Archive for July, 2011

This is from a Christian perspective as lectured by Samuel Blumenfeld.

It is two part and can be found on Sermon Audio.

For part 1, click HERE.

For part 2, click HERE.

I’ve finished listening to it and it’s very interesting.

Read Full Post »

Don’t miss my previous entry about how the Norway shooter Anders Behring Breivik does not claim to be a religious Christian

I thought I make this cultural observation:


1.) Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik: I do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, I am not religious.

Media: He is a fundamentalist Christian conservative!  Those who are Conservatives and speak out on the terror of Islam are to be blame for what Breivik has done!


2.) Naser Abdo

Naser Abdo: I am a Muslim and cannot serve in the US army.

Media: Islam is a religion of peace.  Beware of blaming other Muslims, to do so is Islamicphobia.

Read Full Post »


I.                    Why should Christians be able to reference the entire Book as context in interpreting passages?

a.       The importance of having the bigger picture

i.      Rather than grasping individual and isolated trees of facts, we need to have the ‘forest’ of Biblical truths.

b.      The verses in which an individual study, along with its immediate contexts, are part of a larger whole.

i.      The argument given in Session Ten could apply here as well.

c.       Progressive Revelation requires the entirety of Scripture as the context in interpreting specific passages

i.      See Hebrew 1:1-2

d.      Hermeneutic Principle: Knowing the context of what the entirety of Scripture teaches can correct faulty interpretation or aid in properly interpreting a passage of Scripture.

II.                 The relationship between Hermeneutics & Systematic Theology

a.       Systematic Theology is the orderly presentation of doctrines as taught throughout the entirety of Scripture

b.      Good hermeneutics require the context of the entirety of Scripture and its teachings

c.       Therefore, good hermeneutics require good systematic theology

III.               Knowing the context of the entirety of Scripture requires that one understand the Genres of the books of the Bible

a.       There are different Genres in the Bible

i.      Historical Narrative (Example: Genesis, Joshua, Judges, Acts, etc)

ii.      Laws (Leviticus, Deuteronomy)

iii.      Poetic (Psalms, Songs of Solomon, etc)

iv.      Wisdom (Proverbs, Job)

v.      Prophetic (Hosea, Joel, Amos, etc)

vi.      Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)

vii.      Epistles (Romans, 1Corinthians, etc)

viii.      Apocalyptic (Daniel, Revelation)

b.      Knowing the Genre aid us in interpreting the Bible

i.      Examples

1.      “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned and despised by the people.” (Psalm 22:6)

a.       Is David really a worm? Of course not!

i.      Psalm is a poetic book and we must remember the genre of this book in interpreting it.

2.      Objection: I don’t believe in the Genesis account of Creation, it was figurative language

a.       Genesis is a historical narrative and  historical narrative presents historical facts and events

3.      Question: Will the Anti-Christ rise literally out of the sea and have ten horns and seven heads as described in Revelation 13:1?

a.       This is an apocalyptic literature, and must be understood as not always being literal.

IV.              Do not forget that in interpreting Scripture according to the context of the entirety of Scripture, this is building upon the foundation of the six general principles as presented in Session Nine.


Read Full Post »

Purchase: Amazon

The author Greg Koukl has been on the forefront of Christian apologetics with his radio show, online writing and newsletter and has grown to become quite popular in Christian Evangelical circles today. This book is a great guide on the tactical methods of engaging someone who does not believe, a sub-genre among apologetics literature that Christian apologists can still work on. The book is wonderful in it’s layout, and very logical. It makes a great introduction for those who are beginning to…moreThe author Greg Koukl has been on the forefront of Christian apologetics with his radio show, online writing and newsletter and has grown to become quite popular in Christian Evangelical circles today. This book is a great guide on the tactical methods of engaging someone who does not believe, a sub-genre among apologetics literature that Christian apologists can still work on. The book is wonderful in it’s layout, and very logical. It makes a great introduction for those who are beginning to get their feet wet in defending their faith while at the same time provide good sharpening for seasoned apologists and perhaps new illustrations for one’s encounter. Loved it and would recommend it.  While not necessarily presuppositional, I believe Presuppositionalists can learn something still from this work.

Read Full Post »

The media has begun talking about the shooter in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik being a fundamentalist Christian.

My initial reaction was one of caution since afterall,  in the past, people have been wrong about Timothy McVeigh being a Christian when he was an agnostic.

Over at World Net Daily, they have tackled the very issue of Breivik being a Christian and concluded that he is more a Darwinist than a Christian.

Commentator Gary DeMar has discussed about the danger of Darwinian ideology that has been the undercurrent for many of the mass killings in recent memory, some serious food for thought.

I thought I look into the matter myself, by searching through Breivik’s own manifesto accessible HERE.

I. Surveying his 1518 page manifesto, it is clear is that Breivik does not fit the description of a Christian fundamentalist, as claimed by some such as CNN.

To claim that he is a Christian fundamentalist is inaccurate:

1.) Christian fundamentalist believes that Catholicism and Protestantism has a wide doctrinal divide and stanchly opposes all things Ecumenical including Vatican 2.  Yet we read of Breivik’s statement in his manifesto concerning what he think of this Catholic effort:

The Second Vatican Council from the 1960s was good for reaching out to Christians of other denominations, Protestant and Orthodox, and for reaching out to Jews.” (Page 675).

2.) The shooter is open about the fact that he is critical of Christianity:

I’ve been critical of Christianity sometimes because it is one of the impulses behind the Western inability to protect our borders, and it is.” (Page 675)

3.) From the above quotation (#2), one can gather that Breivik’s litmus test of Christianity rest on the basis of whether or not a religion would protect one’s border, rather than the Fundamentalists’ litmus test of the Bible and it’s doctrines.

4.) It’s not only some generic Christianity that Breivik criticizes,  fundamentalist circles are within Breivik’s target of criticism.  Reacting to a comment about leaving one’s brain at the door when entering the church, Breivik states:

In this regard, the evangelist, fundamentalist churches are no better than the liberal ones.” (Page 676)

It does not seem likely that if Breivik was a a staunch fundamentalist Christian would think of fundamentalist churches as being irrational.

5.) Christians of the fundamentalist stripes tend to pursue a Christianity that is “unadulterated” by Pagan beliefs since they believe this “pure” form of Christianity is the solution for man and civilization.  Breivik instead believes that a Christianity without a mesh of pagan beliefs is the problem rather than the solution:

Yes, medieval Christianity had no qualms about resisting invaders, but medieval Christians (as Protestants love to point out) had adulterated their faith with pagan beliefs. Over the past few centuries, Christianity has stripped itself of its pagan accretions. In the process, it has become as much a threat to ourselves and our loved ones as Marxism used to be, if not more so.
That sounds like a harsh judgment. It is.” (Page 676)

This is very uncharacteristic for a fundamentalist to believe in.

6.) While Breivik is against feminism, he appeals to atheistic and Darwinian thinking and line of reasoning rather than religiously biblical ones:

Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.” (Page 350)

Again, this is rather uncharacteristic of a Christian fundamentalist.

7.) Finally, a “fundamental” mark (irony) of a Christian fundamentalist is the profession by the individual of having a personal relationship with Jesus and God.  This is something Breivik denies having:

Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”(Page 1307)

Moreover, for those who read his thesis, the issue that drives him is more about the survival of the West against Islam, Multiculturalism Marxism and Nazism (cf. Page 1237) more than anything.  His game plan and idea of the organization that will save Europe is open to non-Christians, Jews, atheists, etc., and does not reflect a Christian fundamentalist’s “world-fleeing-Jesus-is-the-exclusivistic-answer” mentality.

II. If Mr. Breivik does claim to be a Christian, it is more as a “cultural” Christian because Europe has historically been Christian (given his adoration of European culture).  Therefore any claim he might make of being a Christian is loosely a Christian at that, and  must be understood in light of what he means by Christian.  He is far from some kind of self-subscribing “fundamentalist Christian”  that some think he is.

Breivik does talk a lot about Christianity in what he wrote.  Again, what he means by “Christianity” must be understood in light of his nuances.  In a section of his manifesto titled, “Distinguishing Between Cultural Christendom and Religious Christendom–Reforming our Suicidal Church”, Breivik makes a distinction between a “worldly Christianity” and a “Religious Christianity” and therefore a distinction between religious and cultural Christian (Page 1307).  He writes,

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?  If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” (Page 1307)

Note how his definition of a cultural Christian include “a majority of so called agnostics and atheists.”  Highly unusual perhaps to many, but that’s how he uses the term and one should be cautious to think that Breivik’s shooting and terrorism has anything to do with religious motivation or that it was God-driven, since atheists and agnostics in his definition are cultural Christians too.  Used in the cultural sense, it seems to point towards one who subscribe to European culture rather than something that has to do with Jesus per se.

Note also how Breivik define “religious Christians” as one has a personal relationship with Jesus and God, which he then proceeded to say that it’s something he does not have.  By Breivik’s own admission, he is not a religious Christian, and his motives for his behavior lies elsewhere.  It has nothing to do with Christianity as most understand it in it’s usual meaning.

Readers need to understand that this “Cultural” Christianity that Breivik subscribe to is about European culture and nothing to do with the Christian message of a personal relationship with God.  Breivik writes,

European Christendom isn’t just about having a personal relationship with Jesus or God.  It is so much more.” (PAGE 1341).

Some might say that Breivik is a “religious Christian” but he himself admits he is not religious:

I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment.” (PAGE 1344)

A very unusual thing to have written in one’s manifesto if the guy is supposedly a die-hard Christian fundamentalist.  He even admit that he’s influenced by his secular surrounding and environment, will the media now give the narrative that Breivik is influenced by secularism?

If Breivik’s terrorism was religiously motivated and his manifesto is suppose to explain the religious ideology that drives him, it is unusual that he has his particular view on prayer.  He does not even think he needs to prayed at the time of his writing:

However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet…” (PAGE 1344).

And then sees prayer more of a psychological booster more than anything:

If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do.” (PAGE 1345)

One has to understand that for Breivik, belief in God is not the motivation for what he does, but rather it is the pragmatic psychological crutch that helps one achieves their effectiveness in terrorism:

Pragmaticists or rationalistic minded individuals who are hardened atheists should consider the following; it may be pragmatic to believe in an afterlife as it will make you a more efficient soldier. The less fearfull a person is the more effective he will be as a warrior. A person who believes that death is eternal is likely to be more fearful than an individual who believes in an afterlife. And as we all know; fear is poison in combat and it will cause confusion and hesitation. A spiritually confident individual, who does not fear what awaits him, is less likely to fear death and will therefore act more confidently and professionally in warfare. As such (and from a pragmatical viewpoint), religion is an essential component in warfare but ESSENTIAL in martyrdom operations.” (PAGE 1345)

He makes it clear that his terrorist organization is not a religious order.  For someone who is supposedly a fundamentalist Christian, he’s not seeing his religion as a big deal in what he’s doing.  He explains the following reason why his terror organization will not be a religious order:

Furthermore, creating a religious order would be counter-productive as a majority of Europe’s armed resistance fighters are agnostics, atheists or relatively secular Christians. The organisation is therefore considered a moderate Christian identity organisation and not a religious order.” (PAGE 1363).

One of course have to remember what he means by “moderate Christian” is his idea of a European society and not “religious” Christianity.

It’s hope that those who think the shooter from Norway is a Christian fundamentalist would reconsider this claim as a myth.

Read Full Post »

Seems like there was a lot of activity concerning Presuppositional activity on the internet from last week.

1.) Truth Wins Once Again Via Presuppositional Apologetics– Jamin Hubner comments on a recent debate.

2.) Actual transcript and audio (for a limited time) of Sye’s July 11th, 20011 debate.

3.) Praxis Presup Audio Podcast episode 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10– Review of Sye’s July 11th debate.

Read Full Post »

I first heard about the news over at Foxnews that Campus Crusade was going to drop the name Christ from it’s official name.

According to Campus Crusade’s own press release to their donors, Campus Crusade will adopt a new name in order to connect with the younger generation.

Campus Crusade for Christ in the U.S. is changing its name to Cru.



What’s that?

According to their website:

The new name will be adopted in early 2012. The U.S. ministry hopes the new name will overcome existing barriers and perceptions inherent in the original name.

I like what one blogger, Four Pointer, has to say:

It is not the word ‘Crusade’ that is being removed–that word is simply being shortened. The offensive word that is being completely removed is……the name of Christ. That’s right.

I think “Crusade” is more offensive than Christ…and they remove Christ! Weird.  Now their new name is “Cru” and people are now going to ask, “What? What’s that?”  AND then people will have to say “Cru stands for Crusade”  This inevitably will lead people to focus even more on their offensive name Crusade, but now there no Christ to explain anything in their name…whoever is the guy that had this idea ought to be fired.

It’s sad but I can’t say I didn’t see it not coming.  Having served in Campus Crusade as a student leadership, I have rather been distraught with where the staff member wants to take the direction of the club.

Read Full Post »


I.                    Why should Christians know the details about the chapters and the entire Book of the verse we are studying?

a.       The importance of having the bigger picture

i.      Rather than grasping individual and isolated trees of facts, we need to have the ‘forest’ of Biblical truths.

b.      The verses in which an individual study, along with its immediate contexts, are part of a larger whole.

i.      There is a reason why the verse was written, and it was written from the reason that arises out of the need addressed in the context of the chapter and the book in the Bible.

1.      Why was the verse written? The relationship between the verse and its chapters and book context can give us more insight and understanding.

c.       Earlier in Session nine it outlined how each verse shares a relationship with other verses.  In the same fashion, but at a larger scale, the other verses or paragraphs in the Book or Chapters are related somehow to the verse and its immediate context.

II.                 Principles One through Six in Session Nine ought to be applied for the verses in the entire chapter or Book

a.       This is no easy task and takes time, but the fruit of this would be greatly rewarded if it can be done.

b.      This is why its important to study Scripture in an exegetical and verse-by-verse fashion.

III.               Further principle: Knowing historical details of the Book

a.       Sometimes it is important to also have more historical background for the particular book of the Bible.

i.      This can be gleamed from the pages of the Book itself.

ii.      This may also require outside sources and references such as commentaries, Encyclopedias, Bible Handbooks, etc.

b.       This additional historical background information can correct faulty interpretation or aid in properly interpreting a passage of Scripture.


Read Full Post »

Steve Hays, the big contributor behind the impressive Triablogue, where they battle unbelief everyday, has loaded up a PDF of his Master’s Thesis that he wrote under John Frame.

The thesis is on Apostasy in Pastoral Theology.  You can access the PDF directly by clicking HERE.

It comes in at 267 pages long!

I have yet to read it; seems like this week on Veritas Domain we have two entry on free things from Steve Hays!

Read Full Post »

This video is rather sobering.

Our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ deserve our prayers…that God be with them, that God protect them and use them to bring others to Christ.

Read Full Post »

This is put out by Monergism.com!

God’s Canon – New! –
by Steve Hays

Available in Kindle .mobi and ePub formats

Traditionally, the case for the Protestant canon has emphasized external lines of evidence (e.g. Josephus, church fathers), as well as the witness of the Spirit. And that remains a valid line of evidence.

More recently, however, many scholars have been giving close attention to the intertextuality of Scripture as well as the paratextuality of the canon. That’s a neglected line of internal evidence for the canon of Scripture. And it dovetails with the self-witness of Scripture.

The chapters in this book emphasize the self-attestation of Scripture to the canon of Scripture via intratextual, intertextual, and paratextual lines of evidence. The Bible is far more self-contained and self-referential than first meets the eye.

To the degree that the canon of Scripture is grounded in the self-witness of Scripture, we have not only a canon of infallible books, but an infallible canon–where one infallible book implicitly bears witness to another (or other) infallible book(s), through a tapestry of allusions, foreshadowings, and other types of cross-attestation.

For more e-books from Monergism, click here

Read Full Post »

For most people the nature of film allows one to be less discerning concerning the message and underlining worldview that is being communicated through the movie itself.  Sometimes parents think that just because a  film  is rated G or PG that would mean that it would automatically safe or great for kids.  While a kids movie might not have certain sins shown, that does not mean that there is not an underlining worldview behind it that’s being communicated.  Take for instance the Pixar hit Cars, and it’s sequel Cars 2.

American Vision has a review that I thought was pretty good of the first Cars, several years ago:

This is a review of Cars II:

Last but not least, what one secular writer thinks which parents should consider, of how Cars II might encourage kids in the wrong way.

Read Full Post »

Over at “The Continuing Story”, a blog which features the primary sources on Presbyterianism, they have recently concluded a series in which they posted up the interaction between Oliver Buswell, Francis Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til concerning Presuppositional Apologetics, as taught by Van Til.

This is a great archive series for those who are interested in the historical side of Presuppositional Apologetics!

1. Buswell, J. Oliver, Jr., “The Arguments from Nature to God: Presuppositionalism and Thomas Aquinas—A Book Review with Excursions,” The Bible Today 41.8 (May 1948): 235-248.
2. Schaeffer, Francis A., “A Review of a Review,” The Bible Today 42.1 (October 1948): 7-9.
3. Buswell, J. Oliver, Jr., “The Fountainhead of Presuppositionalism,” The Bible Today 42.2 (November 1948): 41-64.
4. Young, G. Douglas, “Dr. Young’s Letter”, The Bible Today 42.2 (November 1948): 65.
5. Buswell, J. Oliver, Jr., “Warfield vs. Presuppositionalism,” The Bible Today 42.6 (March 1949): 182-192.
6. Van Til, Cornelius, “Presuppositionalism,” The Bible Today 42.7 (April 1949): 218-228.
7. Anonymous, “Presuppositionalism,” The Bible Today 42.8 (May 1949): 261.
8. Van Til, Cornelius, “Presuppositionalism Concluded,” The Bible Today 42.9 (June-September 1949): 278-290.

Read Full Post »


I.                    This outline will focus on the general principles of interpreting a sentence in Scripture within itself and also in light of other surrounding sentences.

II.                 Opening principle: Every word is in Scripture for a reason

a.       Not only is every word important, but even the details of the letters are important

i.      “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

III.               The Application of the Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutic

a.       To properly interpret the Bible one must be faithful to Scripture historically and grammatically.

IV.              Principle One: Know the meaning of every word in the text

a.       This must be the case whether one does a light devotion or a heavy exegetical study.

i.      If you are doing devotion, you might just want to make sure you know what every word means.

ii.      Or if you are doing a heavy study, you might define in your own words every single word of the passage, consult references such as theological dictionaries, original language lexicons, etc.

V.                 Principle Two: Identity any relationship that a word has to other words

a.       Are there any words that share some sort of grammatical relationship?

i.      If so, which words?

ii.      What are their relationships?

b.      Common types of this are adverbs and adjectives.

VI.              Principle Three: Identify the purpose of each word in the sentence.

a.       Identify the following types of words (not an exhaustive list):

i.      Nouns

1.      What kind of nouns?

2.      Plural or Singular?

ii.      Pronouns

iii.      Verbs

1.      What tense is it?

2.      Active or Passive?

iv.      Adverbs

v.      Prepositions

vi.      Participles

vii.      Conjunctives

VII.            Principle Four: Identify the main words in the Sentence

a.       These main words are the ‘skeleton’ of the sentence so to speak.

b.      If you know how and when it is possible, diagram the sentence

c.       Every sentence has a subject, main verb.

Can you identify them?

d.      Some sentence might have conjunctions (and, but), direct object, indirect object.

i.      Can you identify them?

VIII.         Principle Five: Apply Principles One through Four with the surrounding verses as well

IX.              Principle Six: Determine the relationship with the verse with other verses in its context

a.       Questions to ask

i.      Is the verse qualifying the previous verse?

ii.      Is the verse providing more details for the previous verse?

iii.      Is the verse the beginning of a new topic for the following verses?

iv.      Is the verse part of the argument that was developing in the previous verses?

v.      Is the verse the beginning of an argument that continues for the following verses?

vi.      Is the verses the conclusion of an argument in previous verses?

b.      Look for words or phrases that might connect the verse with the verses around it.

i.      The purpose of this is to find how the verse relates to the other verses.

1.      Words include examples such as: And, if, but, since, therefore, in conclusion, because, hence, etc

a.       These words show us how the verses relate to other words.

b.      By understanding this, we gain more truths and insight into the meaning of a particular verse.

c.       Logic serves as the governing ‘grammatical’ rule in how verses relate to one another

i.      The relationship between a particular verse with its surrounding verses can be described as logical.

ii.      All throughout Scripture, the Bible observes logical laws such as the law of non-contradiction and marshal valid arguments in the structure of Modus Tollens, etc.

iii.      It is important that a Christian be logical to properly see how the verses relate to one another.[1]

X.                 Reminder: It is not all going to be easy, but you will be blessed

a.       All the above is not easy and can be quite a task

i.      But the fruit of it, God will bless you with understanding and insight!

b.      If its too difficult, pray and keep on practicing

i.      Ask God for help, for wisdom in studying

ii.      Keep on practicing by His grace, knowing that His Word is clear and the Spirit enables.

[1] Needless to say, for those who are serious, studying logic is not necessarily unbiblical but if it is pursued with the right motive and done in the right fashion, can be glorifying to God and quite edifying for the Christian mind.


Read Full Post »

Purchase: Westminster | Amazon

The author Iain Murray, a wonderful Christian biographer, has taken up the task of writing a biography of the preacher John MacArthur. Even at the very beginning of the book, Murray makes it clear that the work is intended to be just a sketch of MacArthur…’s life and that a full complete biography evaluating his life and contribution is probably best done after MacArthur’s passing. Coming at 240 pages, this “sketch” reminds me of William White’s biography of the great apologist Cornelius Van Til while he was alive; the more critical biography that evaluates everything after all is said and done came later. One thing I did appreciate of Murray’s biography of MacArthur here is that while Murray is appreciative of MacArthur’s ministry, the work is not just about hero worship of this preacher. In fact, Murray in the book gently questioned MacArthur’s dispensationalism (the author is Covenantal in his theology), and wished that MacArthur would have addressed styles of worship more (the author favors more congregational singing without instrumental accompaniment). Given the rift between Covenantal and Dispensational camp, the fact that this work was by one who lean Covenantal in his theology is intriguing to me. Murray’s biography was overall charitable and saw the admirable thing about MacArthur was his high devotion to the Word and preaching the Word accurately. One thing I did like about this book is that it gave the background and a more complete story beyond just rumors and hearsay behind several important events that MacArthur was involved with (the famous Supreme court case concerning the “clergy malpractice,” the response to Packer and the ECT, Lordship controversy, Charistmatic Chaos, etc). One further appreciate MacArthur as an Evangelical leader from these snippets in the book. The other thing I appreciated about this book is that the book is as much about John MacArthur as it is about the men of God and family behind John MacArthur that made his ministry what it is. The author’s discussion of important and humble helpers throughout his life should remind the reader that MacArthur’s status as an Evangelical leader was not the result of a one man celebrity show. In fact, reading the biography one can’t help but to note how normal much of MacArthur’s life is at times. Here is where the readers need to acknowledge that whatever success MacArthur has in his in his ministry is really the result of God’s blessing. The wise men who are MacArthur’s advisers, editor, fellow elders and day to day men and women of his church with the hunger of God’s Word and sharing God’s Word used his materials and shared the products of his work to their friends and eventually all across the world. Many people around the world still benefit from his free sermons online and hearing him on the radio as the book make it clear going over several letters sent to the Grace to You program. I know this to be true in my own life as well, when as a fifteen year old unchurched atheist in a buddhist household, I started reading the Bible for the first time and listening to MacArthur and many other preachers on the radio that the LORD eventually used to save me a sinner, who now trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior from my sins. That is not to say that I can’t wait for a biography that’s more critical in it’s full evaluation years down the road when MacArthur is at home with the Lord (what are we to make of the Driscoll affair? should MacArthur throw down the gauntlet that every self-respecting calvinist should be premillennial? etc), something that is like John Muether’s biography evaluating Cornelius Van Til decades after his death. But this should not take away the legacy of this preacher and what he has contributed to the kingdom of God for all of eternity. I imagine that when MacArthur finally passes away, we will still be amazed at how many people have gotten saved, grown, discipled and challenged by this preacher and author. I know I am one of them. Read this book…don’t worship a man, but thank the Lord for a servant of His Word and flock.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »