Thinking Christianly or not Christianly “What we have to understand is that Christianity is a whole way of life. It is a worldview in the fullest sense of that term. There is a Christian way of seeing the world and understanding your place in it, and this gives meaning to every aspect of the world for the Christian.” (pg. 12) I teach an informal logic class at a Christian high school and I teach apologetics at a local Bible college and seminary all the while pastoring a local church. I swim in the Scriptures while communicating it logically and passionately. I ran across this book when I was looking to expand my understanding of formal logic. I read through it in a matter of two weeks and will read it again soon. The author is writing to display that the best life, the kind of life Jesus exemplified, is one lived “Christianly”. It is a life grounded in “have you not read” the Scripture to then evaluate the arguments brought against Christ and his teaching providing a biblically accurate intellectually compelling answer. People believe the Bible because when it is taught accurately it makes sense of our questions and meets our needs. This is what Christians do when making disciples. We proclaim the truth of the word in a manner that makes sense in our culture answering our questions trusting God will use that proclamation to give life (1 Pet. 1:23-25). Every Christian needs to do this better! This book will help you be better at this. It is an introduction and accessible to any who would venture in. The author is kind and generous with his thoughts and time. If you are looking for an introduction to formal logic that will help you think more like Christ, this will serve you well.

Regeneration: the Source of Transformation in the Gospel I am a LOGOS user. Recently, LOGOS advertised a book on PrePub that interested me because of its focus on the gospel—Transformation: the Heart of Paul’s Gospel by Dr. David A. deSilva. I ordered and downloaded the book. I began reading it and started a dialog with the author. He has been kind and gracious as I have questioned and scrutinized his work. The book is an attempt to bring about a holistic understanding to the often fragmented views of justification and sanctification. Dr. deSilva is re-examining these concepts under the guiding principle of Transformation. Although, I applaud his efforts to focus the Christian community on a transformed lifestyle moving toward the likeness of Christ, I am concerned about some of the theological implications of his view. In my dialog with him regarding the theological categories, he replied that he was not attempting to be a theologian building theological categories but is being an exegete examining current positions in theology by the Scriptures. He is reexamining the strict theological distinctions asserted by the categories in theology (especially justification and sanctification)? As I examined the basic positions he held and the Scriptures he used to support his views, I found that my exegesis did not allow the same theological positions he asserts in his book. Who am I to question this academic professional and seasoned author? I am a pastor of a local church who is concerned for the glory of Christ and the good of his people in the preservation of the gospel of Christ. The gospel, in its purity, is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). The position I find wanting in this book, in theological terms, is the absence of regeneration or the merging of the concept of regeneration with justification. Christ asserted that regeneration by the Spirit was the entry point and ground of salvation (John 3:3-8). Jesus says one cannot “see” the kingdom of God unless (and I would say this includes until) he is born again. The new birth (Eph. 2:4-5) results in faith/belief (Eph. 2:8-9). Further, the new life of belief granted by the re-birth is the catalyst into transformation (progressive sanctification—good works, Eph. 2:10) that takes place in the Christian life. I believe Dr. deSilva confuses regeneration with transformation (merely progressive sanctification). He then makes transformation a requirement for a final justification. This makes the believer have a part in the transformation process to secure his/her justification. This is not so! A. W. Pinks says, “Popery includes under justification the renovation of man’s moral nature or deliverance from depravity, thereby confounding justification with regeneration and sanctification. On the other hand, all representative Protestants have shown that justification refers not to a change of moral character, but to a change of legal status; though allowing, yea, insisting, that a radical change of character invariably accompanies it” (The Doctrine of Justification--2nd paragraph of chapter 1). I agree with Pink. Dr. deSilva challenged me to examine the Scriptures. I, therefore, left the theological discussion and examined the Scriptures he used starting from the beginning of chapter 1 (Gal. 5:6, 1 Cor. 7:19, Rom. 2, Gal 2:19–20, and Phil 3:8–11). In this chapter Dr. deSilva is laying the foundation for his view of transformation. It is the only section I am reviewing here. I found that these passages did not support his assertions but showed Dr. deSilva is doing what Pink warned against. Dr. deSilva’s view does not mention regeneration but confused regeneration with justification and sanctification. He views transformation solely as the progressive nature of the Christian life with weight toward a final justification if not pursued. I would caution the reader of this book on this point. This view is not a historically protestant view but catholic and some (like Luther or Pink) might argue it is not evangelical at all. Upon request, I will put my notes into a much larger review. Mind you I have nothing against Dr. deSilva. He has been kind, patient, and willing to dialog. My desire is to guard the integrity and purity of the gospel message. I would challenge readers of this book and review to read both discerningly “to see if these things are so.” The 2 star rating is because I believe the merging of theological these distinctions is too dangerous to consider helpful.