The songs we sing


songs we sing(view original article here)

Derek Bigg considers how they affect us

‘Music is a gift of God… After theology I accord to music the highest place and greatest honour.’

So said Martin Luther, who composed chorales to be sung by all the people, not just the clergy as in the Roman Catholic Church of his day. It is largely to him that we owe today’s opportunities for congregational singing.

But do we make the best possible use of them? I will be asking some searching questions about the songs we sing. My prayer is that this will stimulate fruitful discussion and encourage a God-honouring approach to the musical side of church life.

My musical family

First, let me say a little about my background to show where I am coming from.

Music was always prominent in our family life. As a family we occasionally performed Leopold Mozart’s Toy Symphony. Two of my brothers followed musical careers, one of them becoming the youngest-ever Fellow of the Royal College of Organists at the age of 17. My father was an organist and choirmaster; and I myself have been a chorister. I have experienced a variety of musical traditions in both Anglican and nonconformist churches, including numerous evangelical churches in Spain. Four years’ training at the London Bible College, when Ernest Kevan was Principal, provided me with resources for bringing biblical teaching to bear on practical issues. Music is one such issue.

Just a matter of taste?

Is musical style merely a matter of personal taste? No. To some extent it mirrors the spirit of the age. As H.R. Rookmaaker said in Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, ‘there is nothing neutral’. Like other aspects of culture, music should be judged by the standards of God’s Word and by the effect it produces. Music can soothe a troubled spirit (1 Samuel 16.23), but it can also whip people into a frenzy.

Adolf Hitler would only listen to military bands and music composed by Richard Wagner. Wagner despised the music of his contemporary Felix Mendelssohn on account of its ‘Jewishness’ and advocated the elimination of all Jews from German society. Significantly, Hitler saw him as his sole predecessor. He attended several performances of Wagner’s opera Lohengrin. The explosive Prelude to Act 3 feels like a musical accompaniment to Hitler’s ranting speeches. For a complete contrast, take Elton John’s Candle in the Wind at Princess Diana’s funeral. It moved people to tears.

The renowned conductor Sir Thomas Beecham once said that, if he were a dictator, he would compel everyone between four and 80 to listen to 15 minutes of Mozart every day. In an educational research project some years ago, Mozart was played during school lessons. The result? Improved concentration, as the sheer beauty of Mozart’s melodies and harmonies evoked a tranquil, tension-free atmosphere.

What kind of atmosphere?

Since music invariably creates a certain atmosphere, we ought to ask what kind of atmosphere we generate through the music in our Sunday services and Christian conventions. John Bell of the Iona Community thinks we have swapped the model of the Victorian schoolroom for that of the theatre. Is this true? Has today’s pervasive pop culture influenced our music in any way? Does a Christian gathering in which music features strongly ever feel like a pop festival?

Like all God’s gifts, music can be used in a self-centred fashion or in a way that exalts God himself. Do our songs reflect the truth of God’s Word and promote godly living? If singing is to glorify God, we need to remove any obstacles that might hinder us. The questions below will draw attention to several possible hindrances.

Questions to face

To what extent are our minds engaged when we sing? Do we sing with both spirit and mind (1 Corinthians 14.15)? In his book And Now Let’s Move into a Time of Nonsense, Nick Page describes how the pop song has replaced the poem as the model for most Christian songwriters today. Poetry, he points out, stimulates serious reflection; but pop songs tend to provoke a purely emotional response, with the music taking precedence over frequently banal words.

Do some songs claim too much? If I sing ‘My love just keeps on growing’, am I displaying an indefensible self-confidence rather than a humble spirit?

How are tunes to be judged? Is it stating the obvious to say that they should be easy to follow? Sadly, there is an increasing number of tunes which are too complicated, making it difficult for the congregation to keep in step with the musicians and hampering concentration on the words. The main reason for this trend seems to be that most Christian songs today are written not for congregational singing but for performance before a listening audience. Is this a commendable development?

Words and music

All tunes should fit the mood of the words. Generally speaking, a major key and fast tempo suit a joyful theme, a minor key and slow tempo a sombre theme. But what if words and music clash? Does the triumphant ‘Hallelujah!’ in the hymn Man of Sorrows! feel strangely subdued when the new tune ‘Burney Lane’ takes it on a gentle downward cadence? Are the solemn words of the children’s song ‘We can’t be friends because of our sin’ neutralised by the jaunty music? Incongruously, the words ‘I’m sorry for the wrong I’ve done’ are set to lively, upbeat music.

Music affects us at a subliminal level more than we realise. If it conflicts with the message of the words, it may well become the dominating influence and win the battle between the two.

Childrens’ songs

We rejoice in the knowledge that Jesus is in the highest place, with a name that is above every name (Philippians 2.9). Do we revere this precious name and all that it represents when we sing nine times ‘How cool is that!’ in praise of Jesus’ miracles and deity? It may be groovy, but does it drag the Lord down to our level?

What kind of songs do we choose for our children to sing? Children learn through singing and need a balanced musical diet covering a variety of themes, including those we might be tempted to avoid, such as sin and judgment. Are we looking for songs that are faithful to Scripture, couched in simple, non-theological language? Do we check carefully not only the words themselves but also the style of writing? Children tend to take everything literally. What, then, will they make of Our God is a Great Big God ? The combination of ‘great’ and ‘big’ speaks of physical size! The song continues: ‘He’s higher than a skyscraper… deeper than a submarine’. Will this portrayal implant a distorted picture in children’s hearts and minds?

Spiritual blessing

Lots of questions! They raise issues we all ought to ponder; but let us also be grateful for all the songs that we can happily sing without any misgivings about their quality. Many of those produced in the last 20 or 30 years have been a source of great spiritual blessing.

One example must suffice. A heart-warming song by Stuart Townend and Mark Edwards directs our thoughts heavenwards as it focuses on life beyond the grave. Through helpful use of the first person singular I can make my own the words ‘There is a hope that burns within my heart’ (verse 1) and ‘lifts my weary head’ (verse 2). Firmly rooted in Scripture, the song strengthens our faith; and the fine poetry (eschewing language like ‘Cos the Lord don’t change at all’, found in another modern song) enables us at the same time to reflect on something ‘lovely’ and ‘praiseworthy’ (Philippians 4.8). More songs like this one, please!

Whatever our personal tastes may be, we must never forget that any sinful attitudes in the musical arena can easily undermine that unity which Paul urges us to maintain in Ephesians 4.3.

Our final question must therefore be: Are we applying this teaching of God’s Word and thereby exhibiting musical godliness?

Derek Bigg is a member and former elder of Christ Church, Haywards Heath.

 

This article was first published in the August 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit us online www.e-n.org.uk or subscribe to en for monthly updates.

What’s coming up in the December issue of en…


December 2014 highlightsA few highlights to look forward to in the December issue of en! It’s scheduled to arrive from the printers on Friday – hurrah!

You can also go to our web-site if you’d like to take a look at the online version or to subscribe!

An able and faithful ministry (book review)


Having a lasting influenceAN ABLE AND FAITHFUL MINISTRY
Samuel Miller and the pastoral office
By James M. Garretson
Reformation Heritage Books. 425 pages. £20.65
ISBN 978 1 601 782 984

(view original article here)

There has never been a shortage of books about the Christian ministry. So, when yet another one appears, one might rightly ask, ‘Why buy it?’ – especially if you happen to be a minister, or student, already too busy to read the books you have.

And, given the propensity in our day to look for the latest ideas on ministry, why bother with the counsel of someone from the 19th century? James Garretson’s work on the life and works of Samuel Miller gives good answers to both these questions.

Miller, along with Archibald Alexander, was one of the founding fathers of Princeton Theological Seminary He played a key role in laying the foundation and setting the tone for what that institution was to become during the decades that followed. Garretson introduces him to us in two biographical sections at the beginning and end of this book, interspersed with two sections providing a comprehensive overview of his teaching on what it means to be a preacher and a pastor.

Unusual approach

The genius in this rather unusual approach is to let us see the close connection between what Miller was as a Christian and what he taught about ministry. Indeed, as we follow through the excerpts gleaned by Garretson from the Princeton archives – not only from Miller’s lectures and letters, but also from what was said about him by his students and colleagues – we quickly realise that his influence came as much from what he was as through what he taught.

Trust and obey

The scope of his instruction about the work of the ministry was extensive: covering everything from sermon preparation through to how a minister should conduct himself towards women in the congregation. The keynote that is sounded again and again as being the hallmark of this man’s view of ministry is the fact that faithfulness to the truth of the gospel is inseparable from a life that reflects the Christ of whom that gospel speaks.

Not surprisingly, Miller’s wisdom and insights are presented in the context of a culture that is very different from our own and carry something of the quaintness of that era. But that should not stand in the way of seeing how strikingly relevant this material is to the church of our day. If we are concerned about cultivating the kind of ministry that will mould the church for its lasting good, this is a book that deserves to be read.

Mark G. Johnston, minister designate, Bethel Presbyterian Church, Cardiff

This article was first published in the August 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit our website or subscribe to en for regular updates.

Reason for the hope


Ravi(view original article here)

EN interviews a giant among contemporary defenders of the faith

Ravi Zacharias is one of the world’s leading Christian apologists and was in Britain for the Keswick Convention.

en: Tell us a little about your worldwide ministry.
RZ:
 Thirty years ago, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries began with a handful of friends and a specific calling: to reach and challenge those who shape the ideas of a culture with the credibility of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We now have offices in 12 countries with a speaking team of 30. Our vision is to continue to build a global team with a five-fold thrust of evangelism, apologetics, spiritual disciplines, training, and humanitarian support (through our outreach of Wellspring International). We accomplish this through a variety of resources and venues, including the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, where we train and develop future apologist-evangelists.

en: What do you hope to speak on at Keswick this year?
RZ: 
We are living in a time when there has been a direct assault upon the Christian faith in ways that are very disturbing. It is as if all the forces allied against belief have come together to mount a co-operative and methodical assault. From the arts to the media and the academy, the Christian faith is caricatured and mocked. I would like to get to the basics of why our faith bridges the greatest chasm between the head and the heart. The explanatory power of the gospel in facing life’s questions is both beautiful and persuasive.

en: As you travel the world can you put the church in the West in perspective for us? What are its best and worst points?
RZ: 
Wherever we go, it is thrilling to see every venue packed with young people. There is deep hunger for meaning and for answers to their questions, and most are eager to listen. I am continually struck by the eagerness of so many young people who take their faith seriously and who want to be able to respond to their critics.

At the same time, we are precariously at risk of losing our young people. Many are walking away from the church and their faith, disappointed that no one is addressing their honest questions and doubts. Many of them are hanging onto their faith by a thread. This increased scepticism and hostility toward Christianity is compounded by the inability of so many in the church who are unable to articulate what they believe. Sceptics hurl questions or accusations in the public square, leaving many questioning the validity of their faith. We see it especially on the university campuses where young professing Christians are struggling. Their beliefs are under attack, and so many simply walk away from their beliefs, feeling unsure how to respond to the claims of atheism or other challenges.

So we have erred in not answering these questions and not responding to the issues, and I think that’s why there is such a resurgence of interest in apologetics. The church is awakening to the need, but I believe if we do not reach them at an earlier age, the Christian message will be totally foreign to the Western world and totally mythical in the next generation.

en: As a Christian apologist, what do you think is the atheist’s best argument and how do we begin to answer it?
RZ: 
The most obvious one is the problem of evil and suffering. But I have often noted that I believe that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of the gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out. I remember well in the early days of my Christian faith talking to a close Hindu friend. He was questioning the experience of conversion as being supernatural. He absolutely insisted that conversion was nothing more than a decision to lead a more ethical life and that, in most cases, it was not any different from other ethical religions. I had heard his argument before. But then he said something I have never forgotten: ‘If this conversion is truly supernatural, why is it not more evident in the lives of so many Christians I know?’. His question is a troublesome one. In fact, it is so disturbing a question that I think of all the challenges to Christianity, this is the most difficult question of all.

The moral argument in defence of the Christian faith is a powerful one – but notice that it also cuts both ways. The atheist who challenges the Christian must also give an answer to where the standard of good originates. That is because when you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil. When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver – the source of the moral law. But this moral lawgiver is precisely who atheists are trying to disprove.

Additionally, I offer these four points. One, no matter how we section physical concrete reality, we end up with a quantity that cannot explain its own existence. If all material quantities cannot explain their own existence, the only possibility for self-explanation would be something that is non-material. Two, wherever we see intelligibility, we find intelligence behind it. Three – and back to the original challenge – we intuitively know that our moral reasoning points to a moral framework within the universe. The very fact that the problem of evil is raised either by people or about people intimates that human beings have intrinsic worth. Four, the human experience in history and personal encounter sustains the reality of the supernatural. These combined factors point to God, the nonphysical, intelligent, moral first cause who has given us intrinsic worth and who we can know by personal experience. And, ultimately, only in the gospel do we find that Christ alone responds to the deepest questions of our hearts and minds.

en: What is the best approach for Christians to take in witnessing to Muslims?
RZ: 
The challenge of Islam is real, but even with its stridency, many within the heartland of this religion are becoming disillusioned. We must respond by seeking to understand their faith and culture and to truly love them as our neighbour. We must also be prepared to disciple those who come out from them to faith in Christ – this is utterly crucial. We hear story after story of God intervening in their lives through visions and dreams. God in his sovereignty is using their worldview by which to reach them. That is why discipling will take on such great importance.

en: How can people pray for you and your ministry?
RZ: 
Please pray for our families. As itinerants, we miss our children and they are our most important trust. Pray also for our need to balance work with replenishment and restoration. Finally, pray for our own integrity of life and character. Without living out the gospel, our words will sound hollow. Thank you for praying for us and thank you for staying the course. The Keswick movement has truly been a long obedience in the same direction.

Find out more at www.rzim.org

 

This article was first published in the August 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit us online www.e-n.org.uk or subscribe to en for monthly updates.

The Music Exchange from Richard Simpkin: I love Colin!


Music Exchange

(view original article here)

Colin Buchanan writes songs for kids that hook truths into hearts.

And not just My God is So Big truth. Colin hooks big truths like the sovereignty of God, substitutionary atonement and judgment for sin into kids’ hearts. My boys have been singing deep truths like this since they were four years old:

Every tick of the clock is ruled by the hand of God.

Remember the Lord – remember that he is in control.

God never says oops, never slips up, never makes any mistakes.

Justice and mercy, anger and grace. Tender and holy, he is the Lord.

Ze baddest sickness in ze vorld is sin. Every single heart has got it in.

Big words that end in ‘shun’ (this song gives a one-line summary for key Bible doctrines like justifica-shun, substitu-shun and propitia-shun).

Hard truths with sensitivity

It’s not clunky theology though – he doesn’t just teach a doctrine (wham!) and move on. He sings hard truths with deep sensitivity, helping us delve into the rich nature of the compassionate God:

In wise and holy tenderness he has planned your story.

He’ll draw his children onwards to enfold them in his glory.

I’m hugely grateful that Colin has played his part in helping our boys to build their house on the rock of God’s Word, but he has also planted these truths in the hearts of their parents too.

It’s also rare to find such an accomplished musician, who is so rigorous in singing truth, but who can also do so with real humour and grace. Colin says in his latest CD: ‘I’m very grateful for the Reformed tradition which holds the Bible as the inspired Word of God and our authority for life and truth. That means I’ve been taught the Bible a lot over many years. And because it’s all God’s Word, I’ve been taught from all of it – the hard bits, the confusing bits, the deep bits, the beautiful bits, the challenging bits, the comforting bits’.

Direct from Scripture

Some of Colin’s songs are direct quotes from Scripture with the verses comprising part of the song, but the songs that don’t use direct quotes show that Colin is a man who is steeped in Scripture, and who has worked hard to understand deep truths not only for himself, but to communicate those truths to children. I especially appreciate the way he appeals to boys in the characters he uses in his songs.

As a musician, I’m hugely impressed by the way he transcends so many different styles in his songs – from rap to Bavarian kitsch to house to Elvis. It’s brilliant. This does mean that his songs are hard to replicate in a Sunday school setting with us less-than-talented musos who are stuck in a one-style-fits-all straightjacket, but there’s nothing in the Bible that says it’s wrong to sing along to a CD.

Travelling minstrel

Usually I’m not massively keen on the Christian travelling minstrel – there are lots of keen Christian musicians who ask to play in our church, and who bring their case of CDs to sell. The only problem is that if they’re playing in our church, they’re absent from their own, which should be giving them the regular teaching, discipline and accountability they need (particularly as musicians). I’ve noticed that as a result, nearly all the content of their songs is more focussed on the individual’s experiences of God, and less on the clear teaching of Scripture. That’s OK up to a point, but Colin’s songs give me confidence that he is a man who is regularly being fed truth by a pastor and congregation who know him.

I wish Colin was over in the UK more often, but if staying at home amongst his church family means he is able to keep writing with depth and quality, then I’m happy to wait as long as it takes – and if my boys are too old by the time he next comes over, I’ll go to his concert myself.

Richard Simpkin is Director of Music at St. Helen’s Church, Bishopsgate, London.

This article was first published in the August 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit us online or subscribe to en for monthly updates.

“If we get full religious freedom, the church is finished.”… and some other great links.


Links Worth A Look

Enjoy the following links!

The Gospel Coalition – 5 common small group myths and the truth to help transform your group

A Faith to live by – “If we get full religious freedom, then the church is finished.” (Economist on the church in China)

9 Marks – Not satisfied with our shepherding…yet!

Challies.com – How to get things done: taming the email beast

Gidsy & Jo – Supporting ‘Home for Good’ fostering & adoption charity with Christmas decoration patterns

For monthly news updates and other feature articles subscribe to en online

Something more sure


Something more sure

Kevin DeYoung

(view original article here)

Kevin DeYoung explains from 2 Peter 1 what the Bible says about itself

Whatever Peter, James, and John saw on the mountain, and whatever it portended about the second coming of Christ and the last judgment, these things only confirmed what the prophetic word had already made sure (v. 19). You cannot put more confidence in your Bible than Peter put in his.

Notice three truths these verses teach us about the nature of Scripture.

God’s Word

Scripture is the Word of God. This may sound like a redundant statement, but the is says something important. Some Christians, influenced by neo-orthodox theologians like Karl Barth, are hesitant to say the Bible is the Word of God. Instead, they argue that the Bible contains the Word of God, or becomes the Word of God. Neo-orthodox thinking attempts to distance claims of inspiration from the written words on the pages of Scripture. This distinction, however, would have been foreign to Peter, for all the lofty claims he makes about the ‘prophetic word’ are made with reference to the written words of Scripture.

Peter uses three different terms to refer to the Word of God in these verses: the ‘prophetic word’ (v.19), ‘prophecy of Scripture’ (v.20), and ‘prophecy’ (v.21). They all mention prophecy and are used interchangeably. Importantly, for our considerations, the Greek word in verse 20 for Scripture is graphe, which refers to something that has been written down. Peter has in mind for verse 20 not just oral traditions or a speech event, but a written text. Peter’s view of inspiration cannot be limited to prophetic speech or a preaching event; it includes the pages of Scripture.

And not just the prophetic parts about the second coming. The whole Old Testament is in view. Just as ‘the Law and the Prophets’ can be a general designation for the Old Testament (cf. Matthew 7.12), so can the law or the prophets separately. No Jew would make a distinction that some parts of Scripture were truer parts than others (cf. 2 Timothy 3.16). Whatever is true of the law is true of the prophets, and vice versa. The ‘prophetic word’ is simply a way of referring to inscripturated revelation.

All of this matters because it means the authority of God’s word resides in the written text – the words, the sentences, the paragraphs – of Scripture. Some people don’t like written texts and propositions because they imply a stable, fixed meaning, and people don’t want truth to be fixed. They would rather have inspiration be more subjective, more internal, more experiential. But according to 2 Peter 1.19-21, the inspiration of holy Scripture is an objective reality outside of us.

None of this is to suggest that inspiration leads us away from the subjective, internal, or experiential. Quite the contrary. We are to ‘pay attention’ to the inspired Scriptures as to ‘a lamp shining in a dark place’ (v.19). We immerse ourselves in Scripture so that the morning star, Christ himself, would rise in our hearts. The goal of revelation is not information only, but affection, worship, and obedience. Christ in us will be realised only as we drink deeply of the Bible, which is God’s Word outside of us.

Human but divine

The Word of God is no less divine because it is given through human instrumentality. Many claim that conservative Christians hold to a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration. Evangelicals, it is said, believe the writers of the Bible were passive instruments who merely recorded what they were given by rote from heaven. It’s true that older theologians sometimes spoke of the Scriptures as being so flawless that it’s as if they were given by dictation. The metaphor (probably more misleading than helpful) was meant to underscore the Bible’s perfection, but it was not meant to describe the actual process whereby the authors of the Bible wrote their inspired texts. Rather, 2 Peter 1.21 teaches, as evangelicals have emphasised, that men spoke (and wrote) as they were ‘carried along’ by the Holy Spirit.

The phrase ‘concursive operation’ is often used to describe the process of inspiration, meaning that God used the intellect, skills, and personality of fallible men to write down what was divine and infallible. The Bible is, in one sense, both a human and a divine book. But this in no way implies any fallibility in the Scriptures. The dual authorship of Scripture does not necessitate imperfection any more than the two natures of Christ mean our Saviour must have sinned.

The verb ‘carried’ in verse 21 suggests an assured outcome, one that is carried out and guaranteed by another. The words from heaven (vv.17-18) and the words from the prophets (v.21) ultimately came from the same place: God.

B.B. Warfield explains: ‘The term here used [for carried/borne] is a very specific one. It is not to be confounded with guiding, or directing, or controlling, or even leading in the full sense of that word. What is ‘borne’ is taken up by the ‘bearer’ and conveyed by the ‘bearer’s’ power, not its own, to the ‘bearer’s’ goal, not its own. The men who spoke from God are here declared, therefore, to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought by his power to the goal of his choosing.’1

Without error

The Bible is without error. The Scriptures do not come from human interpretation (2 Peter 1.20). The ideas did not spring forth from the confused mind of man. More than that, Peter testifies that no prophecy was ever produced by the ‘will of man’ (v.21). The ultimate authorship of Scripture, Peter informs us, is God himself.

There are many texts we could use to show that the Bible is without error, but here’s the simplest argument: Scripture did not come from the will of man; it came from God. And if it is God’s Word then it must all be true, for in him there can be no error or deceit.

Inerrancy means the Word of God always stands over us and we never stand over the Word of God. When we reject inerrancy we put ourselves in judgment over God’s Word. We claim the right to determine which parts of God’s revelation can be trusted and which cannot. When we deny the complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures – in its claims with regard to history; its teachings on the material world; its miracles; in the tiniest ‘jots and tittles’ of all that it affirms – then we are forced to accept one of two conclusions: either Scripture is not all from God, or God is not always dependable. To make either statement is to affirm a sub-Christian point of view. These conclusions do not express a proper submission to the Father, do not work for our joy in Christ, and do not bring honour to the Spirit, who carried along the men to speak the prophetic word and to author God’s holy book.

Heart of our faith

Defending the doctrine of inerrancy may seem like a fool’s errand to some and a divisive shibboleth to others, but, in truth, the doctrine is at the heart of our faith. To deny, disregard, edit, alter, reject, or rule out anything in God’s Word is to commit the sin of unbelief. Finding a halfway house, where some things in the Bible are true and other things (as we have judged them) are not, is an impossibility. This kind of compromised Christianity, besides flying in the face of the Bible’s own self-understanding, does not satisfy the soul or present to the lost the sort of God they need to meet.

Indivisible Bible

How are we to believe in a God who can do the unimaginable and forgive our trespasses, conquer our sins, and give us hope in a dark world if we cannot believe that this God created the world out of nothing, gave the virgin a child, and raised his Son on the third day? ‘One cannot doubt the Bible’, J. I. Packer warns, ‘without far-reaching loss, both of fullness of truth and of fullness of life. If therefore we have at heart spiritual renewal for society, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness – that is, the inerrancy – of holy Scripture as the inspired and liberating Word of God.’2

This article is an edited extract from Taking God At His Word by Kevin DeYoung, published by IVP, ISBN 978 1 783 591 220
Kevin DeYoung is Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
FOOTNOTES
1. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1948), p.137
2. J. I. Packer, Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw, 1996), p.55.

This article was first published in the August 2014 issue of Evangelicals Now. For more news, artciles or reviews, visit us online www.e-n.org.uk or subscribe to en for monthly updates.