Around the Interweb

We’re Worse Than Broken

Randy Newman saved me the trouble of writing this:

For believers, the word doesn’t go deep enough to move us forward in sanctification. God describes our sin many ways—almost all of which are far worse than “broken.” We’re rebellious, idolatrous, lost, enslaved, disobedient, adulterous, and—in case the point wasn’t pressed far enough—dead. If we see our sin as mere brokenness, our repentance and abhorrence at sin won’t push us in the opposite direction hard enough. And our appreciation of the cross as the only cure will be replaced with self-effort and legalism.

Read the rest

Also Worth Reading

Commentary: Bell, Hell and What We Did Well

Grace: How God Changed Thomas Hurst

Sad, But True: Yeah! I’m Gonna Get Stuff Done Today!!

Ministry: Are we really loving our pastors well?

Life: Our Flimsy Faith

In Case You Missed It

Here are a few of this week’s notable posts:

Tell Me What To Write! (Would love to get a couple more good suggestions from you all)

Forrest Gump-ing Your Way to a “Good” Sermon

Book Reviews:

  1. Faithfulness and Holiness by J.I. Packer
  2. We Shall See God by Randy Alcorn

Enlightened Self-Interest is Still Self-Interest

Video & Discussion:

  1. Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?
  2. What is the Church’s Role in Culture?

Get new content delivered to your inbox

  • CprTheology

    If the synergistic presentation of the Gospel was true, then this article would be valid in its concern that the Word does not always produce sanctification. The position presented is that there are only believers and unbelierers and not all believers progress in their sanctification. Actually that is in opposition to Romans 8:28-30. The truth that those conforming to the image of Christ will be glorified. The fruit of synergism is a professing christianity producing no evidence of a transformed life. Now I’m not a Calvinist, but I believe that Jesus saves sinners to change their lives.

    • http://www.bloggingtheologically.com Aaron Armstrong

      I don’t see Newman’s article saying the Word doesn’t produce sanctification, nor does the article suggest that there isn’t some sort of progress. Did you read it in its entirety? (Please note that I’m not trying to be snide as I can see how you might get your statements if the only portion you read was the quote above, which I included because it was an interesting statement.)

    • http://www.bloggingtheologically.com Aaron Armstrong

      I don’t see Newman’s article saying the Word doesn’t produce sanctification, nor does the article suggest that there isn’t some sort of progress. Did you read it in its entirety? (Please note that I’m not trying to be snide as I can see how you might get your statements if the only portion you read was the quote above, which I included because it was an interesting statement.)

    • http://www.bloggingtheologically.com Aaron Armstrong

      I don’t see Newman’s article saying the Word doesn’t produce sanctification, nor does the article suggest that there isn’t some sort of progress. Did you read it in its entirety? (Please note that I’m not trying to be snide as I can see how you might get your statements if the only portion you read was the quote above, which I included because it was an interesting statement.)