Dever on Humility

Christian humility is to simply accept whatever God has revealed in His word. Humility is following Dos' word wherever it goes, as far as it goes, not either going beyond it or stopping short of it... the humility we want in our churches is to read the Bible and believe it... it is not humble to be hesitant where God has been plain and clear.

Machen on Doctrine

The narration of the facts is history; the narratio of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. 'Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried' - that is history. 'He loved me and gave Himself for me' - that is doctrine.

Ryle on Doctrine

The victories of Christianity, wherever they have been won, have been won by distinct doctrinal theology; by telling men roundly of Christ’s vicarious death and sacrifice; by showing them Christ’s substitution on the cross, and His precious blood; by teaching them justification by faith, and bidding them believe on a crucified Saviour; by preaching ruin by sin, redemption by Christ, regeneration by the Spirit; by lifting up the brazen serpent; by telling men to look and live—to believe, repent, and be converted.

This—this is the only teaching which for eighteen centuries God has honoured with success, and is honouring at the present day both at home and abroad. Let the clever advocates of a broad and undogmatic theology—the preachers of the gospel of earnestness, and sincerity and cold morality—let them, I say, show us at this day any English village, or parish, or city, or town, or district, which has been evangelized without “dogma,” by their principles. They cannot do it, and they never will.

Christianity without distinct doctrine is a powerless thing. It may be beautiful to some minds, but it is childless and barren. There is no getting over the facts. The good that is done in the earth may be comparatively small. Evil may abound, and ignorant impatience may murmur and cry out that Christianity has failed. But, depend on it, if we want to “do good” and shake the world, we must fight with the old apostolic weapons, and stick to “dogma.” No dogma, no fruits! No positive evangelical doctrine, no evangelization!

Nettles on Truth in Preaching

We should learn that truth, or lack of it, commitment to the clear statement of truth, or lack of confidence in the ability and legitimacy of giving clear statements determines the character of one’s ministry. To the degree that we embrace, know, and state the truth of divine revelation, so will our ministries glorify God. God has placed the declaration of his glory in this age in the clear and faithful handling of his word by his ministers. The truths of Scripture were embodied ontologically in Christ as God and Man, two distinct natures in one person, and pragmatically (the only true pragmatism, the only thing in all of history that truly works) in the redemptive operation of the triune God in the incarnation, atoning death, and resurrection, ascension, and session of Christ. To glorify Christ in his person and work and thus glorify God we must know and preach the revealed word of God as contained in Holy Scripture. Lack of clarity in this stewardship means a veiling of the divine glory in our ministries.

Marcus Honeysett on Maturity

One of my pet hates is when people say to me "your teaching is just too intellectual. Just give us the easy stuff." While I don't doubt that I can be too intellectual, I think what is often meant it "don't stretch me too much."

The writer of Hebrews is pretty clear what he makes of Christians who aren't interested in being stretched in order to go to the next level of their understanding with God. He says that such a lack of diligence with the truths about God reveals infantile faith. He says believers ought to be quick, not slow, to learn.

5 points:

1. Christians ought to be obsessive about getting as much truth about God as we can, and going as far in our knowledge of God as we can. Else what does it say about our attitude to God? I like what he provides for me but don't want to go any deeper with him? The previous section finished with the world-shattering claim that Jesus has become the source of eternal salvation for those who obey him! Not having a profound desire to know and to grow in him is scarcely Christian

2. He writes to people who should be teachers about God but who aren't because of their lack of diligence to learn from God. This is interesting because it shows that God releases spiritual gifts of teaching in response to desire to learn of him. If you want to be a teacher you have to be a perpetual learner. There are people who ought to be teachers who aren't because of their carelessness. And there are people who have teaching responsibilities who shouldn't because they are careless to carry on growing. Don't listen to teachers who are habitual spiritual infants, regardless of how persuasive they sound, or how big their following

3. The immature can't distinguish good from evil (v14), because that comes from constant practice and reflection on the things of maturity, not the things of infancy

4. The things of infancy he lists fall into three categories: beginning the Christian life (Repentance and faith 6:1), basic church practices (baptism into Christ; laying on of hands in participating with God in the impartation of spiritual gifts and setting people aside for specific kingdom tasks 6:2), teachings about the future (resurrection and eternal judgement 6:2). Note that he thinks these are the basics. If you haven't grasped these, you haven't grasped the basics. And if you have grasped them, you have only grasped the basics. If your church only teaches this, it only teaches the basics. If your church doesn't teach this, then you haven't got the basics

5. The things of maturity with which this is contrasted is the teaching about righteousness (5:13). That is: about having a great high priest, about grace, about justification by faith, about the great exchange which sees us clothed in white as children of the king. It is the teaching about our adoption and status, about the fact that we are saints, about the fact that God's righteousness now determines the whole purpose of our existence - to be for the praise of his glorious grace

Now why on earth would people not want to go on to grasp these latter truths? But often they don't. I come across people who effectively say "I have had my sins forgiven, I am going to heaven, so that's enough. I can now relax and get on with my life." It's like they have ticked the right box on the heavenly insurance application form so that they are covered. But just like any other insurance the policy can now quietly sit in the drawer where they will only refer to it when the need arises.

That is the definition of a stalled Christian. They think they did a one-time only deal with God and life carries on basically as normal. How sad! How much they are missing! And in what danger they stand. The writer to the Hebrews says that not going on to maturity is, in fact, going backwards. There is no neutral gear. A stalled Christian is a Christian going backwards. And a Christian going backwards is always in danger of falling away.

The only way to keep secure from falling away is to keep going forwards. And that means having a desire to press on to maturity.

I.H. Marshall on NT Mission

It can be affirmed that mission is the origin of the New Testament documents. At the same time, the documents are concerned in part with the forwarding of the actual evangelism and contribute to a theology of evangelism.
Marshall then cautions those of us who theologize:
Focusing on this activity can carry with it the temptation to ignore the task of mission as the sharing of the gospel with those who have not yet heard it or beleived it . . . Even today believers may find their attention diverted to teh study of theology and other aspects of Christian living to teh detriment of evangelism, and this presupposition may give them a skewed reading of the New Testament.

Tim Challies on Doctrine

ileen and I were once members of a church that, after a few years of existence, began to de-emphasize doctrine. Some of the pastors seemed to reach the conclusion that “doctrine divides” and that the church really just needed to focus on evangelism and on “action.” They seemed to determine that a sound theological foundation held in common was unattainable and unrealistic. Therefore, doctrine should be laid aside and the church should rally around the things we had in common—a desire to reach others with the gospel and a desire to serve other people. It was a bit of a naive strategy, of course, and one that was bound to cause problems.

Soon the church began to fracture into camps—those with backgrounds in one Christian tradition began doing things in one way while people from a different Christian background began doing them a different way. For a time chaos reigned. In some small groups members of the church would serve the Lord’s Supper, in others they wouldn’t; in some small groups people were baptizing each other and serving Lord’s Supper to children. There was no standard and eventually the pastors had to step in and intervene. By then, though, it was too late and many of these small groups “defected.” Having created their own theological identity and one that was at odds with that of the pastors, some of these groups left en masse. It was an inevitable result, I think, and one that proved to me that critical importance of doctrine being held in common by members of a church.

J.I. Packer on Ministry

?It has often been said that Christianity in North America is 3,000 miles wide and half an inch deep. Something similar is true, by all accounts, in Africa and Asia, and (I can testify to this) in Britain also. Worshipers in evangelical churches, from the very young to the very old, and particularly the youth and the twenty- and thirty-somethings, know far less about the Bible and the faith than one would hope and than they themselves need to know for holy living. This is because the teaching mode of Christian communication is out of fashion, and all the emphasis in sermons and small groups is laid on experience in its various aspects. The result is a pietist form of piety, ardent and emotional, in which realizing the reality of fellowship with the Father and the Son is central while living one?s life with Spirit-given wisdom and discernment is neglected both as a topic and as a task. In the Western world in particular, where Christianity is marginalized and secular culture dismisses it as an ideological has-been, where daily we rub shoulders with persons of other faiths and of no faith, and where within the older Protestant churches tolerating the intolerable is advocated as a requirement of justice, versions of Christianity that care more for experiences of life than for principles of truth will neither strengthen churches nor glorify God.?

He goes on:

?The well-being of Christianity worldwide for this twenty-first century directly depends, I am convinced, on the recovery of what has historically been called catechesis?that is, the ministry of systematically teaching people in and coming into our churches the sinew-truths that Christians live by, and the faithful, practical, consistent way for Christians to live by them. During the past three centuries, catechesis as defined has shrunk, even in evangelical churches, from an all-age project to instruction for children and in some cases has vanished altogether. As one who for half a century has been attempting an essentially catechetical ministry by voice and pen, I long for the day when in all our churches systematic catechesis will come back into its own.?

He then speaks about the old Anglican dictum: ?There are three priorities in pastoral ministry: the first is, teach; the second is, teach; and the third is, teach.?

Wendland on Orthodoxism

By this we mean the fact that many pastors and parishioners often mistook a mere intellectual knowledge of carefully systematized doctrine for faith. A personal conviction of sin was lacking, as also a faith which rested on the assurance of a forgiveness and had as a natural result a consecrated life of sanctification. A religious intellectualism began to control many Lutheran classrooms and pulpits, which consumed practically all of its energy... 'The humbler duties of preaching the Gospel and ministering to the spiritual needs of the people were often shunned in favor of the more glamorous field of theological debate.... the people had grown weary of the endless and useless theological disputes in which their pastors and prfoessors engaged.... leaders of Lutehranism found time, opportunity and funds for extensive theological debate and publication, but none for missions.