Highly recommended: Joel Beeke, Carl Trueman, Albert Mohler, Kevin Benhoozer, Michael Horton, Paul Park (Hapshin University), Jae-eun Park (Chongshin University), Chang-hee Seo (Hansaram Church), Shin Ho-seop (Kosin University), Jeong-gyu Lee (Sigwang Church), and Jeong-hyeon Lee (Cheongam Church)!

Doctrine is not the exclusive domain of theologians and pastors.
Every Christian's life of faith begins daily with doctrine.
Do you have healthy doctrines in your heart, in your day, and on your bookshelf?

Kevin DeYoung, one of the most influential and trusted young theologians and pastors in the evangelical and reformed camps, has published a year-long meditation collection that clearly and concisely summarizes the concepts that every Christian "must know."
The high-quality fabric suit cover enhances the joy of owning, opening, and giving.

…If there is a doctrine that makes Christianity Christian, it is the doctrine of the Trinity.
Augustine said in On the Trinity, “There is nothing more dangerous than error, nothing more laborious than study of it, and nothing more fruitful than inquiry into it.”
Recently, Sinclair Ferguson said:
“I often have this clear thought:
At the very moment when the disciples felt that the world was about to fall apart, our Lord spoke to them for a long time in the upper room about the mystery of the Trinity.
If there is an example that shows why the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to practical Christianity, this scene is it.
However, many Christians have a poor understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, an even poorer ability to express it, and the poorest application to practical life.
However, the doctrine of the Trinity is not meant to frustrate Christians, but rather to deepen our devotion and joy.

--- From "New Theory / DAY 41 The Trinity"

… 3.
When we understand the image of God accurately, we can understand what it means to be fully human.
We live out our deepest identities not through self-expression or sexual fulfillment, but through obedience to and love for our Maker.
The serpent's words to Adam and Eve that they would become like God on the day they ate the forbidden fruit were a lie.
Since they were created in the image of God, they were already like God.

4.
The doctrine of the image of God reminds us that the world belongs to God.
The conquering kings of the ancient world erected their own images throughout their territories to make it clear that they owned that place.
Likewise, every pagan temple in the ancient world had an image of the god who resided there.
As beings created in the image of God, we are proof that the world belongs to God.
God, who created all things, does not dwell in temples made by human hands (Acts 17:24).
We are God’s “images” spread throughout the earth (v. 26).
The earth and everything in it are God's (Psalm 24:1).
--- From "Humanity / DAY 80 What does it mean to be created in the image of God?"

…most Christians have heard these words hundreds of times.
I hear it every time the story of the Last Supper comes up and every time I participate in the Lord's Supper.
But we rarely pay attention to this very important word in the history of redemption and the church.
More specifically, we rarely pay attention to the 'one' of these words.
As Jonty Rhodes has pointed out, many people believe that hiding the word "covenant" from Jesus' declaration would not change the meaning of the passage at all.
Jesus made it very clear from a covenant theological perspective what his death meant to save sinners, yet we miss this fact.
In any systematic theology, the covenant must be the central theme.
The word covenant is used over 300 times in the Bible.
It is used in the Christmas story (Luke 1:7, 'oath') and in the story of Christ's Passion (Luke 22:20).
It is used in the first chapters of the Bible (cf. Gen. 6:18; 9:17;
6:7), and is also used in a later book of the Bible, where we learn of Christ's high priestly ministry (Heb. 8:6).
It is not surprising that the Jews are called “children of the covenant” (Acts 3:25).
We should emulate Charles Spurgeon, who was filled with nostalgia for “our good ancestors who talked about ‘covenants’ at home.”

In his introduction to the classic work Economy of the Covenants by Dutch theologian Hermann Witsius, James Packer argues that covenant theology is a hermeneutic, a way of reading the whole of Scripture.
Soon, the redemption of the Bible begins with the covenant relationship between the three persons of the Trinity.
The doctrines of the Bible relate to the covenant relationship between God and man.
Biblical ethics relate to our covenant relationship with others.
If we do not see these within the framework of the covenant, we cannot understand the gospel of God, the word of God, or the reality of God.
--- From "Covenant Theology / DAY 91 The Covenant is Central"

…it is important to emphasize that only the Son of God could become incarnate.
The Father could not become incarnate.
Because the Father is first in order, and cannot be sent by anyone, nor can he be the mediator of the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Father could not have been born of a virgin and incarnate in human flesh without becoming the Son in a human sense, for that would have undermined his divine Fatherhood.
Likewise, the Holy Spirit could not have been sent and become human without becoming, so to speak, the second Son.
It should also be emphasized that the Divinity (the divine essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was not incarnated.
As Aquinas says, “It is more proper to say that the divine person assumed human nature than that the divine nature assumed human nature.” …
In the incarnation, the divine nature did not undergo any essential change.
The divine nature retained its impassivity, omniscience, and immutability.
The incarnation was a personal act, through which the person of the Son became flesh.
It is better to say this than to say that the divine nature took on human flesh.
When he became man, the second person of the Trinity did not cease to be God.
The Second Person of the Trinity ceased to be what he was, but became what he was not.
This is what it means to say that he was not transformed into something new, but rather took on human nature.
To put it somewhat simply, we should think of divine nature, not human nature, as the 'base' nature.
In other words, man did not become God, but the divine person took on human nature.
Christ is not a human being who became divine (a human being who became God), but a divine being who took on human nature (God who became man).
In the person of Christ, divinity, not humanity, dominates.
--- From "Christology 1 / DAY 120 Incarnation"

…on the cross, Christ experienced the absence of God’s comfort and the weight of God’s wrath.
In His human consciousness, Christ experienced what it really felt like to be abandoned by God.
The death on the cross symbolizes that Christ became a curse for us (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).
But even under the weight of this judgment, Christ did not completely despair, for in fulfillment of Scripture he cried out to God (Psalm 22:1).
The pain and suffering contained in Christ's cry from the cross must never be minimized, but neither should it be considered an insurmountable theological problem.
According to Abrakel, Christ was not abandoned by the Father, and the union between Christ and the Father is inseparable.
Christ was not abandoned by the Holy Spirit, but was anointed with Him without measure.

Rather, we must understand that Christ experienced “the withdrawal of all light, love, help, and comfort at a particular moment when his suffering was at its height and his need for light, love, help, and comfort was most desperate.”
It may seem like a distinction without any difference.
However, Abrakel tries to avoid the notion of conflict between the Persons of the Trinity.
Later he says:
“Christ is the Son of love, and therefore God is not angry with the Son.
But God was angry with sin, and as a righteous judge, he carried out justice and made the sin bearer feel this wrath.

--- From "Christology 2 / DAY 138 The Cry of Abandonment"

…the most powerful objection to the rejection of limited atonement based on biblical interpretation focuses on the word “world” (kosmos).
The Bible says that God loves the world (John 3:16) and that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). How should we understand these expressions?
In most cases, the world refers to a 'fallen state' rather than a scope.
When the world refers to a range, it does not mean 'all without exception', but 'all without distinction'.
Therefore, when 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of “the whole world” (holou tou kosmou), the whole world refers to all regions or all peoples, not all of humanity.

In the Bible, this phrase is not used to mean all people on earth.
So Paul could say to the Roman believers, “Your faith is being proclaimed in all the world,” even though not every individual in the world knew about their faith (Romans 1:8), and Luke could say, “A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered,” even though the imperial decree applied only to the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1).
The world may mean people from all places or all classes of people, but it does not mean everyone.
The doctrine of limited atonement is worth defining and defending because it connects to the heart of the gospel.
If the atonement is not specifically for the sheep, we must accept one of the following:
One is universalism (Christ died for all and therefore all are saved), and the other is something that falls short of complete atonement.

--- From "Christology 2 / DAY 158 Limited Atonement"

…there is a danger in putting repentance before faith.
It is a mistake to think that people must first feel sufficient sorrow for their sins before they will run to Christ for salvation.
But the gospel demands evangelical repentance, not legal repentance.
Repentance involves sorrow for sin and forsaking it (2 Corinthians 7:10-11), but it is not a bowing down before a stingy God, nor is it a virtue that persuades God to forgive us.
Repentance unto life is a saving grace, by which the sinner is made aware not only of his own sin, but also of the mercy of God in Christ (Westminster Shorter Catechism 87).
Repentance in the Christian life has two aspects.
Repentance is turning to Christ as an act of saving faith and is a repentance that continues to occur in the life of a disciple of Christ.
We must distinguish between these two.
When Martin Luther began his 95 Theses, he argued that the entire life of a believer should be a life of repentance.
Repentance is necessary to become a Christian and to live as a Christian.
…
Note this pair.
Repent and believe.
In the New Testament, these two are virtually synonymous.
It is not because the two words have the same meaning, but because they are both works of the Holy Spirit and lead to the same eschatological legacy.
Strictly speaking, the proper response to the gospel involves both faith and repentance (Matt. 21:32; Acts 20:21).
If only one of the two is mentioned (which is often the case in the New Testament), it should be understood that the other is naturally assumed.
If you do not repent, you do not truly believe, and if you do not believe, you do not truly repent.
Any gospel that does not speak of repentance is not true.
The gospel message is sometimes presented as a direct call to repentance.
Sometimes forgiveness is linked to a single act of repentance (Acts 5:31; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:10).
The good news message the apostles preached was that repentance leads to life (Acts 11:18).
“Repent therefore and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out” (Acts 3:19).

--- From "Soteriology / DAY 171 Repentance"

…the visible church and the invisible church.
This important distinction does not point to two separate churches.
In other words, choosing to belong to the invisible church does not mean that you do not have to belong to the visible church.

Instead, this distinction directs our attention to 'the church as it is' (the visible church) and 'the church as it ought to be' (the invisible church).
This distinction also contrasts the church in its superficial and external relationship to Christ with the church in its internal and spiritual relationship to Christ.
Finally, this distinction is sometimes used to describe the visible and confessing church on earth, in contrast to the invisible church, which is made up of all the elect in heaven and on earth.
…
The church that gathers and the church that scatters.
It is a church that gathers together at a specific time and place on Sundays.
But the church does not disappear after the last service on Sunday and reappear the following Sunday.
The church exists as believers widely scattered throughout their homes, workplaces, and communities.
Many of the church's mistakes are the result of sacrificing one of the pairs we have seen so far to highlight the other.
We need both.
If both are present, the church will not become unrealistic about its direction or skeptical about the church that Christ spoke of.
The church is bigger than our physical location, but we belong to the church wherever we are.
The church is more than an institution, but it cannot be less than that.
The church needs supports and vines.
We should not expect that everything meaningful in the Christian life will happen on Sunday or within the walls of the church.
But the entire gathering is a special time to build virtue, renew covenants, and contemplate the glory of heaven.
For a realism that doesn't succumb to cynicism, for structures that don't lose their vitality, for a church that celebrates both the big picture and the small places, we need a church that has the brilliance of both.

--- From "Ecclesiology / DAY 192 The Nature of the Church"

…it has become common to describe hell as some self-chosen identity, separated from God.
Hell is not a place where God sends the wicked, but a place that the wicked choose or create for themselves.
This is C.
This is the view famously supported by S. Lewis in The Great Divorce.
For Lewis, hell is a place where our self-chosen self-absorption and idolatry run wild forever.
The gates of hell will remain locked forever, but they are locked from the inside.
That's somewhat true.
In hell, no one truly repents.
God does not punish people forever for a few sins committed in this world, nor does He imprison forever those who pour out their hearts in true faith and repentance.
Those in hell may regret their choices, like the rich man in Luke 16, but they will never truly repent.
Lewis's description of hell also serves as a good reminder that God sometimes gives us over to our sinful desires.
Part of our punishment is God saying, “Yes, follow your sinful ways.”
In this limited sense, hell is God giving us what we want.
…
It is not wrong to describe hell as eternal separation from God or an eternity without Christ.
Hell is both.
But these euphemisms should not obscure the idea that God's judgment is more than just the absence of something or someone; that hell is God's curse upon the ungodly.
One passage in Scripture describes judgment as being “separated from the presence of the Lord” and then goes on to say that such people “will be punished with everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
If we always refer to eternal punishment as “eternity without Christ,” “separation from God,” or “hell of our own choosing,” we are not being faithful to the language of the Bible.
We soften the blows that God is trying to deliver with such force and threat.
Wrath is not just a consequence.
Wrath is retribution.

--- From "Eschatology / DAY 242 Hell, God's Punishment"