Charles

Retro Christianity, Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

April 16, 2013 by Charles

This is a good book and well worth discussing and implementing where appropriate. I want to quote from the book’s cover because it says concisely what I would want you to see regarding this. It is written by a Dallas Seminary professor of Theological Studies. His challenge is clear.

“If the church fathers or Reformers showed up at your church, would they worship…or run? The time has come for evangelicals to reclaim the forgotten faith. And this means doing something many are reluctant to do. It means reflecting on the past to rethink the present and inform the future. It means think not just biblically and theologically, but also historically. RetroChristianity challenges us to think critically and constructively about those who have come before us and how that informs our current beliefs, values, and practices. This book will adjust our attitudes about evangelicalism, and will ultimately lead us along a time tested path toward a brighter future.

Svigel writes: “Why does evangelicalism appear to be spinning out of control, losing appeal to younger generations, dwindling in numbers, or selling out to pop culture to must a crowd?” He further writes, ” RetroChristianity fully acknowledges the frustrating and upsetting elements of evangelicalism.” However, we must not whine but present some direction. Further, “RetroChristianity also acknowledges the egocentric nature of many evangelicals’ approaches to church and spirituality. We need to counter the preference driven mentality rampant among so many churches, replacing it with more biblical, historical, and theological framework through which we can make informed decisions regarding doctrine, practice and worship.”

As I read this book I resonated with the author’s concern about evangelicalism having lost its way and especially as he offered some diagnosis of why. He said that as a movement evangelicals stand at a crossroads, having become lost in the forest of forgetfulness. From there he proceeds to give a good explanation as to the history of evangelicalism and what it is. As he does this he makes the reader aware that his aim is to see “our evangelical tradition come to terms with its roots, retrieve its distinctly Christian identity and then grow into the wise, mature adult I believe I can become. He goes on to say that if evangelicalism does not come around, “ours may very well be the last generation of evangelicalism.” Some of the ingredients feeding this immaturity include: positive thinking, self-help, self-esteem, do-it-yourself Christianity. Much of the garbage stinking up the shelves of Christian bookstores is passed off as Christian living but it’s mostly psychobabble or practical proverbs no better than what we find in the secular self-help or generic spirituality sections on our online booksellers.”

Sivgel uses charts, timelines, and sequential dating to show the development of his concern. Part of his challenge is “to reclaim that evangelicalism reclaim that aspect of its original identity it has lost, to reintroduce evangelicalism to the forgotten faith of its forsaken past.”

With that description of what he sees happening, he emphasizes the importance of regaining a sense of our history, who we are, where we have come from, and what we are dangerously neglecting today. His idea is not that Christianity should simply move back in time when there was agreement on the orthodoxy that set us apart. Nor is it tossing off the pass for a brand of pop Christianity that bears no relation or very little to the past orthodox tradition. Changing the message to reach the younger generation is not the answer. He believes while we should return to evangelicalism’s orthodox tradition or foundation, that it has to communicate those truths to today’s world. However, instead of changing the message to fit the audience, as is being done, we need to learn how to communicate those historic or tradition truths in a way that keeps the message the same. What do we do, we might ask? Svigel writes, “An underlying assumption behind this book is that evangelicalism in its varied forms has lost its way. It has entered into what we called a period of “midlife crisis,” forcing us to think about its identity and to consider how to best move forward…retrieving ideas and practices from the Christian past for the present, renewing personal and corporate identity, and thereby providing evangelicalism a positive path toward the future. This the definition of ReteroChristianity presented in this book.” With that he offers three principles to ponder:

Don’t attempt to change a denominational confession or structure. Remember that orthodox evangelicalism accepts unity in the midst of diversity.

Nudge, don’t push; patiently approximate, don’t rashly appropriate. Take a slow and easy approach…be satisfied with minor course correction.

Remember most issues are not simple, so proceed with humility.

He writes, “Without trained and experienced leadership at the helm of our churches, few of the other important changes will be able to be implemented successfully. Why? Because church leaders don’t need worldy wisdom, intuitive hunches, business models, sociological theories or psychological methods. They need biblical, theological, and historical wisdom to apply to ever-changing circumstances.”

His conclusion is an accurate summary of what I read throughout the book. “RetroChristianity is an adjustment of individuals’ and churches’ attitudes and actions, retrieving ideas and practices from the Christian past for the present, renewing personal and corporate identity, and providing evangelicalism a positive path toward the future.” Need I say more?

My Final Challenge to Our Readers

January 8, 2013 by Charles

As a springboard, I will use the message of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer, “A Day Of Sober Rejoicing” delivered at the 1982 Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly in Grand Rapids, MI., when the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod was received into the PCA. Schaeffer’s influence was one of the major contributing factors to that historic event. The message was originally published in our denominational magazine at the time, the PCA Messenger.

The Historical Note

Earlier we had invited Dr. Schaeffer to speak at our 1980 Consultation on Presbyterian Alternatives, which the PCA sponsored and hosted in Pittsburgh, where his topic was “We Don’t Have Forever.” This was a timely challenge and warning to those of us who had left the mainline Presbyterian Church to form the PCA and to those choosing to remain in the mainline church at that time.

I will use some of Dr. Schaeffer’s comments and observations from the 1982 General Assembly message to underscore some of the thoughts that have burned deeply into my mind and heart since those days. During my years serving as the coordinator of the PCA’s Christian Education and Publications Committee, I have tried to follow his insights. And, I have stated on several occasions, Schaeffer was one of the six men greatly impacting my life and ministry. He indeed was a prophet in the sense that he knew how to take God’s truth and apply it holistically to life.

In private conversation with Schaeffer, as well as in the message itself, he referred to the “joining and receiving,” (J and R) event, as it was called, as a historic moment in time. His challenge and focus was on what God could do if we only realize this is not about us but about Him and if we have a unity of spirit and purpose in our now combined mission.

After the vote of the RPCES to join and the PCA’s vote to receive, the two denominations became one. Schaeffer reminded the Assembly that being one would take looking to the Lord for help. “Yes, there will be problems,” he said, “problems with coordination and with being servants of one another and this will not happen automatically. It will take conscious thought, prayer, and a realistic love not to let our egotisms spoil that which God has given us.” He spoke of the common heritage of both churches and emphasized that while there are differences, that common heritage is greater than those differences.

He then proceeded to list some of the attributes of that common heritage: “The infinite-personal Creator, the triune God Himself, with those who have believed in God from the time of the Fall, our biblical roots, the Reformation truths.” He said, “Our common heritage is rooted in that we take seriously the Bible’s command concerning the purity of the visible church.” He went on to remind us that both of our heritages, the northern and southern Presbyterian churches, out of which both denominations were originally formed, that “it was with tears, yet out of a great sense of loyalty to our Lord that we each had separated from those denominations to form our own. We did that because we wanted to be, not a perfect church but a true church.”

Part of his overall charge to the PCA was “to focus on the existence of God and His character, individually and collectively.” To show forth love and holiness without compromise was his challenge, as it had been in Pittsburg two years earlier. In saying that, he reminded us that he was speaking of true biblical love, not the idea of love that leads to compromise, accommodation, and syncretization with unbelief. He strongly reminded the assembly that “truth carries with it confrontation, loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless. If our reflex action is always accommodation regardless of the centrality of the truth involved, there is something profoundly wrong.” Both the PCA and the RPCES were formed because they did believe something was profoundly wrong in the church regarding the truth.

With my somewhat of an editorial updating his 1982 assessment of the church and culture, he drew attention to the reality that the Christian consensus of what is now a 100 years ago has been devastated. In every area of life, art, music, government, education, secular, liberal thinking has become a dominant force. “As the great loss occurred in sliding from a Christian consensus to a humanistic one from the 1940’s onward, more and more things were lost, more and more things were allowed to be robbed, more and more things slid away.” And with those words he reminded us with that kind of secular mentality, “…we have no basis for fighting tyranny such as our forefathers fought tyranny as we know the great and flaming names of the Scottish background and the Reformation…”

He said, “As Presbyterians our heritage is with a Calvin who dared to stand against the Dukes of Savoy regardless of what it cost. Our heritage is with John Knox who taught us, as I’ve stressed in A Christian Manifesto, a great theology of standing against tyranny. Our heritage is with Samuel Rutherford who wrote those flaming words, Lex Rex– only the law and the ‘king’ under any name must never be allowed to arbitrate law. Are you Presbyterians? Have we a Presbyterian body? These men are the men who gave us our heritage-Calvin and his position, John Knox and his, Samuel Rutherford his, and no less than these in our own country, a John Witherspoon who understood that tyranny must be met and must be met squarely because tyranny is wrong. These who understood that true love in this fallen world often meant acceptance of the tears that go with confrontation. None of us like confrontation, or I hope none of us do. But in a fallen world, there is confrontation against evil and that which is wrong. The love must be there but so must the hard thing of acting upon differentiation, the differentiation God gives between truth and falsehood, between what is just based on God’s existence and His justice and injustice.”

“We are Presbyterians, we are Reformed. But our being together and our responsibility and opportunity do not stop merely with being Presbyterian and Reformed. As one as we are, we can in some measure speak with the balance of love and holiness to help to provide for the poor church of the Lord Jesus Christ as a whole in this country and then beyond into the world to provide help for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in helping stop this awful slide.” From there he proclaimed, “We are to be Presbyterian and Reformed, but that is not the limiting circle of our responsibility…Our distinctives are not to be the chasm. We hold our distinctives because we are convinced that they are biblical.”

As Schaeffer concluded his remarks he said, “As we begin together because truth is truth, we must be willing ecclesiastically, concerning Scripture, concerning human life, concerning oppression of our brothers and sisters in Christ and concerning the spread of tyranny, we must be willing when it is necessary to accept the privilege and duty of confrontation rather than accommodation. This is the command of Scripture, and it is the example of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

A Look to the Future

As I look back over the 40 years of our PCA history, those words have been our clarion call to serve our triune God in His church and kingdom. The PCA formed under the banner “the continuing church,” because the desire was to have a church committed unapologetically and without the least hesitation to the truth of God revealed in his Word and as defined by our Westminster Standards. If there is one thing the founders of the PCA intentionally desired in seeking to glorify our triune God, it was and has been that the Scriptures will maintain the high place in our practice that they hold in our doctrinal standards. Chapter one of The Westminster Confession of Faith begins with Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith and practice.” While that is our basic foundation stone, we must work very carefully and with unity of spirit and purpose to follow God’s Word as the final authority in all matters in which it speaks.

As some of us have learned in living our history and experience, once we begin to treat the Word of God lightly, picking and choosing only parts, or even defaulting to our own interpretation, if we allow our enemy the devil to do great damage in the church, we are in danger. Our confessional foundation, built on the Word of God and expressed in our Westminster Standards, are a fence or guardrail to help us remain faithful to who we say we are. As Schaeffer said, we took our vows to believe, teach, and uphold those standards because we believed them to be a true and faithful expression of The Faith built on the authority of the Scripture. We must be careful not to take God’s truth out of its context nor attempt to edit it. We are commanded “to observe all things Christ has commanded” and without seeing the truth both holistically as well as in its parts, as they tell the good news of the Kingdom redemptively, we will fail.

Because we have an enemy that opposes God’s truth, along with his Word and Spirit, we need our creeds and confessions, as well as the accountability of one another to remain faithful and true to the Scriptures, the Reformed Faith and the great commission. One of the vows required and taken by our officers, including teaching elders, is that we will be “in submission to the brethren.” While we were not forced to take that vow without our consent, we have taken it, and commitment to all of our vows must be maintained with the highest integrity and commitment. Our Confession of Faith speaks specifically to this issue of taking vows.

There are winds abroad presently seeking to undermine our biblical and confessional foundation in the church in general and in some places in our midst also. Being reformed, but not necessarily being confessionally reformed is an example of what I mean. We must be watchful and on guard. Once we sacrifice the truth, either by denial, or spinning it according to us, we loose the mantel of God’s authority. We have seen that happen; hence we must be extremely careful with God’s truth. Schaeffer warned us at the 1980 Consultation of the need “to guard the natural tendency to constantly move the line at which the final stand will be taken.” He illustrated that with examples from the mainline churches, and we are seeing the same thing today among evangelicals who continue to move that line back further and further.

Another one of Schaeffer’s points reminded us that our commitment to our Presbyterian and Reformed heritage should not isolate us from the rest of the body. The church is bigger than any one or even all of the denominations, important as they are. We must carry out our role in the Body of Christ with a positive witness and mission that contribute to the building of the church among the nations.

I believe with all my heart, if there is one thing greatly needed among us today within the evangelical world, it is commitment to the basic tenants of Christianity. Evangelicalism today is undergoing an identity crisis, by moving back the line, to use Schaeffer’s words.

At one point, for example, there were at least seven basic beliefs used to describe evangelicalism historically:

1 The Triune God as Creator and Redeemer.

2 The Fall and Resulting Depravity.

3 The Person and Work of Christ.

4 Salvation by Grace through Faith.

5 Inspiration and Authority of Scripture.

6 Redeemed Humanity Incorporated into Christ.

7 The Restoration of Humanity and Creation
(Michael J. Svigel, Retro-Christianity.)

Today in order to find the best common denominator, according to some such as the late John Stott, J. I. Packer, Alister McGrath, and others, two or three basics are used. {A note from history to underscore this point.} Though it is often said the term “evangelical” is originally associated with Martin Luther, actually John Wycliffe before him was first connected with the term-(doctor evangelicus). But the term evangelical really came into use in connection with John Wesley in Britain and the Great Awakenings in America.

In 1846 the World Evangelical Alliance was formed with nine essential tenets of evangelicalism:

1 The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.

2 The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

3 The Unity of the Godhead, and the Trinity of the persons therein.

4 The utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the Fall.

5 The incarnation of the Son of God, his work of atonement for the sins of mankind, and his mediatorial intercession and reign.

6 The justification of the sinner by faith alone.

7 The work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner.

8 The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous, and the eternal punishment of the wicked.

9 The divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in America, evangelicalism was associated with “the followoing fundamentals”

1 Inerrancy of Scripture

2 Historicity of Miracles

3 Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

4 The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

5 Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

6 The Return of Christ.

We could go on but this is sufficient to suggest, from the earliest down to today, the list has slowly and gradually decreased. Some of which is attributed to the moving back of the line to be more and more inclusive.

I truly believe if the PCA can, and will, remain unified in its doctrine and practice, and its love and holiness of life if, we in the PCA can practice a catholic vs. an isolated sectarian view of the church and proclaim a kingdom world and life view, we can give leadership, servant leadership, to the evangelical church in general. We can do this by encouraging the PCA, and the broader evangelical church, to disciple its people to live Christianly in the kingdom with a transformed mind.Even though Satan was defeated at the cross, he is not yet a destroyed foe. He seeks to hurt the church and its kingdom influence, as he swings his big tail against the woman and her seed.

In Conclusion

As I conclude, would you join me in praying that our church will be faithful to its head, the Lord Jesus Christ, to its charge to believe the truth, to be faithful and stand strong in the Lord in these challenging days. Pray that we might be and remain to be a church always reforming according to the Word of God and that we will never stray from that foundation. Once again, to quote Schaeffer, “We don’t have forever. The hour is late but I do believe it is not too late…” As long as the PCA is true to the Scriptures, the Reformed faith, and the great commission, we have an opportunity to make a difference not only ecclesiastically but through its disciples in the full kingdom of God implementing that kingdom focus and worldview

From the Editor of Equip – Goodbye to Our Readers

January 8, 2013 by Charles

For the past 17 years, Equip to Disciple, formerly Equip for Ministry, has attempted to keep you up to date regarding the training and resources ministryof Christian Education and Publications. We have included information related toCEP’s ministry throughout the church such as conference training and resources.We have attempted to bring to you some of the books that we have felt are mostimportant especially for the leader’s awareness.

With my departure from CEP, after serving for 36 years, it has been my privilege and responsibility to function as editor of this publication. We have appreciated the kind words over the years, and we have taken to heart criticisms that have occasionally come across our desk. Now it is time to bring this publication, in its present form, to a halt or as we say in the newsbusiness, to put it to bed. My successor, Dr. Stephen Estock (see article in this issue) will become the provisional CEP coordinator and will be presented to the 2013 General Assembly for election to this ministry. He will determine what the communication resources from CEP will be. I ask you to pray for him. This is a challenging time for CEP, as well as the PCA, the broader Reformed and evangelical church, our country and world. (See lead article). During my 36 year tenure, CEP has struggled financially. I continue to believe that God is going to raise up new churches and individuals who see the strategic role of CEP in the life of the PCA, as we train leaders and teachers, youth and children’s workers, women’s ministry leaders, and provide the best resources for “making kingdom disciples” which has been our motto, describing CEP’s ministry.

I was asked, in October, to give the devotional and make some final comments at my last coordinator’s meeting. In this final issue, the lead article, “The Challenge Before Us,” was presented at that meeting. In a general way it says what I feel and think about the topics addressed in the article. Having been on the organizing committee of the PCA and then having served these years at this level, I do believe we are at a critical point in the life of our church. Where we are on God’s time clock, (We don’t have forever), only God knows, but we must work, pray, and disciple our covenant people in God’s truth within the Kingdom setting.

There are several books in the review section focusing on critical themes, especially as they relate to the PCA and broader church in general. Once again thanks for your years of support. Please do keep CEP at the top or near the top of your prayer list. The staff needs your prayers, especially through this time of transition. At our September committee meeting, in saying the formal goodbyes, one of the members said that Charles will be an ambassador for Christian education even as he is involved in other ministries. That is a true statement. Thatis what Christ’s commission is all about and his words are my marching orders.

Thank you so very much and God bless you!

Gratefully in Christ,

Charles Dunahoo, Coordinator

Kingdoms Apart, Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective

November 15, 2012 by Charles

How to review this book which I believe is so strategically critical to its topic will not be an easy task. Believing that the Bible message is about the Kingdom of God, the one kingdom of God vs. a two kingdom concept, it behooves us to be familiar with this topic. The King and the Kingdom are one but with many different facets. Failing to understand this has resulted in fragmenting a theology of the Kingdom. It has created a dichotomy that weakens one’s view of the sovereignty of God over all things. It has caused confusion regarding nature and grace, the Church and the Kingdom, the Church and State, common grace and special grace, grace and the law or the law and the gospel.

James W. Skillen in his Foreword has written that “the spirit of this book, it seems to me, is one of seeking both to appreciate and to develop further Abraham Kuiper’s emphasis that the whole creation belongs to Christ and that in Christ believers should be seeking to develop all of their talents and capabilities in every sphere of life to the glory of God.”

While this book will deal with some extremely important theology, it does so in a way that helps the reader to understand that what it is saying really helps one focus on how Christians should live in the world from day to day. What does God require of us? What is the church’s role within the Kingdom? What is the relation of common and special grace and what difference does that make in our Christian lives and finally more broadly, how does Christianity relate to the culture? Following the emphasis of Kuyper, the book deals with and explains what this topic means for believing in the absolute sovereignty of God and his ultimate triumph over all of life. Where does faith come into the picture in the public square, we ask. Practically understanding the “one kingdom perspective” enables Christians to understand how God would have us act as a witness of the Gospel of the Kingdom or a minister of reconciliation in the world. Failing to understand the wholistic concept of the Kingdom has resulted in a weakening of Christianity’s influence in our western world.

Each of the nine contributors builds on the “one Kingdom” theme both expanding and deepening our understanding of the topic. I confess I have to be careful because I see most all of the major problems within Christianity stemming from a misunderstanding of the Kingdom, things such as the Gospel and law or nature and grace conflict, or dispensational theology where the church and kingdom are viewed separately and antithetical to each other, and consequently the silencing of the Christian influence in today’s world.

Martin Luther was definitely the chief proponent of a two kingdom view which is illustrated by the notion that the church functions in the spiritual realm while the civil government (state) functions in the natural. However, though John Calvin used, on several occasions, the terms two kingdom, he actually concludes the two realms answer to the one King Jesus.

Many the contributors to this book may not be known to you at this point. Each has made an invaluable contribution to this volume and will significantly enhance one’s understanding of the Kingdom of God. And if it is true that the Church is to preach and teach the good news of the Kingdom, then we must understand what that good news entails. We must also understand that because of the fall into sin we cannot simply be satisfied in applying redemption to the spirituality of the Church. Redemption belongs to all of creation because its goal is the recovering all of life as God intended it to be. The “one Kingdom” adheres to both the cultural mandates and the Great Commission and they are yet to be completed when the Kingdom comes in its fullness at the end of the age. This means that the truth contained in Christianity is not simply for the church but the world as well; therefore Christians are to live in the world and be salt and light, ambassadors for Christ in all areas of life. Christians must be equipped to serve Christ in all of life, not simply in the church realm. I appreciated for example, Cornel Venema’s clarification of the difference between Luther’s two kingdom concept and John Calvin’s.

Though some of the chapter titles may not encourage one to want to read this book, granted, it is not light reading, but I believe we have a “light Christianity” a shallow Christianity, because we have not been discipled to think more deeply and strategically about God’s plan for the world, including us.

Killing Calvinism, How To Destroy A Perfectly Good Theology From the Inside

November 15, 2012 by Charles

Here is a little book, I would like to say an easy read, except the subject matter makes it to be a bit like an anti-biotic when you are fighting a virus. We know how easy it is for us to become our worst enemy and end up hurting the very one/s we love. Sometimes this happens intentionally. At other times it happens because of carelessness, arrogance, and rudeness.

We believe that Calvinism represents the theology most consistently revealed and developed with in and from the Scriptures. Calvin and his system of Christian truth (theology) from our perspective help us see that challenge to make God’s perspective ours and then from there we seek to persuade others. Those of us who love our Calvinistic theology and are desirous for others to share that same love are sometimes so zealous that we actually become a stumbling block that keeps them from doing so simply because of the way we have presented it. Early on in my ministry I learned this in a painful way. In my zeal to disciple another minister friend in the Reformed Faith, I came on so strongly and forcefully that I almost lost him. I am grateful that he spoke the truth to me about my attitude because not only did it save our relationship but it became a reminder to me not to let my clumsiness, pride, and attitude dim the luster of the truth I represented.

If Calvinism represents God’s truth, it needs to be presented in as winsome, loving, and clear manner that our audience will also come to love and appreciate it. It is easy for us to do great damage to ourselves, our family, and others simply by how we live and present Calvinism. We know story and after story where this is the case. Greg Dutcher has done a good thing in reminding us of the danger of killing Calvinism from the inside. And, while we are gladly seeing something of a resurgence of Calvinism in our western world, we want to contribute to that to an even greater measure.

Our friend Lydia Brownback wrote, “An absolute must read for every YRR (Young, Restless, and Reformed) and older Calvinist too! With wit, compassion, and candor, Greg Dutcher exposes how sin taints our theological convictions and undermines our witness. But he doesn’t leave us there, through biblical and historical examples he shows us Calvinism done right to the glory of God.” An example of what Lydia is referring to comes from a part of Dutcher’s prayers, “Forgive me for my arrogance. How can I ever look down on anyone? If you treated me the way I have treated my own brothers in the faith, I would be lost.” And Dutcher writes about being stuck on “arrogant Calvinist Autopilot;” however, such an arrogance is not really true Calvinism.

One other reminder from the author is well taken. Give people time to work through their emotional reticence as R. C Sproul did with me,” he said. “People don’t change paradigms overnight.”

This is worth the read; especially because it could significantly enhance our effectiveness and winsomeness when presenting our Calvinistic faith to others.

Understanding Scripture, An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning

August 7, 2012 by Charles

It is obvious that Satan is the great enemy of God and His Kingdom, including the church. If God is the truth, you can know that Satan’s aim is do everything conceivable to pervert and destroy the truth. That was his modus operandi in the Garden of Eden. He has not rested and will not until the day of the Lord. Of course we know to attack, challenge, and contradict God’s truth is to focus those things on the Scripture. While God’s truth is broader than Scripture, the Word of God contains His special revealed truth that enables us to have a basis for understanding all of God’s truth. That’s why Christians must be Bible students with an active knowledge of the Scripture. It is our “only infallible rule of faith and practice” as the Westminster Confession of Faith states.

There are a number of issues before us today that are basic for Christians to understand about the Word. First, we need to know the Scriptures, though written by men inspired by God, are God’s word to us, not our words about God. The Scripture (Bible) is God’s book.

Understanding Scripture contains chapters by a few of those in Reformed and evangelical circles: Daniel Doriani, John Hannah, J. I. Packer, David Powlison, Vern Poythress, John Piper, John Collins, and others. Some of the topics include: Interpreting the Bible, Reading the Bible Theologically, Reading the Bible in Prayer and Communion, Surveying the History of Salvation, How the New Testament Interprets the Old Testament, are samplings of the topics included in this book.

There are seven parts to this book containing 19 topics within those seven. Packer’s chapter on Reading the Bible Theologically, is worth the price of the book. When you add Doriani’s and Hannah’s section on Interpreting the Bible, you will appreciate the importance of hermeneutics or interpreting the Word.

Whether you are a preacher, teacher, growing Christian, you will appreciate this book. Read it personally for your own benefit, use it topically for teaching and preaching, share it with a friend who may have questions about the Bible and its foundational role in the Christian faith. Though it refers to itself as an overview, don’t think the topics are dealt with simplistically.