One frequent comment about God’s Word is that it is vague. Of course, where it is vague usually changes based on what people want to do. Today people want to be sexually free. So, all of the sudden, the Bible’s teaching on sexuality becomes “vague,” “ambiguous” and “nuanced.” The Bayly Brothers kick this idea in the teeth. The Bible is vague in some areas. Human sexuality is not one of them. It is a long article, but well worth your time.
Kevin DeYoung gives five characteristics of preaching in Acts. There are good things to pray that your pastor would do.
Should men be glory mongers? Should we run after glory? Toby Sumpter says yes. This is his exhortation to his presbytery. It is a great post about glory, Christ, and men. If you are male read it. Then read it again. Do we want real glory, the glory that only Christ can give?
Al Mohler responds to the challenges of same sex unions.
Carl Trueman asks the question: “Why does the Gospel Coalition ignore differences on Baptism and the Lord’ Supper, but does not ignore differences on the role of men and women?” He forces the reader to think through what are the differences that are worth dividing over and why are those more important than other differences?
Dear Peter, A simple statement in passing: if what I wrote linked above is true, Carl Trueman's piece you link to above is wrong. Horribly wrong. Love,
Tim, Thanks for the comment. I often link to you guys over here.
I think Carl's piece is intended to force those over at GC to think through their dividing lines. Do they have a rational for making one issue more “gospel-centered” than another? Several men have responded to Carl explaining why they divide over male/female roles and not over baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. They basically argue that egalitarianism undermines God's Word as whole while differences in those other doctrines do not. I think they are right. We have numerous Baptists in our church for this exact reason. Yet, Carl's piece forced them to clarify their position, which I was grateful for. He also forced me to think through again why I am so adamant about a Scriptural view of male/female roles. I am curious to see if he responds. Also I wonder how committed the GC can end up being to complementarianism with Keller holding such prestige among the group? Can even this “dividing line” hold? With Grace,
Dear Peter, thanks for the response. You'll see I've posted on this. Love,