Good Mens' Issues: Shaky Theology
355123
I got about a quarter of the way through Wild at Heart and found myself cheering, yeah manhood! Anyone who now defines men as men and supports them as such is my instant hero. We have been beaten down by: feminists, liberals and the PC patrol. However, upon finishing the book, I began to feel uneasy. There are some real theological problems with Wild at Heart. In addition, a very thin line is drawn between being inspiring and outright dangerous... Don't get me wrong: passion for the Lord is great and vital; and maybe the intent here is honorable, but there are some big inaccuracies and exaggerations of scripture embedded in Wild at Heart. We Christian men are called to be bold and impassioned as we journey with Christ and begin to comprehend His larger mission and our purpose therein. Just read Acts, especially where Paul testifies before Agrippa. And, the Old Testament certainly distinguishes men as men: here we can seduce (but must marry) multiple virgins and crush Canaanites. Sword and virility; courage, obedience and burning love for the Lord are all commanded of men. So the question of God's purpose for men as men is legitimate. However, Wild at Heart verges on being gimmicky, pop-Christianity where the author forces Robert Bly's Iron John into a Biblical context. The fit does not work. Jesus is not Iron John, nor does He intend this for us. The Bible does not tell us Christain men that we are centrally meant to be warriors in a drop zone, immersed in evil and battling evil forces away in every: dizzy spell, sickness, marital discord or blase day. Our role in marriage is not to fight evil forces to win back our wives, who have been wounded and emotionally absconded since the Fall. We are called to be faithful, to repent, to make often deep and painful sacrifices in Christ's name, to receive the Holy Spirit (in deep joy) and to be radically changed and sure, to resist evil. But evil is not the central mercenary issue. We are not on some wild Star Wars-esque adventure. Quite the opposite, a lot of being a Christian man is calming down, staying at home with your wife and kids, doing the otherwise boring stuff and putting aside a lot of potentially damaging sexual and aggressive passions (that can be easily masked as Christian passions). What I also find unsettling is that sound Biblical teaching, theology and scholasticism seem to get lost in the evangelical church. Wild at Heart is a good example of this scholastic void. At best read this book for a fleeting kick such as a Clancy novel or a Grisham, but get back to the real stuff, "the meat": the Bible and traditionally respected commentators such as C.S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer's seminal work: The Cost of Discipleship, for example, is well recommended. Lastly, considering the potential for this book to inspire serious error, I suggest that the author recognize the flaws with this treatise, pull this work from publication and revise it along the lines of more accurate theology. As it is now, the work is Satanically inspired.
2927172
In Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life, Ed Cyzewski offers a welcoming introduction to how laity should begin to work out theology and doctrine in a postmodern context.  Providing a succinct and fast-paced introduction to the cultural changes that have shifted the way Americans think from The Modern Age to the plethora of possibilities that make up our current cultural context, Cyzewski navigates the turbulence of contemporary philosophical discussions and misinformation and enters into a stirring discussion of how every member of the Church must do theology and not know theology.

At the center of this book is the shift from "knowledge" to "understanding." Whereas the Scientific Method has influenced our culture to think in terms of data, knowledge and absolute Truth the postmodern age does not question the veracity of these claims but instead the knowability of such claims---in other words, Cyzewski works out the "postmodern age" much like the postmodern philosophers since the 1950s would want it to be: a realization that we cannot know everything so we must be humble.  When we do theology contextually, that is by being humble enough to realize that we are biased by our culture and our traditions and that there are different biases and different traditions in other cultures, we move from the battle of knowing doctrine and to a conversation like one would have in a coffeehouse (civil, polite, understanding, and loving).  As Cyzewski notes,

  "Doing theology in a postmodern context challenges us to read Scripture with an awareness of how our culture influences who we are and how we see the world, while dialoguing with Christians from history and around the world.  This process involves reading Scripture, and then rereading Scripture in light of what our traditions and global believers teach us."

At its worse, the framework for theological conversations since the Reformation has not been ecumenical but divisive, and Cyzewski is right to call the Church to task for conducting its theological discussion as a fight and not as a coffeehouse conversation.  Cyzewski reminds us that, "if love for God and for one another guides us while we form theology, then we will be wary of accumulating knowledge as a matter of pride."  This forms the paradox of theology in the postmodern context as opposed to The Modern Age, and gets to the heart of the shaking science-based foundations on which Modernism approached theology:

  in the Modern Age more theology meant more knowledge and more divisiveness.
  in the Postmodern age more theology means more understanding and more love.

As the belief that man can obtain all knowledge is slowly thrown into the wastebasket of intellectual history, we are reminded that in our humility we should look at theology not as a finite project, one that will lead us to all knowledge concerning God and the Church, but as an infinite project where "contextual theology ends up being an ongoing process, a conversation we have between the Bible and the influences of our culture, traditions, and global Christians."

Informally written, well paced, and easy to digest, I sincerely recommend Coffeehouse Theology as an excellent introduction to theology in a postmodern context and especially for book clubs or small group meetings.  It is sure to spark excellent conversations about how to have theological conversations!
261920
John Crowder does a fantastic job at addressing religious dogmatism in these first three areas. Though I don't care for most of Crowder's theology, I do love how he de-vilifies Money, Sex and Beer. I personally do like to err on the pure side of things. But I also see where we, as Christians, have created laws and convictions that aren't biblical and can sometimes lead to harm and hypocrisy.
242832
The author expounds the text from a generally conservative perspective. He does often (and at significant points) depart from traditional evangelical interpretations, but he remains within the broad evangelical tradition. The work is strong on considering structure, but he can sometimes get bogged down in source-critical issues. He argues for Markan priority and sensus plenior fulfillment of Old Testament quotations. It generally considers all the significant issues in interpretation of the text and provides valuable insight, though some more conservative readers may be unsatisfied with some of his conclusions. Sometimes his discussion of interpretive problems is disappointing brief.
1780670
Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, will probably surprise some Southern Baptist readers of his book Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel.  Sure, he's theologically conservative. But many of the positions he takes on social and political issues will endear him to the evangelical left and many democrats.

That last sentence is a terrible oversimplification.  I think one of the messages of Onward is that we cannot reduce everything to left and right, red or blue, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat.  In fact, he warns that "when the 'Christian' position on everything just happens to line up, exactly, with the favored candidate or political party, how can we not expect cynicism from those who naturally start to suspect that 'God' simply means 'our team.'  When everything is prophetic, nothing is."

Christians ought to be a prophetic voice.  Noting that Christianity doesn't set the moral tone for the nation to the extent that it used to, Moore actually celebrates this.  As cultural outsiders, "our call is to an engaged alienation, a Christianity that preserves the distinctiveness of our gospel while not retreating from our callings as neighbors, and friends, and citizens."  The goal is not to be relevant, but to revel in our difference and speak truth in the world.

The biggest Christian distinction--if I'm not overstating Moore's perspective--is the Christian embrace of the value of every human life as the imago dei.  I was reminded of Ron Sider's book in the 1980s, Completely Pro-Life.  Now Moore and Sider may have their differences, but I think Moore would embrace that phrase.  Moore writes, "Abortion, torture, euthanasia, unjust war, racial injustice, the harassment of immigrants, these things aren't simply 'mean' (although they are that too).  They are part of an ongoing guerilla insurgency against the image of God himself, as summed up in Jesus of Nazareth."

No matter who you are, you'll probably find some point of disagreement with Moore.  But he will challenge your thinking as a Christian in public life in a good way, reminding us not simply to follow a party platform, but to embrace the saving, transforming grace of Jesus, and to embody an enduring belief that every person is made in the image of God.

Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
2995656
Jack Rogers, Professor Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has written this book in order to, as the subtitle says "Explode the Myths and Heal the Church." This is a laudable goal. But how well does this book accomplish that goal?

In my opinion:  not well. Rogers draws analogies between the church (and I need to clarify that when Rogers discusses the church, he means the Presbyterian Church (USA), a fast declining mainline denomination) changing its mind on issues of race, gender and marriage with changing its mind on homosexuality. In other words, while the church previously endorsed racial discrimination, even slavery; opposed women in leadership; and prohibited divorce; it holds to a different view now, and should follow the same trajectory with homosexuality. What is interesting to me is that in making this argument, Rogers shows that Scripture seems to matter less for each change. What I mean is that he marshalls impressive Scriptural evidence against racism. And the church, not just the Presbyterian Church (USA), agrees as a whole that racism is a bad thing and that people should be treated equally regardless of race. I know of no recognized denomination that affirms racism today ... from the liberal UCC to the conservative Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God. On the question of women in leadership, Rogers brings some Scriptural support to his perspective, but not as much, and that is reflected in the continuing refusal of most churches to ordain women as pastors. The Scriptural support for that practice is not as strong. In that regard, it is very unfortunate that the Presbyterian Church (USA) had made recognition of women's ordination one of the very few non-negotiables it insists upon ... a decision Rogers seems to agree with (even though in other contexts he says "Synods and Councils may err," a good Reformed principle that apparently does not apply when egalitarian feminism is affirmed by Synods and Councils).

In his treatment of divorce and leadership, Rogers really seems to bring no Scriptural support to the denominational change of mind. At least, I discerned little, if any. And again, most churches do not accept divorce as a valid lifestyle option for their leaders. In this regard, if affirming homosexuality really does follow affirming divorce, the Scripturally faithful decision would be to revisit our permissiveness regarding divorce. Two wrongs do not make a right. But again, when a progressive or modern opinion prevails in our Synods and Councils, the matter is not likely to be revisited. So much for our idea of "Reformed and Reforming according to the Word of God."

Rogers' treatment of Scripture and interactions with opposing views also does not strike me as persuasive. I believe that traditionalist scholar Robert Gagnon engages much more thoroughly with the entirety of Scripture than does Rogers. What was most disappointing to me in Rogers' book is that while he does mention Gagnon, he does not engage Gagnon honestly (or else he does not understand what Gagnon is saying). If you have Roger's book, I would suggest comparing his comments on Gagnon with what Gagnon actually wrote in his own work "The Bible and Homosexual Practice." And consider who is endorsing these books in the included editorial comments ... Rogers' work is endorsed primarily by advocates of homosexual affirmation. Gagnon's work is endorsed almost entirely by scholars. If you are looking for a work of advocacy, Rogers may meet your needs. But if you are looking for solid scholarship, you will need to continue your search.

Ultimately, if the Presbyterian Church (USA) accepts the conclusions and recommendations of Rogers' book, the denomination will not be "healed" but rather isolated in a cul-de-sac cut off from the power of God's Word and communion with the Body of Christ in the world.
767313
Through Book Sneeze, Thomas Nelson Publishers provided me with a complimentary copy of The Hole in our Gospel by Richard Stearns to review. Stearns narrates his journey from a business executive to president of World Vision. He encourages readers to give everything to God and show faith through works, particularly toward those in need.

I enjoyed the narrative portions of the book; I found myself glorifying God for the work He has done in Stearns' life and through Stearns' work in the lives of others. I think this book is helpful in exposing American Christians (including myself) and churches to our need to act.

However, I had some serious disagreements with his ideas. His theology, particularly his interpretation of Scripture, was troubling to me. I was suspicious of many of his "facts"-- some seemed to come from biased sources or sketchy surveys. He created false dichotomies and oversimplified issues.

I hope the book is effective. I think it has made my heart more tender to the destitute, and I am considering additional actions. I think the book addresses an issue that needs addressed. However, I cannot give this book the high recommendation that I would like to because of my reservations.
2169357
Michael Vlach (of Masters Seminary) has produced a good survey on the issues of dispensationalism. He classifies himself as a mix between a revised and progressive dispensationalist. However, any dispensationalist, no matter how he classifies himself does not attempt to settle the issues. The book deals with basic characteristics of dispensationalism: Its fundament beliefs and myths consider the subject. It covers:

A very brief of history of the system and the variations within dispensationalism.

The essential beliefs of dispensationalism. He gives six essential beliefs:
1. A historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
2. The church is not a replacement of Israel.
3. The Church and Israel are distinct. The church is not the new Israel.
4. The spiritual unity between Jew and Gentile, but does not cancel the distinctions between the two.
5. Israel has a future of salvation and role in the Messianic kingdom.
6. The seed of Abraham has a promise to Israel and the Gentiles which are different they are not canceling their unique positions.

He proceeds on to myths about dispensationalism. He centers upon the five most popular myths. Including that it teaches two ways of salvation, it is related to Arminianism, antinomianism, non-Lordship salvation, and it primarily centers on seven dispensations. Plus, lesser myths. He calls the myths false ideas.

This revised work includes 3 new chapters: (1) Continuity and Discontinuity in Dispensationalism; (2) Key Differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and (3) Recommended Sources on Dispensationalism. He gives a good survey on these issues. He hits the essence of the issues involved.

The book is short, reader friendly, and does a good job on focusing on some key issues. Issues that are common across the spectrum of dispensation views. It will be helpful to any dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist. He writes from the major Acts 2 position. One weakness is that he completely overlooks the mid-acts dispensational position. He also ignores Dispensational Theologies (such as Lewis Sperry Chafer and Charles F Baker) on his dispensational resource list. Otherwise, he has produced a consisted introduction to the field. It will be a helpful introduction to dispensationalism, ideal for beginning students, and will clarify some issues within the field. I found it to be an enjoyable read and refresher on dispensationalism.
4661216
Ryken rightly detects that 'In its presently weakened condition, the church is desperate for godly men who have the courage and wisdom to defend sound doctrine. People can know what it means to live under God's authority only if they have faithful and diligent leaders'. In this great tradition, David Dickson endeared himself to more than only his generation. He knew, for good measure, that:

'If the elder is to discharge the duty laid upon him in Scripture - "to reprove, rebuke and exhort" (2 Tim 4:2), to "be able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince gainsayers" (Titus 1:9) - the Word of God must be the man of his counsel, his daily companion.' p 32 The man of God is satisfied with the Word of God.

Paul's instruction to Timothy would indicate that Timothy served as the appointee of overseers/elders/bishops/shepherds of Christ's flock in a first generation setting. These terms are used synonymously, and thereby imply equality and plurality, as practised by Presbyterian office-bearers, which provides for collegial governance. This is in opposition to the linear flow-chart of church governance as found in papal authority, causing ambition to play a role in church leadership.

According to Dickson, the primary responsibility of elders is two-fold. Hebrews 13:17 asks they give an account for the souls under their care, with Calvin serving the necessary precaution that those to whom honor and obedience must be rendered are those that are found faithful in their office, as elders who are only so by title, are so '...for the purpose of destroying the church, [and ] deserve but little reverence and still less confidence.'&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Commentary-on-Hebrews-13-17/dp/0802808123/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Commentary on Hebrews 13:17</a>&nbsp;A more private aspect is determined by Paul's words in Acts 20:28 in that they are to "pay attention to yourselves", for as Calvin rightly commented, 'For that man will never be careful for the salvation of other men who will neglect his own.'&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Commentary-on-Acts-20-28/dp/0891077251/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Commentary on Acts 20:28</a>&nbsp;Dickson defended what many today feel to be the most important qualification of an elder, given the sudden increase in the demand for charisma: 'The usefulness of an elder will depend in the long run more on his character than on his gifts and knowledge.' p 34  The duty of spiritual care is made easier if the elder knows every member of the congregation, and is familiar with those in his particular district of visitation. 'An elder should visit all the people, rich as well as poor.' p 50 Dickson was especially attentive of children present and endeavoured always 'to catechize them a little', hoping that it would bear fruit 'in the case of those who reach years of understanding' as 'it has passed through the crucible of their own minds and souls'. 'It was the command of our Lord that the lambs should be fed as well as the sheep. This has been too lightly thought of, and a handle has thus been given to opponents of infant baptism.' p 66

A variety of ways of doing good is discussed by Dickson. He cautions that 'Cases occur of great delicacy and difficulty, and in dealing with them the elder must take care to give no occasion for his good being evil spoken of.' p 85 Dickson was mindful that Scripture sets the restoration and salvation of the offender as the primary effect desired of the ordinance of discipline (Gal 6). 'The second is maintaining the purity of the church and freeing it from scandal.' p 95  Ameliorating Matthew 18, he urged elders to "First speak to your brother alone, and deal with him faithfully and kindly". Dickson gave a time-honored defense and biblical summary that would serve as a beachhead for all elders.
2210711
I've read a couple gay-affirming books in the past by various authors, and I've observed that they tend to fall in one of two courts. Court A.) While very sympathetic to the plight of gays and lesbians, they are full of theological errors that take a liberty with Scripture that borders on eisogesis. (While I have not read many in this court, they do exist.) And Court B.) Incredibly conservative from a theological standpoint, but in a manner that delivers the text very clinically and without any passion behind the study. These books usually deal with the "Clobber Passages," but not well enough, in my opinion. The points made are correct, but they leave more to be desired.

If you are looking for a book that merely glosses over important issues, this is not for you. Far from being a liberal minded text, Pastor Romell actually challenges readers to follow along in Scripture, giving each passage considerable and reverent coverage. He will, however, get you to challenge preconceptions--even if you ARE gay-affirming. He recognises that many pro-gay arguments have not been in line with Scripture, but he definitely doesn't let traditionalist Christians off the hook either. This man clearly has a high appreciation for the Bible, and he manages fantastic exegesis that is packed with a passion for the love of God and neighbour. Though the text deals with some weighty issues, it is not even the slightest bit dry. The theology is very powerful and present, but Romell's unique voice for the topic really shines through in a mature, unbiased way.

One of the things I like most about this book is that it describes Romell's own personal struggle with the topic of homosexuality--how he went from first believing that the gay orientation itself was sinful, and then eventually that only same-sex relations were sinful. And then he reached a different conclusion entirely. "Homosexianity" was originally intended to be an anti-gay book...and I think the depth of his struggle, combined with his scholarly sincerity, will stagger people. "Homosexianity" reveals that the "gay issue" in today's church is a serious, SERIOUS topic. The people we exclude from our churches have beating hearts of flesh and blood, and it is not exaggerating to say that lives literally hang in the balance. Threads that could be snipped by a pastor's words....or saved by them.

The best part of the book is that it's saturated with Scripture. They aren't just picked out of context and thrown about willy nilly--they're woven into the tapestry of the work. Even more interestingly, verses and passages that you don't expect to surface for this topic actually resonate more strongly in light of the study. I would highly recommend this book to any Christian, (along with it's companion, "The Rebuttal.") Whether you're gay or straight, sometimes the Spirit challenges us to take another look at what we've been taught...and through the lens of love, you might be surprised at what He shows you.
3564552
Bilezikian is to be praised for promoting gender equality as he, and many others, believe is God's true design. Several of his arguments are very well-written and challenging, doubtless refreshing to those yearning to break free of the yokes of sexism.

Some have said that he contradicts himself by citing Genesis, yet calling many aspects of the Old testament invalid. I believe Bilezikian was referring to societal practices in the Old Testament as being invalid, whereas his referral to Genesis had not to do with society, but with God's plan when He first created the world. If you recall, God's plan for the world and the world's practices after the Fall were two completely separate things, so Bilezikian was really not at all contradicting himself by discrediting one and supporting the other. His overall argument is certainly valid. People DO need to step into modern times and stop trying to teach women to stay beneath men; in response to someone's statement that "The sexes were created for different services; is this so terrible?" No, but sexism is, so kindly swallow it before you speak of God. Adam and Eve were created for equal rule over Eden and God's design for equality still stands today; is THAT so terrible? And to answer another's question, these liberating views of equality HAVE been discovered before; you just apparently haven't been looking for them. Perhaps you should read Christ's lessons then, because He was actually the first after the Fall to truly introduce the idea of men and women serving equally under Him.

This book has many good points, but if you wish for a more in-depth study of Biblical equality, I recommend "Paul, Women and Wives" and "What Paul really said about Women" over this.
4630883
The writer is a theological seminary graduate with a PhD. He is also an Anabaptist and a radical Believer as far as I can see. The book is to be commended in that he is authentic and makes himself vulnerable. We all struggle with the view that God reveals Himself as the God of love and justice (vengeance) at the same time. Balance is key. Too far on one side and you end up with no punishment or hell. Too far the other side and you end up doubting God loves at all. What he calls progressive, I consider to be on the liberal side. What he calls fundamentalist, I consider to be on the safer side, but - I also have my problems with unloving, quick judging, harsh, critical fundamentalists. I think Corey tries to strike a balance, but I fear he places supreme emphasis on his experience which is subjective. I believe we need to be objective. As such, the book leaves me disturbed. He re-interprets Jesus walking on the water as Jesus, showing up in unexpected places and doing the unpredictable. He reinterprets the journey of the disciples and Jesus to Emmaus as the disciples verbalising what they no longer believed. A point he suggests helped him discover his new freedom.
The strength of the book is that all people will relate to the fact that church going people are taught from a young age to fear God. The weakness is that he doesn't distinguish between good/ or right fear versus bad and crippling fear. He places far too much emphasis on his journey/experience.  Another weakness is his view that God has regrets. Something historical Christianity would challenge.
498927
While there are some points that are solid observations of issues in modern day Christianity, I am most most concerned at those whom Jacobson quotes from and their influence on his "Church anarchist' views, like Dallas Willard and Henri Nouwen.  The DIRECTION this book takes the reader, not solid in the faith or with a propensity to the New Age is concerning.  Is the writer aware that Nouwen said, "Today I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God's house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her own way to God."From Sabbatical Journey, Henri Nouwen's last book, page 51, 1998 Hardcover Edition
Dallas Willard has endorsed the covers of books by authors such as Ruth Haley Barton a student of Shalem Institute that has strong universalistic views, as can be read in her book Invitation to Silence and Solitude. Willard himself endorses goddess worshiper Sue Monk Kidd and has co-authored a book with contemplative Jan Johnson. In his book, "Spirit of the Disciplines", a popular book in evangelical circles, he favorably quotes mystic monk Thomas Merton, Agnes Sanford, and George Fox. The irony is that he so often quotes those of large universities, making the pastors and leaders for tomorrow, from the very 'system' he is calling out.
4341277
I believe it's important for men to read books for and about women's issues, and vice versa. This book really could have been called "Lies People Believe", because most of the topics addressed are not gender specific. DeMoss' book is a great example of the importance of using Scripture as the basis for all study, as she provides solid, Biblical reasoning in most of her answers to the lies she addresses. Unfortunately, in a few instances she seems to be writing more from her own opinions than from Scriptural authority -- primarily in her thoughts on marriage and parenting. This doesn't necessarily make her wrong, but it would have been nice to see some references for some of her assertions, such as the idea that the thought processes behind using birth control -- at any time, for any reason -- are tantamount to abortion. This and other similarly undocumented generalizations are difficult to take seriously from a woman who has never married or had children, yet calls "a woman's willingness to embrace... her God-given role and calling (childbearing)... a necessary fruit that will accompany genuine salvation." As a whole, though, this is a good study resource and springboard to discussion, but also a reminder that the wisdom of man is meaningless next to the wisdom of God contained in His Word! (Proverbs 21:30; Mark 13:31)
4716510
The author writes out of several concerns that were very prevalent in his day and are just as much a concern for this generation of Christians. The first concern being to maintain a clear distinction between justifying grace and sanctifying grace. That faith which justifies a person rests on the person and finished work of Christ,whereas sanctifying faith is a grace which is active throughout the believers life(That is once they have excercised saving faith in Christ).Another major concern of Bishop Ryle's was the increasing influence of the teaching of 'Perfectionism'(that is the teaching that a Christian can attain to a level of sinless perfection in this life and in fact should be striving to do so). That Christians should desire to be sinless is what all should strive for,but it is not attainable in this life due to indwelling sin(which all of God's people struggle to overcome throughout their lives). Ryle correctly asserts that that those who teach such things are somewhat ignorant of the nature of sin,the nature of God,of their own hearts or of the meaning of the Biblical terms.
In seeking to develop what holiness is,he begins where one must begin and that is to have an accurate understanding of what sin is.
J.C.Ryle gives an excellent definition of sin on p. 2 "...a sin,to speak more particularly,consists in doing,saying,thinking or imagining,anything that is not in perfect conformity with the mind and law of God."
It would be difficult to find a better definition of holiness than the one Ryle gives "Holiness is the habit of being of one mind with God... it is the habit of agreeing in God's judgements-hating what He hates-and measuring everything in this world by the standard of His Word."Bishop Ryle paints a definitive picture with words that describe for us what a holy man looks like:A holy man endeavours to turn from every known sin and obey every known commandment,seeks to be meek,longsuffering,gentle,patient,...follows after temperance and self denial,endeavours to be charitable and show brotherly love,is meciful and benevolent,desires to grow in humility,have a pure heart and fears God.
The chapter on sanctification begins with an excellent definition then the author proceeds to give us the nature and visible evidences of sanctification. Bishop Ryle then lists five points in which Justification and sanctification are alike and eight points on which justification and sanctification differ.
Any fuzzy thinking on what Biblical sanctification is,and how it is to be distinguished from justification should be brought into sharp focus after a careful reading of this chapter. If the reader desires a more detailed treatment then A.W.Pink's book 'The Doctrine of Sanctification'deals throughlywith every aspect of the Bibles teaching on this doctrine. The importance of being able to distinguish these two doctrines(justification and sacntification)can hardly be overstated. Mr. Ryle dogmatically asserts that "all justified people are sanctified and all sanctified are justified. What God has joined together let no man dare to put asunder."
Another chapter 'Growth' deals with the reality of religious growth,the marks of religious growth and the means of religious growth.
Every true Christian desires usefullness in the Masters service. The Lord has joined together usefullness and Holiness. God is pleased to use and honour those who honour Him.
J.C.Ryle's 'Holiness' will be of help to babes in Christ and the most mature believers who desire to know what holiness is and how they(by God's grace)may become more holy and therefore more usefull in His service.
2792801
It is the secret - and struggle -  of too many Christian men. PORNOGRAPHY.  It can destroy a marriage, a ministry, and a family. It can indeed be a battle. Several men have joined together to share their testimonies, their insights, and their strategies for victory over pornography. Additionally, there are statements from their wives, as these men shared their struggles with their wives, who prayed for them and helped them be overcomers, rather than condemning them or divorcing them. For the man who has struggled with this, this book is one that should be read and its principles applied. Moreover, it should be re-read yearly as a refresher, so that each man can continue to walk in victory over this problem.
748582
After reading Jim McNeely's first book, The Romance of Grace, I must confess that I found it difficult to follow and somewhat elusive at times. I certainly appreciate his desire to exhort the believer to "passionately love Christ." However, it is clear that several issues of doctrinal concern became glaringly evident.
For instance, the premise of the  book is founded upon the couplet of parables found in Matthew thirteen. These two parables, the hidden treasure, and the pearl of great price are to be set in context alongside the other parables found in Matthew thirteen. My concern arises from McNeely's faulty interpretation of the pearl of great price. While it is obvious that the two parables are "mirror images" of one another, the author presents a different view. He asserts that the man in the first parable is a believer seeking after God, more of God. Nothing wrong with that, right? Yet, it is obvious that the true nature of this parable was to point lost men to Christ. The opening verses of Matthew thirteen indicate that Jesus was speaking (from a boat) to a very large crowd of people who had gathered. These individuals were  "unbelievers" who were in desperate need of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus. In parable after parable,  the Lord is presenting the way of salvation to them. This is done in a repetitive fashion, which was a common way of empathizing something of great importance. McNeeely then alleges that the man in the second parable is God and that "we are the pearl." Do you see anything wrong with this? The problem with this view is that it is not speaking about the sacrificial death of Christ for this perceived pearl. It points more clearly to the value of the pearl. The value and worth is found in the pearl. Christ is the pearl, not us. The Bible clearly says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  We were unloveable, and ungodly, and of no inherent value. McNeely's flawed interpretation of this parable comes from the misconception that it points to the relationship between Christ and His bride. When in actuality it points to Christ, as He is outlining the way and worth of salvation.
The book, as a whole, has several points that will raise your eyebrows as well as your conscience. I commend the author for pointing us to Christ. However, I wish that more consideration would have been given on  "how to"effectively flesh this out.

This review was done for Cross Focused Reviews as part of their book program.