Luther on Christ Becoming A Curse For Us

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” 

And this is our highest comfort, to clothe and wrap Christ this way in my sins, your sins . . . , and in this way to behold Him bearing all our sins. When He is beheld this way, He easily removes all the fanatical opinions of our opponents about justification by works. For the papists dream about a kind of faith “formed by love.” Through this they want to remove sins and be justified. This is clearly to unwrap Christ and to unclothe Him from our sins, to make Him innocent, to burden and overwhelm ourselves with our own sins, and to behold them, not in Christ, but in ourselves. This is to abolish Christ and make Him useless. For if it is true that we abolish sins by works of the Law and by love, then Christ does not take them away, but we do. But if He is truly the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, who became a curse for us, and who was wrapped in our sins, it necessarily follows that we cannot be justified and take away sins through love. For God has laid our sins, not upon us but upon Christ, His Son. If they are all taken away by Him, them they cannot be taken away by us. All Scripture says this, and we confess and pray the same thing in the creed when we say” “I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, who suffered, was crucified, and died for us.

This is the most joyous of all doctrines and the one that contains the most comfort. It teaches that we have the indescribable and inestimable mercy and love of God. When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything, He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them.” Now the Law comes and says: “I find Him a sinner, who take upon Himself the sins of all me. I do not see any other sins that those in Him. Therefore let Him died on the cross!” And so it attack Him and kills Him. By this deed the whole world is purged and expiated from all sins, and thus it is set free from death and from every evil. But when sin and death have been abolished by the one man, God does not want to see anything else in the whole world, especially if were to believe, except sheer cleansing and righteousness. And if any remnants of sin were to remain, still for the sake of Christ, the shining Sun, God would not notice them.

This is how we must magnify the doctrine of Christian righteousness in opposition tot he righteousness of the Law and of works, even though there is no voice of eloquence that can properly understand, much less express, its greatness. Therefore, the argument that Paul presents here is the most powerful and the highest of all arguments against the righteousness of the flesh; for it contains this invincible and irrefutable antithesis: If the sins of the entire world are one that one man, Jesus Christ, them they are not on the world. Against, if Christ Himself is made guilty of all the sins that we have all committed, then we are absolved from all sins, not through ourselves or through our own works or merits but through Him. But if He is innocent and does not carry our sins, then we carry them, and shall die and be damned in them. “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! Amen.”

As I often warn, therefore, the doctrine of justification must be learned diligently. For in it are included all the other doctrines of our faith; and if it is sound, all the others are sound as well. (LW 28, 279-280, 283).

The Loss of the American Sabbath

Timothy A. Williams:

Despite the Antinomian tendencies, the Lord’s Day is a moral obligation. It predates the Mosaic, finding its root in the creation narrative, and its perpetuity spans the church age until we reach the everlasting Sabbath.

Originally posted on Regeneration, Repentance and Reformation:

Written by, Leonard Woolsey Bacon
Published under, The American Church History Series, Consisting of a Series of Denominational Histories Published Under the Auspices of the American Society of Church History, Vol. 13, General Editor, Philp Schaff, Church Historian.


An event of great historical importance…

…which cannot be determined to a precise date, but which belongs more to this period than to any other, is the loss of the Scotch and Puritan Sabbath, or, as many like to call it, the American Sabbath.

The law of the Westminster divines on this subject, it may be affirmed without fear of contradiction from any quarter, does not coincide in its language with the law of God as expressed either in the Old Testament or in the New. The Westminster rule requires, as if with a “Thus saith the Lord,” that on the first day of…

View original 544 more words

The Idolatry of Ingratitude

Originally posted on The Protestant Pulpit:

Romans 1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.



On the eve of Thanksgiving, my mind has been going to this passage over and over again. Some years ago, I was reading the Luther on this passage, and his teaching struck me to the core of my being. He said,

Notice in the text the steps or stages of (heathen) perversion. The first step of their idolatry is ingratitude: they were not thankful. So Satan showed Himself ungrateful over against His Creator before he fell. Whoever enjoys God’s gifts as though he had not graciously received them, forgotten the Donor, will soon find himself filled with self-complacency. The next step is vanity: they “became vain in their imaginations.” in this stage men delight in themselves and in creatures…

View original 3,053 more words

Rick Warren, The Pope & A Warning

On October 18th, Rick Warren met with other ‘religious’ leaders at a conference called “An International Interreligious Colloquium on The Complementarity of Man and Woman.” It was sponsored by Pope Francis. At this meeting, Mr. Warren called the Pope “holy father.” There a few things that must be said about this.

First, he is not holy. As Protestants we use that term to refer to holy living, set apart living because we have been set apart for the Lord. The Romanist uses this title in reverence to an office. It is an office that is the central point of disagreement over the last few centuries. It is a man claiming to be set apart from all other men as the vicar of Christ.

However, it is not merely how this term “holy” is used as adjective for the position; rather, it also relates to the means by which Romanism teaches that the office and hence the church is holy. Writing in his An Advanced Catechism, Thomas O’Brien notes in Question 130:

How is the Church holy? “The Church is Holy because its founder, Jesus Christ, is holy; because it teaches a holy doctrine; invites all to a holy life; and because of the eminent holiness of so many thousands of its children.”

Which are the chief means of holiness in the Church? “The chief means of holiness in the Church are the Mass, the Sacraments, the Commandments, and the approved Feasts, Ceremonies, and Devotions… “

Why, then, are not all members of the Church holy? “All the members of the Church are not holy, because some freely live contrary to the truths, laws, and practices of the Church, as Christ foresaw… (O’Brien, Op. cit., p. 69)

Significantly, this catechism teaches that the Roman Catholic Church is made holy chiefly by means of her rituals, which are man-made and nowhere specified in the Scriptures. The reference to Commandments in the above selection surely refers to the Commandments (Precepts) of the Church and not to the Decalogue. In contrast, the Reformers spoke of a positional and practical holiness. Speaking on this, Calvin asserts,

Because they also allege that the church is not without basis called holy, it is fitting to examine in what holiness it excels lest, if we are not willing to admit a church unless it be perfect in every respect, we leave no church at all. True, indeed, is Paul’s statement: “Christ… gave himself up for the church that he might sanctify her; he cleansed her by the washing of water in the word of life, that he might present her to himself as his glorious bride, without spot or wrinkle,” etc. [ Ephesians 5:25-27]. Yet it also is no less true that the Lord is daily at work in smoothing out wrinkles and cleansing spots. From this it follows that the church’s holiness is not yet complete. The church is holy, then, in the sense that it is daily advancing and is not yet perfect: it makes progress from day to day but has not yet reached its goal of holiness, as will be explained more fully elsewhere (Calvin, Institutes, IV.1.17).

Second, Francis should not be called a ‘father.” Obviously, I am referring to the spiritual idea. On one hand, to do so would obscure the glory of God. How so? It is so because of his claim to be the pontifex, or bridge between us and God and because the church claims that there is no salvation outside of this sect and apart from his headship. True are the words of Calvin: “The true meaning therefore is, that the honor of a father is falsely ascribed to men, when it obscures the glory of God.”

On the other hand, to do so would obscure the gospel. Spiritual fatherhood speaks of begetting us in the faith. This is how Paul used the word (1 Tim. 1:2, 18). In fact, Paul speaks of Timothy as “mine own son after the common faith” (Titus 1:4). Again, Calvin speaks on this: “Hence it is evident in what sense a minister of the word is said to beget spiritually those whom he brings to the obedience of Christ, that is, so that he himself is also begotten. Paul declares himself to be the father of Titus, with respect to his faith; but immediately adds, that this faith is common to both, so that both of them alike have the same Father in heaven..”

But with this in mind, how can we call the Pope a father, when he repudiates the Gospel of justification by faith alone. How can he be said to be our father, when what actually begets us unto a new life is denied by him and the ‘church’ under his helm? Does it mean that he nourishes us, like a father? With what can a mortal man nourish us, when the very Bread of Life has been expelled from this sect?

Third, Warren must be checked. It would not be an exaggeration that Rick Warren is an influential minister, one of the few Evangelicals to be part of NY Times Bestselling Authors list. Warren was named one of “America’s Top 25 Leaders” in the October 31, 2005, issue of U.S. News and World Report, one of the “15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004″ by Time magazine and then one of the “100 Most Influential People in the World” (2005).  In 2006 Newsweek called him one of “15 People Who Make America Great.” This highlights his influence.

But to whom much has been given much is owed. And when such a person courts with Romanism, a false system that is antichristian to its core, calling the head of the very person who claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, something must said. Seeing that his own church will not do it, the SBC should say something. He is an affiliate of convention. However, seeing that there resolution on interfaith dialogues with Romanism [See and its past posturing toward Rome, we cannot count of the SBC to do anything. Repeatedly, over the last few decades, the SBC has been in numerous dialogues with Rome.

What then? Well, I believe that we must take care for ourselves. We must ask whether or not this is biblical, not if it seems to be advantageous in some way or another. When we see this, we must note that a new kulturkampf is luring us out of alliance to Christ and His truth for the sake trying save our world from its anti-God actions. What the world needs is not for us to enter into intrigues of ecumenism, but they need for us to preach Christ and Him crucified. An alliance with Rome cannot do that, seeing that their gospel is not our Gospel! It is the not the saving Gospel wherein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.

Where Have All the Sinners Gone?

The view of man is vital for a proper view of everything. Conservative talk show host Dennis Prager stated, “No issue has a greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as basically good or not” (Dennis Prager, “If You Believe that People are Basically Good” (December 2002).

That assertion may seem to be a little melodramatic to some, but it is not. Whether we are looking at economics, politics, the arts, criminology, ecology, cosmology, etc, our view of man will have some bearing upon our worldview and interpretation of facts. Anthropology is significant because of the philosophical assumptions, activities, and influences of other intellectual disciplines in modern times. Calvin very discerning underscores this in his famous beginning of his Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.i.2).

Throughout modern time, there has been an observable shift in how man was seen. Is man good, or is he evil? Locke believed that man was basically a blank slate that nurture would impact (tabula rosa), but others of the age of enlightenment believed in the idea noble savage. Such was the view of the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, whose work In his Inquiry Concerning Virtue (1699), put forth the view that a moral sense in humans is natural and innate and based on feelings, rather than resulting from the indoctrination of a particular religion.  As Paul Hazard described it: “For science and the arts are but the parents of corruption. The Savage obeys the will of Nature, his kindly mother, therefore he is happy. It is civilized folk who are the real barbarians.”

This view was largely the view of the humanists or the French philosphe prior to the revolution. Prior to the two world wars, man seemed to be on the ascent; progression on every corner made it seem that man was not evil, but that if he could break away from his chains (whatever they might be), he would achieve an utopia. But with the war to end all wars, the view of man came upon hard times.

The key philosophy that emerged in the post world war era is existentialism. There is a decided gloomy outlook in this view of man. Yet, in order to give hope, the existentialism looked upon freedom as the key, man’s free will. Most of the forms of existentialism were and are atheistic, seeing that “freedom is seen as both the supreme good and supreme evil. If God did not exist everything would be allowed. God appeared to pose a threat to human freedom, but true saving freedom may be found in conditionless religious faith and commitment.”( Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p.396). 

But now there is another shift in thinking. Men are increasingly seeing themselves as basically good. In his book What Americans Believe, George Barna of Barna Research Group found that 87% of non-Christians agreed with the statement “People are basically good.” Sadly,in that same study, Barna also found that 77% of self-described born-again Christians agreed with the statement. Perhaps most shocking, of those self-described born-again Christians who identify themselves as mainline Protestant, 90% agreed with the statement “People are basically good.” These born-again Christians have failed to understand the Christian faith.

Some are promoting this notion of man’s goodness. The promotion of Mitzvah Day is one example of  this. As one article noted, “The pure, universal message for Jews and indeed people of other faiths is that through ‘mitzvah’ we reach beyond ourselves, the ‘me’ whilst simultaneously engaging to make the world around us a better place. No matter what religion, this belief resonates with most people because ultimately as human beings we’re all internally wired with a yen to do good.” This is nothing short of the primitivism of the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, which view of man cannot be substantiated by the history of man. Undoubtedly, filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is absolutely accurate when he noted,

Man isn’t a noble savage, he’s an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved — that about sums it up. I’m interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it’s a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure.

A study of man gives access to us to see the necessity, significance and nature of the doctrines of salvation. What is man’s real problem? Christianity has set forth the most reasonable explanation. Man is a sinner. G.K. Chesterton once said it is surprising that people have rejected the doctrine of original sin because it is the only doctrine that can be empirically verified. What is original sin, John MacArthur defines it in this way:

Original sin…means that people by nature are hostile to God, utterly unable to obey God out of pure motives or from a pure heart, and therefore unable to do anything that truly pleases God (Rom. 8:7-8). All Adam’s offspring are born naturally depraved and with a bent toward sin and rebellion.

Man is constituted a sinner by his relationship with Adam (Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Rom 5:18-19). As a result, man is unable to do anything good (Gen. 6:5; Job 15:14-16; Psa 130:3; Psa 143:2; Pro 20:9; Ecc 7:20; Isa 64:6; Jer 13:23; John 3:19; Rom 3:9-12; Jam 3:8; 1 John 1:8), to believe in God (John 6:44, 65; 8:43-45;10:26; 12:37-41), to understand the truth (John 14:17; 1Cor 2:14), and to seek God (Rom 3:10-11).  The Bible describes man’s plight in teh following way: man is dead in sins (Gen. 2:16-17; John 3:5-7; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13), blinded and corrupt in his heart (Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Ecc 9:3; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19-21; Rom 8:7-8; Eph 4:17-19; Eph 5:8), and captive to sin and Satan (John 8:34; John 8:44; Rom 6:20; 2Tim 2:25-26; Tit 3:3; 1 John 5:19). While man performs actions freely according to his nature, his nature is wholly evil (Job 14:4; Mat 7:16-18; Mat 12:33; Mark 7:21-23; Jam 1:13-14).

But herein lies the hope. As Jonathan Edwards noted long ago: “If the case be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total ruin,…then, doubtless, the great salvation by Christ stands in direct relation to this ruin, as the remedy to the disease.” Unless we see the fact that we are sinners, we will never seek the physician. “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17).When this takes root, there will be great implications:

While rational inquiry has left us in the dark and led us into grave errors about man’s true identity, we have a true source to which we may turn. Man’s nature “has been answered by God’s Word-revelation, which uncovers the religious root and center of human nature in its creation, fall into sin, and redemption by Jesus Christ… It is the Word alone, which by its radical grip can bring about a real reformation of our view of man and of our view of the temporal world” (Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought, 179, 195).

And it is only through the preaching of the cross that this hope and real transformation will take place. As A. B. Bruce said, “If such be its character, then to be true to itself Christianity cannot afford to be nice, dainty, disdainful, but must lay its healing hand on the most repulsive. Rabbinism may be exclusive, but not the religion of redemption. It is bound to be a religion for the masses. Christ is not merely an ethical Teacher, or Revealer of Divine mysteries; He is, in the first place, a Redeemer, only in the second the Revealer.” We must preach Him as such, for that is what all men need because they are sinners.

So, when I ask, “Where have all the sinners gone?” I am asking such a vital question. Unless we as men see as we are, we will have no hope. The only hope is found in regeneration, not a supposed progress of civilization or a return to primitive conditions. We have a moral problem, and only a moral solution is a viable solution.

Cleansing the Temple: A Lesson for Every Worshiper by J. C. Ryle

We see, for one thing, in this passage, how much Christ disapproves all irreverent behavior in the house of God.

We are told that He drove out of the temple those whom He found selling oxen and sheep and doves within its walls,—that He poured out the changers’ money and overthrew their tables,—and that He said to them that sold doves, “Take these things hence, make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” On no occasion in our Lord’s earthly ministry do we find Him acting so energetically, and exhibiting such righteous indignation, as on the occasion now before us. Nothing seems to have called from Him such a marked display of holy wrath as the gross irreverence which the priests permitted in the temple, notwithstanding all their boasted zeal for God’s law. Twice, it will be remembered, He discovered the same profanation of His Father’s house going on, within three years, once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end. Twice we see Him expressing his displeasure in the strongest terms. “The thing is doubled” in order to impress a lesson more strongly on our minds.
The passage is one that ought to raise deep searchings of heart in many quarters. Are there none who profess and call themselves Christians, behaving every Sunday just as badly as these Jews? Are there none who secretly bring into the house of God their money, their lands, their houses, their cattle, and a whole train of worldly affairs? Are there none who bring their bodies only into the place of worship, and allow their hearts to wander into the ends of the earth? Are there none who are “almost in all evil, in the midst of the congregation”? (Prov 5:14.) These are serious questions! Multitudes, it may be feared, could not give them a satisfactory answer.

Christian churches and chapels, no doubt, are very unlike the Jewish temple. They are not built after a divine pattern. They have no altars or holy places. Their furniture has no typical meaning. But they are places where God’s word is read, and where Christ is specially present. The man who professes to worship in them should surely behave with reverence and respect. The man who brings his worldly matters with him when he professes to worship, is doing that which is evidently most offensive to Christ. The words which Solomon wrote by the Holy Ghost are applicable to all times, “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God.” (Eccl. 5:1.)

Whetstone Men’s Fellowship: An Introduction, Report on Its Discussion on Purity In A Pornographic Age, and Bibliography

whetstone fellowship


For some time, we have had what we call the Men’s Whetstone Fellowship. Originally, this was something that took place in Wales during the first great awakening, especially the Welsh Methodist Churches; it was often referred to as religious inquiry or experience meetings. D. M. Lloyd-Jones makes mention of this in his lecture on William Williams:

But in many ways I would say that the greatest of all his gifts was the gift which he had of instructing the little societies or companies of Methodists that used to meet together. He was acknowledged by everybody to be supreme in this matter. He wrote a book which he called Drwo y Society Profiad or The Door to the Experience Society, or The Door to the Society in which experiences are dealt with. It is quite a classic. I had intended at one time to devote my whole paper to that, because it might be very useful and instructive for us in this phase through which we are passing at the present time, when we have little groups of Christians meeting together for fellowship in different parts of the country. The early Methodists had to face that problem. They had new converts whom they formed into societies. The question, then, was, how could they be instructed? They needed leaders; they might be good men but still they would not know how to handle people. Well, Williams wrote the book in order to instruct them and to guide them as to how to do this all-important work.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones did this same type of thing in his church in Sandfields, near Bargoed, in the southern part of Wales. But he changed it from the earlier form in that he did not permit a lot of discussion on theological topics; rather, his focus was something on the unfolding of the doctrine in the life and experience of the Christian. Often it was taken up in a form of a question that was posed by someone; then the moderator would lead the rest into a discussion about that topic for mutual edification.

It is this latter form that we have adopted. There is no preaching, though there is a moderator for the meeting. Rather, it is highly interactive, with all participating. Most of the time, there is a previously shared article on a practical topic to use as a guide. While we give a theological basis to our discussions, it is only that we may have a biblically-based, Christ-centered answer to these issues.

It has proven to be very beneficial in the life of our church. We have discussed various issues, such as how to lead family devotions, the relationship of the Christian to an ungodly government, how to live as a Christian in the work place, how to deal with unsaved family members, etc. We believe that this has been so profitable that we feel the need to open it up to other churches. Now, a few churches in northern Illinois meet quarterly to have a meaningful meeting wherein iron sharpens iron.

Report on Last Meeting

At our last meeting, held on Saturday, Nov. 15th, we discussed the topic of walking a holy life in a pornographic age. After discussing the alarming statistics from various studies, we set the theological stage for a true repentance and meaningful prevention. This centered on three main theological truths: creation, fall, and redemption. On the God has created sex, and it is not evil, but it is good. Through through the fall, we have corrupted this gift of God, turning our desires into idols in rebellion against the creator. We talked about the power and pervasiveness of this in our day, concluding that the central issue is not the sexual nature of the sin, but the heart from which these things flow. Much discussion took place over the nature of this.

Next, we discussed the issue of our redemption. The relationship of regeneration and justification to our sanctification came to the surface. We need both the power and the desire to overcome this sin granted to us. In the doctrine of justification we find the motive and position whereby we fight this. We noted passages that spoke on overcoming sexual sins. Specifically, we took note of Paul’s statements on this in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. We noted how the gospel is the foundation of this. This keeps us from legalistic moralism, which will only fail and incite the flesh.  But it also keeps us from lawlessness and a flippancy toward the sin. We also noted and took great comfort in the fact that one day we all shall be delivered from this body of death, having a body like unto Christ’s. We will be completely free from the residues of sin.

The next half of the meeting dealt with practice. First and foremost, we stressed the means of grace, such Bible reading, prayer (great emphasis here), fellowship of the saints, church accountability, and the ordinances must be used. We talked about filter systems, which are good, if one is determined to walk the path of purity. We discussed the necessity of taking radical steps, if needed. Disciplined lives that are busy replacing opportunities for sin with opportunities to serve was highlighted. Also seeking marriages that are wholesome is one of the best preventatives, and we should take measures to better our marriages, whenever we can. Accountability to our spouses as well as to the church was discussed. Keeping ourselves focused upon God, His Word, His Christ, and His salvation was also part of the discussion. Many other practical ideas were offered.

At the end, people either gave a statement that they felt that needs to be underscored or a resources that they know to be profitable. Many of those statements are found in the above section. Below is a list of the books/resources found to be profitable.

Books on Sexual Purity and Addiction

  • ***Materials at Pure Life Ministries
  • ***Material at Covenant Eyes
  • Alcorn, Randy (2003). The Purity Principle. Eugene, OR: Multnomah. Biblical Principles of Love, Sex & Dating. Lafayette, IN: Faith Baptist Church.
  • Arterburn, Steve (2000). Every Man’s Battle
  • Black, Jeffrey S. (2003). Sexual Sin. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
  • Bridges, Jerry (2008). Holiness Day by Day: Transforming Thoughts for your Spiritual Journey
  • Cleveland, Mike (2002). Pure Freedom. Bemidji, MN: Focus Publishing.
  • Daniels, Robert (2005). The War Within. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
  • Duhigg, Charles (2014). Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business
  • Dutton, Mark (2002). Counseling Sexual Sins.@ Cassette tape from the Biblical Counseling Training Conference, Track 4. Lafayette, IN: Faith Baptist Church.
  • Farrar, Steve (2006). How to ruin your life by 40
  • Gallagher, Steve (2000). At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry. Dry Ridge, KY: Pure Life Ministries. A workbook is also available with this book.
  • Gallagher, Steve. The Walk of Repentance. Dry Ridge, KY: Pure Life Ministries.
  • Galloway, Sid (1995). Sexual Intimacy in Marriage.@ Workshop presented at the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors 1995 Annual Conference.
  • Harris, Josh (2003). Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is). Eugene, OR: Multnomah Press. Study guide for both men and women are available with this book.
  • Kendrick, Alex & Stephen (2009). The Love Dare
  • Knable, Joseph (2005). Sex and the Single Guy. Chicago: Moody.
  • Köstenberger, Andreas and Jones, David (2010). God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation.
  • Laaser, Mark (1996). Faithful and True: Sexual Integrity in a fallen World
  • Lambert, Heath (2013). Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace
  • Lloyd-Jones, Martyn (1941). Plight of Man and the Power of God
  • Mack, Wayne (1979). A Homework Manual for Biblical Counseling, Vol. 1: Personal and Interpersonal Problems. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., sex problems, pp. 164-165.
  • Mahaney, C. J. (2004). Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books
  • Marshall, Walter (1692). The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification
  • McDowell, Josh (2002). Why True Love Waits. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.
  • McMahon, C. Matthew (2008). Overcoming Lust in a Sex-Crazed World.
  • Patten, Randy (2001). Preventing Moral Failures.@ Cassette tape from the Biblical Counseling Training Conference, Track 2. Lafayette, IN: Faith Baptist Church.
  • Ryle, J.C. Holiness.
  • Ryle, J.C. (1887). Thoughts for Young Men
  • Smith, Robert. Biblical Principles of Sex. Stanley, NC: Timeless Texts.
  • Smith, Robert (2003). Biblical Principles of Sex.@ Cassette tape or audio CD from the Biblical Counseling Training Conference, Track 1. Lafayette, IN: Faith Baptist Church.
  • Smith, Robert (1991). Sexual Dysfunction.@ Workshop presented at the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors 1991 Annual Conference.
  • Street, John (1994). Counseling Those Enslaved by Lust.@ Work presented at the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors 1994 Annual Conference.
  • Street, John (1995). Helping Men Overcome by Life Dominating Lust.@ Workshop presented at the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors 1995 Annual Conference.
  • Tripp, Paul (1995). The Way of the Wise: Teaching Teenagers about Sex.@ Journal of Biblical Counseling, v. 13, n. 3, Spring 1995, p. 36.
  • Vandegriff, John (1992). In the Arena of the Mind. Howell, NJ: Ask, Seek andKnock Publishing. A study guide is available for this book.