Monday, March 19, 2007
I wanted to throw this out and ask a question. During the Lordship controversy there were terms that were coined such as "easy believism" and "cheap grace". Mind you, at the time they made sense in light of what was being offered. However, are they really legitimate terms and do they express the reality of the "other gospel"? I think not, for the other gospel that attacked the true gospel, which really does call me to believe, made it so man centered that God really was an impotent God and actually unable to save apart from man. So was easy believism really belief? Was cheap grace even grace? Maybe we should follow the apostle Paul and simply call it another gospel, which is no gospel at all. What do you think?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
I thought I might throw this critique of R. C. Sproul's view of faith out. It is done by John Robbins of Trinity Foundation. I found Robbins' critique to be clear and concise and serve as a warning to us of being carefully defined in our understanding and communication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have benefited greatly from Dr. Sproul's teaching, but would desire him to be more in the biblical text rather than philosophy apart from the text and I hope he will read this critique and repent. You can download it here. Let me know what you think.