There is hearing that is quickly sabotaged by the devil and thus never amounts to anything (v. 12). There is hearing that is marked at first by joy, yet pitters out in times of testing (v. 13). There is hearing that begins well, but is eventually choked out by the cares, riches, and pleasures of life (v. 14). And finally there is hearing that “holds fast” to the Word, in an “honest and good heart” and bears fruit with patience (v. 15). This, and only this, is the kind of hearing that is pleasing to God, having its roots in a sincere and Spirit-wrought faith. 

With my whole heart I cry; answer me, O LORD! I will keep your statutes. I call to you; save me, that I may observe your testimonies. (Psalm 119:145–146)
One of the hallmarks of genuine faith is an express intent to do what God commands: “With my whole heart I cry; answer me, O LORD! I will keep your statutes. I call to you; save me, that I may observe your testimonies.” Faith, in other words, does not stop short at mere admiration of God’s Word. It doesn’t settle for bare recognition of the truth or rightness of His testimonies. Rather, faith sees all of these things, and gladly gives voice to them, but is nevertheless incomplete until it has been manifested in the world through action.
Just as a groom will not be content to admire his bride-to-be for very long, but at some point must actually marry her, so the same is true of faith. Faith, unconsummated through obedience, is in the end no faith at all. In order for faith to be true, it must produce doers of the word, not hearers only (Js. 1:22).
The reason this is important to say is because we live in a time where it has become acceptable — even normative — for Christians to experience the Word of God washing over them week after week while remaining substantially unchanged. Sure, we tell ourselves, our lives may not look all that different on the outside, but our hearts are being encouraged! Our “love,” as intangible and ethereal a thing as Casper, is warm and fuzzy and brimming over with good intentions!
The trouble is, the Scriptures use pesky phrases like “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5) and “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).
Read More
Related Posts:

“You are Republican,” your Facebook algorithm whispers in your ear. “You are a Democrat,” your social circle chants. “You don’t just believe in those political ideas; they are who you are,” the world murmurs. Taking a side and defending it has become the norm in our society. Being with others like us feels safe, comfortable, protected from critique. But when we’re in a place where we separate from others, where we only hear, “Yes, you’re right,” we stagnate and fail to grow. Our political substitute identities leave us self-righteous, angry, and unable to cope with life’s reality: not everyone is like us, sees things the way we do, or wants the same things we do. If our happiness depends on being isolated from differing opinions, it is a false happiness.

In 2016, data scientists Eitan Hersh and Yair Ghitza analyzed data among registered voters to determine how often Democrats and Republicans married. They learned that 30 percent of couples were politically mixed, meaning they did not share the same party identification. However, most of those mixed marriages were between Independents and a spouse registered as Republican or Democrat. Only 9 percent of marriages were between Democrats and Republicans. That number has worsened. In 2020, the American Family Survey saw that only 21 percent of marriages were politically mixed, and fewer than 4 percent were between Democrats and Republicans. The indications are that we tend to only have deep friendships with those who share our political ideology.
In 1958, Gallup Research asked respondents, “‘If you had a daughter of marriageable age, would you prefer she marry a Democrat or Republican, all other things being equal?’ The results: 18% of Americans said they would prefer their daughter to marry a Democrat, 10% preferred a Republican, and the majority didn’t care.” When Gallup asked the same question in 2016, the number of those who cared nearly doubled: “28% of respondents said they preferred their child to marry a Democrat and 27% a Republican.”
In 2017, after Trump won the presidential election, 10 percent of Americans ended a romantic relationship because of different political views.
Politics are divisive no matter what country you live in. England has been split over Brexit (leaving the European Union). France has been divided over immigration policies. And South Korea has massive political division between its younger and older residents and between those in urban and rural environments.
Let’s make this personal. What would your reaction be if you learned a close friend of yours voted for a different presidential candidate than you in each of the past three elections? How would you feel if you walked into a new friend’s home and MSNBC was on the TV in their living room? How about Fox News? How would it impact your friendship?
We long to be around those who validate our opinions and share our worldview. It’s not surprising, then, that our political allegiances have a significant impact on our friendships.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Cornelis P. Venema |
Monday, December 18, 2023
Of the five points of doctrine summarized in the canons, the second is given the briefest treatment. In the opening articles of this second point, the canons affirm that the only possible way for sinful human beings to escape the condemnation and death that their sins deserve lies in the atoning work of Jesus Christ on their behalf (article 2). Christ’s substitutionary work of atonement is the only way that God’s justice can be satisfied and fallen sinners can be restored to favor with Him. After emphasizing the need for Christ’s atoning work on the cross, the canons affirm the infinite value and worth of Christ’s satisfaction.

The year of our Lord 2023–24 marks the 405th anniversary of the meeting of the Synod of Dort in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. The synod was convened to settle the ongoing controversy in the Dutch churches regarding the teaching of Jacobus Arminius and his followers on the topic of election. The document produced by the synod, the Canons of Dort, affirmed five main points of doctrine in response to the errors of the Arminians. These five points are often described today as the “doctrines of grace.” They are also frequently associated with the acronym TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints), even though this acronym alters the sequence of the points adopted and in some cases may offer a misleading impression of the canons’ teaching.
This article will follow the sequence of the canons. Though it is often forgotten, this sequence was already established by the time the Synod of Dort convened in 1618. Before the meeting of the synod, the Arminians had presented their teaching in the form of five opinions. The five points of the Canons of Dort were written, therefore, as a direct reply to the errors of Arminius and his followers. They were written not to offer a complete statement of the Reformed faith but to settle the controversy regarding Calvinist soteriology provoked by the teaching of Arminius.
In the course of its deliberations, the Synod of Dort judged the five Arminian articles to be contrary to the Word of God. Against the Arminian teachings of divine election based on foreseen faith, universal atonement, resistible or ineffectual grace, and the possibility of a fall from grace, the canons set forth the biblical doctrines of unconditional election, definite atonement (or particular redemption), radical depravity, effectual grace, and the perseverance of the saints. On each of these points, the canons first present a positive statement of the scriptural teaching and then conclude with a rejection of the corresponding Arminian errors.
First Point: Unconditional Election
In the opening articles of the first main point of doctrine, the canons summarize the most important aspects of the biblical gospel. These include the fact that “all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death” (article 1), that God has manifested His love in the sending of His only begotten Son (article 2), and that God’s anger continues to rest on those who do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ (article 3). Within the framework of these truths, the canons address the fundamental question to which the biblical doctrine of election is addressed: Why do some believe and repent at the preaching of the gospel but others remain in their sins and under the just condemnation of God? The answer to this question at its deepest level is found in God’s unconditional election in Christ of some persons to salvation:
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from [God’s] eternal decision. For all His works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision He graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of His chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by His just judgment He leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us His act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. (Article 6)
Because God’s sovereign and gracious purpose of election is the source of faith, the canons go on to assert that it cannot therefore be based on faith. God does not elect to save anyone “on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen” (article 8). Faith is not a meritorious work but is itself a gracious gift that God grants to those whom He calls according to His purpose (Acts 13:48; Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 1:29).
Read More
Related Posts: