, vainly venting because he had stopped breathing and would never need it again.

But on the other side, all the trumpets sounded. Dad won entrance to the only throne-room that matters, not because he was a good man or a great man—he was, after all, a most ordinary pastor—but because he was a forgiven man. And he heard the voice of him whom he longed to hear saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your Lord.”

Thank God for all the "ordinary pastors" who serve faithfully without the world's notice. I suspect they are the backbone of the church.

More on the Gospel Driven Life

Since we had a dual purpose in traveling to St. Augustine for the weekend, we were (sadly) only able to fit in two of the Saturday sessions of The Gospel-Driven Life Conference, but they were both outstanding and I'll share some of what we took away. Hopefully, Westminster will be posting audio so we can listen to the sessions we missed.

Robert Godfrey, president of WSC, spoke on the subject of "Gospel-Driven Hermeneutics: Distinguishing Law and Gospel." Despite the imposing title, it was a clear presentation that didn't require any specialized knowledge to understand. Shannon, who wasn't sure she'd be interested, found it fascinating and commented that she'd love to hear more from Godfrey on this subject. I'll try to summarize the main points from my notes:

- Often people who know a lot of the scriptures don't know how to interpret them. The Pharisees knew the scriptures forwards and backwards (you have to know them backwards in Hebrew haha) yet totally missed the point. Being able to distinguish law from gospel is crucial to correctly interpreting scripture, especially in the Gospels where it seems Jesus is going around preaching nothing but law, law, law. Godfrey said that before he understood this distinction he didn't like the Gospels all that much because "there didn't seem to be much gospel in the Gospels!" Shannon whispered to me that she used to feel the same way.

- Godfrey took as his first text Luke 4:16-21 where Jesus announces that the Year of Jubilee prophesied in Isaiah 61 is now fulfilled, then sits down. In the ancient world the preacher sat down and the hearers stood. In this passage Jesus is communicating the gospel in a summary way. Are you poor? Are you oppressed by sin? Then Jesus comes to bring good news.

- Godfrey made the great point that Jesus was a confrontational figure. He was constantly using irony and sarcasm to break through the self-righteous walls of his hearers. Which leads to one of the most famous and misunderstood stories in the Bible found in Luke 10:25-37. Godfrey spent a good deal of time interpreting this story, where we see and hear Jesus preaching the Law to the "lawyer".

- The phrase "to put him to the test" (Luke 10:25) is the same word used of Satan when he tempts Jesus in the wilderness. This wasn't a sincere question ("what shall I do to inherit eternal life?") but an attempt to embarrass and discredit Jesus. Of course, Jesus turns the tables and ends up embarrassing the lawyer and laying bare the sinful lovelessness of his heart. This lawyer despises Jesus (God) and the Samaritan (his neighbor), to the point where he can't even bring himself to utter the word "Samaritan", instead saying "the one who showed him mercy."

- Here is the Law in it's starkest terms. It's all or nothing. Love God with all of your heart/soul/strength/mind and your neighbor as yourself. 24/7, perfectly. Do this and live. It's as if Jesus is asking "how's it going with you?"

- We usually forget the story that immediately follows this one in Luke 10. It's the story of Martha and Mary. And here is Jesus preaching the Good News in purest form. Martha is actually the Good Samaritan here, but it's Mary who chooses the "good portion", simply to sit (as one who is poor) and receive the riches of Christ.

- Godfrey closed by decrying the church's concern with happiness over holiness, for instance in the way we've mostly lost any sense of Sunday as the Sabbath -- as a day "set apart" for the Lord. We have "more important things to do", like football "if you really love football...repent" (that line got some nervous laughter on the eve of the Super Bowl). But he was quick to remind us that "my holiness will never bring me to God."

I brought back Dr. Godfrey's book An Unexpected Journey: Discovering Reformed Christianity and am particularly looking forward to reading it since we too came to "Reformed Christianity" from the outside -- I was raised Wesleyan/Arminian and Shannon was raised Roman Catholic. God's Providence is often circuitous and always amazing.


The final session we attended was perhaps the most thought-provoking of all: R. Scott Clark speaking on "The Gospel-Driven Life: Union with Christ". I say thought-provoking because even though this doctrine of union with Christ is everywhere in the New Testament, it's not something I've thought a lot about, except perhaps in the abstract. Clark's presentation caused me to see more clearly the reality and centrality of this "essential, Biblical, mystical doctrine". Here are some highlights from his wide-ranging presentation:

- According to some Reformed theologians, one must understand "union with Christ" to understand everything else. That may be overstating it, but it is a "central Reformed doctrine". Louis Berkhof defined union with Christ as "that intimate, vital, and spiritual union between Christ and his people"

- The Bible pictures our union with Christ in many ways: as a branch to a vine, as a wife to her husband, Paul even says in Ephesians that we're seated with Christ "in the heavenly places" (try to wrap your mind around that!) Clark used a very striking phrase: "what is true of Jesus is true of us" and he urged us to study 1 Peter 4 in connection with this.

- Yes, it's mysterious, but this is a real union, not a metaphorical one. Clark went on to explain that the Holy Spirit is the bond that unites us. Calvin spoke of the Holy Spirit as the vinculum "vine" that connects us to Christ.

- Clark further explained the nature of this union by using the examples of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. For instance, when the World Trade Center was attacked, what did that have to do with us in Florida? It's because we in Florida are "federally connected" with New York City that we can truthfully say that when the Twin Towers were attacked, we were attacked.

- Clark branched off to address some charges often made by folks from other theological persuasions about Reformed believers and churches. First, that we have no place for the Holy Spirit. Second, that our theology and worship lack mystery. Third, that we're "cold and dead" and have "a head religion not a heart religion".

- Clark passionately and movingly expounded on the huge view of the Holy Spirit that classical Reformed theology has and the profound mysteries at the heart of our faith...mystery found at the Lord's table, mystery found in our union with Christ, and mystery found in the dual nature of Jesus. Divine, yet so fully human that he had an umbilical cord. Dr. Clark (even though he's not a medical doctor "the kind of doctor that can do you some good") used a lot of biological imagery. Even talking about the time he went down to the basement of the dental school to inspect cadavers and hold a human heart in his hand. This is the picture Paul paints of us when we were dead in our sins, before the creative work of the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that hovered over the face of the waters in Genesis 1.

- Clark finished up by spending some time unpacking the implications of Paul's use of the phrase "in Christ" in Ephesians 1:1-5 and Ephesians 2:10.

- How does union with Christ happen? How are we made "alive with Christ"? We can only explain so much to those who haven't experienced it. In the end it's enough to say with the man born blind of John 9, "One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see."

For what it's worth, Dr. Clark is a Mac user. He had his Bible and notes on what looked to be a MacBook.

Special thanks to Ponte Vedra Presbyterian for hosting the conference! They had an army of friendly volunteers keeping everything running smoothly and the music was well-chosen. Opening night hymns included "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" and "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing".

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

The Gospel Driven Life

Shannon and I just returned from a weekend in northeast Florida visiting some dear friends in St. Augustine and attending a big chunk of The Gospel-Driven Life Conference hosted by Westminster Seminary California and Ponte Vedra Presbyterian Church. Actually, the full name of the conference was The Gospel-Driven Life: Growing in Holiness by Living in Union with Christ. One of the great things about conferences like this are the free goodies and not-so-free goodies...meaning books. I resisted tempation for the most part, but still came back with a sack full of "stuff". Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul led things off on Friday evening. Herewith a few notes...

Mike Horton, who's had a huge influence on my life and thinking through his writing (especially for Modern Reformation magazine) and hosting of the White Horse Inn program, opened by giving us an overview of the conference's theme by presenting an exposition of Genesis 15, especially the theophany of Abram's vision where the LORD himself passes through the severed carcasses revealing himself to be the ultimate promise-keeper and covenant fulfiller...all while Abram sleeps. It's interesting to reflect on how many important events in redemptive history happen while the patriarchs are asleep! Horton challenged our propensity to focus on circumstances instead of promises, and the American church's tendency to confuse the law (often cloaked in therapeutic self-help language as opposed to the older fire and brimstone language) with the gospel. One thing he said stuck out to me: "the law will always make sense and the gospel will always seem strange." It's because "we're wired for law" and the news of the gospel shatters the paradigms that come naturally to us. Incidentally, I had the pleasure of chatting with Dr. Horton briefly and told him how much I loved the program on political temptation (which I posted here last week). He said he got quite a few angry e-mails in response to that one.

For good reason, R.C. Sproul is a legend in Reformed circles. He quipped that he's still surprised when people come up to him at these conferences and ask him to sign their Bible as if he wrote it. He was the general editor of the Reformation Study Bible after all! Interestingly, he said that if he was thrown in prison and could only have one book of the Bible he would choose Hebrews, if only one verse, Genesis 15:17...making a nice segue from Horton's talk. Sproul's topic was "Justification by Faith Alone: The Heart of the Gospel", probably a topic he's spoke on hundreds of times, but you wouldn't have known it, as he spoke passionately (and without notes) -- holding the room spell-bound for 45 minutes as he presented the Biblical and historical foundations of this doctrine that both Luther and Calvin considered the central doctrine of Christianity. More importantly he sent us out into the chilly north Florida night with a song in our hearts for what Christ has done for us and a renewed appreciation for what's at stake for the church if she loses this glorious doctrine -- a doctrine better described as "justification by Christ" rather than "justification by faith", for even the faith is a gift and not something that we can claim for ourselves. It's also the grounds of our righteousness and sanctification, as opposed to the view that says to be justified a person must first be sanctified, or the view that says one must have an inherent righteousness of one's own to get into heaven. This is where the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness comes in. Sproul reminded us that the cross only does half the job -- removing the guilt of our sins -- we must also appropriate Christ's perfect fulfillment of the law, thus gaining a righteousness "extra nos" outside of ourselves. To sum up...it's faith alone, not faith and works -- grace alone, not grace and merit -- and Christ alone, not Christ and the sacraments. This is the gospel that saves us and keeps us saved. We never outgrow our need to hear this message preached clearly and often. Thank you Dr. Sproul for your many years of faithful preaching and teaching! It was a thrill to hear you in person.

The Saturday sessions with Robert Godfrey and Scott Clark were terrific and I'll post some thoughts on those later this week.


UPDATE: here are some highlights from Saturday.