Every Christian has the sure hope of the forgiveness of sin and the resurrection. In Christ the end of your story has already been written, and it is not a tragedy but rather the best of all endings—resurrection from the dead and a life everlasting to glorify God.

Upon hearing the gospel some people think, “I’m not that bad. I don’t need that much mercy.” Other people think they are too bad—too unworthy, too far gone for mercy to reach them. What does the Bible say?
Before the apostle Paul became a Christian, he was a “blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent” of Christ’s church (1 Timothy 1:13). Yet, Christ’s mercy covered all Paul’s sins and his mercy forgave all Paul’s sins, every last one:

This saying is trustworthy and worthy of full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” of whom I am the worst.1 Timothy 1:15

And so it is true for all who trust in Jesus alone for their salvation. And why can Christ’s mercy perform such wonders? How can he be so merciful?  He can because he suffered the full punishment for the sins of his people. As the righteous one, Jesus was nailed to the cursed tree. He was exposed to the reproach of God’s enemies. Jesus lived a perfect life, but in his death he bore in his own flesh the punishment for your sin, so that his mercy might cover all your sin. This is the surpassing glory of Christ’s mercy.
Read More
Related Posts:

Why should we, as Christians, talk “slaves’ and fools’ talk”? For that’s exactly what these twisted pronouns are: The talk of slaves to gender ideology and the utterances of fools who go along with it. Bree also gets at another important aspect of the debate — men who want to be referred to as “she/her” aren’t women, whether they want to be or not. And just as the Tisroc was never going to live forever, so too no one can change their biological sex.

Before the latest polluted wave of toxic gender ideology washed over our fair land, just about everyone knew what their “personal pronouns” were simply by looking in the mirror.
In fact, there was really no such thing as “personal” pronouns at all. There were just pronouns — handed out for free by the English language — and every Tom, Dick, and Harry, or Molly, Sue, and Jane, just grabbed the matching pronoun, “he/him” for men, “she/her” for women, and they/them for groups of men and/or women, without a second thought. And if any singular individual ventured to suggest that “they” contained “multitudes” or were “gender-fluid” and insisted that you use “they/them” in reference to, again, a single person, said person would either be scheduled for a mental examination or an exorcism.
Now, with the rise of transgenderism, gender ideology, and general wokeness, even Christian college professors are getting in on the pronoun game. Dr. Alicia Jackson, professor of history at my very own alma mater, Covenant College, was recently caught with “she/her” pronouns in her LinkedIn bio.
How should Christians respond? At the outset, allow me to be clear: Christians should never agree to call people by “gendered pronouns” that do not correspond with that person’s biological sex, as determined by God and revealed at birth or in the womb. To do so is to participate in a lie. It’s a violation of the Ninth Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16), because it is bearing false witness for your neighbor. It’s also a high-handed act of rebellion against God and His good creation order, which fixed, for all time, men as men and women as women. Furthermore, Christians should never willingly participate in the pronoun-offering charade, even if they are using the “right” ones. For that is an act of offering incense, of worship, to the false god of gender ideology.
The famous British author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis never lived to see the days of “ze/zir” descend on Western civilization. But in his prescience, he articulated the stakes of speaking truthfully, even if the culture demands otherwise, in the book A Horse and His Boy (a criminally underrated entry in his well-known Chronicles of Narnia series). And he does so, amazingly, out of the mouth of a horse. A talking horse, to be exact. A horse from the free country of Narnia and the North.
Read More
Related Posts:

It is entirely right to use logic to work out what seems right and true. However, we should not make our logical reasoning ultimate. For one thing, it depends on our prior commitments as to what appears logical. Unless we are able to assess all our priors, whilst we will reason logically, commitment to logic alone won’t lead us to a helpful conclusion. What do we do, for example, when the Church says things that are contrary to our logical understanding? It may be that what the church is arguing is totally illogical; it may be that our logic is faulty. We might be right in not merely accepting every word that comes from the pulpit just because it is uttered in church, nevertheless, it isn’t necessarily wiser to slavishly follow what is logical to us. The Lord, by his own reckoning, does not always work as we believe he ought.

If you are in church leadership, it won’t be long before someone disagrees with something you do or some doctrine that you teach. And that’s okay, we aren’t expecting total agreement on every issue within the church membership. It is okay to disagree.
But when we disagree, there need to be clear grounds for doing so. All too often, we default to certain arguments that really aren’t credible. Here are some of the common ones.
I was brought up to think…
There is, of course, nothing wrong with drawing upon what you were brought up with. No doubt, if you have been to a bible believing church, there will be some good things that they established. But some of those things, that may well be legitimate, are not demanded by the bible. Other times, it may simply be a blind spot in our church that what we were doing wasn’t biblical.
When we hit upon other churches doing things differently, defaulting to ‘I was brought up to believe…’ doesn’t get us very far. Two people, brought up in two different places, might be brought up to believe two different things. Who is to say which tradition is right and which is wrong? This is not a solid ground for reaching a biblical conclusion.
Our tradition says…
This is usually a more nuanced version of the previous point. We might not be rooting things in our particular, individual church’s practice, but in the established practices of our denomination. That might be a legitimate thing to raise if you are in an Anglican Church, who claims to hold to Anglican doctrine, polity and practice, but you think might be departing from that tradition. It isn’t unreasonable to say that, assuming the purpose is to be in line with the tradition and not some biblical matter on which the tradition is being challenged. Even then, no tradition can be above the scriptures. The aim of any tradition should be to act in line with scripture, so even a reference to tradition may not end matters.
But let’s say you have moved beyond denominations. You clearly are not wedded to your denominational way of doing things. You are now dealing with two different traditions. Again, which tradition is right? We can’t settle that with reference to our particular tradition. Instead, we have to go back to the scriptures to reach a conclusion.
Everybody interprets the Bible differently
Well, that’s not entirely true. Some of us do interpret the Bible in the same way as a significant chunk of other believers. So, we might be able to establish a fairly consistent pattern of thinking. It isn’t quite true to say we all interpret differently; many of us agree on significant amounts.
But where there is a disagreement that arises from interpretation, what are we to do?
Read More