Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Systematic Theology

Eschatological Essentials

by

Sam Storms, The Restoration of All Things (The Gospel Coalition Booklets; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), pp. 7–8 (numbering added):

The eschatological hope of the Christian is summarized well in the thirteenth and final article of The Gospel Coalition’s Confessional Statement. This statement does not address the variety of end-time scenarios present in the evangelical world but is designed to identify those essential elements of our eschatological hope that are embraced by all who affirm the authority of the inspired text. It is, therefore, a broadly evangelical statement that avoids the denominational and sectarian distinctives that have so often marred the discussion of God’s end-time purposes. It reads as follows:

  1. We believe in the personal, glorious, and bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ with his holy angels,
  2. when he will exercise his role as final Judge,
  3. and his kingdom will be consummated.
  4. We believe in the bodily resurrection of both the just and the unjust—the unjust to judgment and eternal conscious punishment in hell, as our Lord himself taught,
  5. and the just to eternal blessedness in the presence of him who sits on the throne and of the Lamb, in the new heaven and the new earth, the home of righteousness.
  6. On that day the church will be presented faultless before God by the obedience, suffering, and triumph of Christ, all sin purged and its wretched effects forever banished.
  7. God will be all in all and his people will be enthralled by the immediacy of his ineffable holiness, and everything will be to the praise of his glorious grace.

Related:

  1. Schreiner: From Amil to Premil
  2. Are Millennial Views Essential?
  3. Mark Dever on the Function of Statements of Faith

 

What do cessationists and continuationists have in common?

by

Kevin DeYoung, The Holy Spirit (The Gospel Coalition Booklets; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), pp. 21–22:

Those Controversial Gifts

I would be remiss in talking about spiritual gifts if I didn’t say something about the debate over the “miraculous gifts.” On the one side are cessationists, who claim that some of the gifts, such as tongues and prophecy, ceased after the apostolic age. They contend:

  1. The miraculous gifts were needed only as authenticating signs for the initial establishing of the gospel and the church.
  2. First Corinthians 13:8–10 says that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will cease “when the perfect comes.” A minority of cessationists contends that the “perfect” came with the completion of the Bible.
  3. Revelatory gifts such as tongues and prophecy undermine the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
  4. The miraculous gifts we see today are not analogous to the gifts exercised in the New Testament.

On the other side are continuationists, who claim that all the gifts are available today. They argue:

  1. Without a clear word to the contrary, we should assume all the gifts are still in effect and earnestly desire them (1 Cor. 14:1).
  2. The “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13 refers to the return of Christ, not to the close of the canon (and, it must be pointed out, many cessationists accept this exegesis, too, but draw different conclusions).
  3. Revelatory gifts do not have the same authority as Scripture. They must always be tested.
  4. Whether or not the gifts are identical with the first century, we should welcome the Spirit’s work in our midst.

I believe both sides have come to see that they agree on more than they once thought. They agree that: [Read more…] about What do cessationists and continuationists have in common?

Do the TGC Council Members Agree on the Creation-Evolution Issue?

by

Andrew M. Davis, Creation (The Gospel Coalition Booklets; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), p. 12 (numbering added):

The stakeholders of The Gospel Coalition are not on the same page with respect to all the details, but all of us insist

  1. that God alone is self-existing,
  2. that he is the creator of all,
  3. that he made everything good,
  4. that Adam and Eve were historical figures from whom the rest of the human race has sprung, and
  5. that the fundamental problem we face was introduced by human idolatry and rebellion and the curse they attracted.

The reasons for holding such matters to be nonnegotiable are bound up with many passages of Scripture, not just the opening chapters of Genesis. For example, Paul tells us that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).

You can hear Andy Davis preach on Genesis 1–3 in his series on Genesis.

Beginning with God

by

Why does The Gospel Coalition’s Confessional Statement begin with God instead of Scripture or epistemology?

D. A. Carson (who drafted the statement) and Tim Keller explain in Gospel-Centered Ministry (The Gospel Coalition Booklets; Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), p. 6:

We also thought it was important to begin our confession with God rather than with Scripture. This is significant. The Enlightenment was overconfident about human rationality. Some strands of it assumed it was possible to build systems of thought on unassailable foundations that could be absolutely certain to unaided human reason. Despite their frequent vilification of the Enlightenment, many conservative evangelicals have nevertheless been shaped by it. This can be seen in how many evangelical statements of faith start with the Scripture, not with God. They proceed from Scripture to doctrine through rigorous exegesis in order to build (what they consider) an absolutely sure, guaranteed-true-to-Scripture theology.

The problem is that this is essentially a foundationalist approach to knowledge. It ignores the degree to which our cultural location affects our interpretation of the Bible, and it assumes a very rigid subject-object distinction. It ignores historical theology, philosophy, and cultural reflection. Starting with the Scripture leads readers to the overconfidence that their exegesis of biblical texts has produced a system of perfect doctrinal truth. This can create pride and rigidity because it may not sufficiently acknowledge the fallenness of human reason.

We believe it is best to start with God, to declare (with John Calvin, Institutes 1.1) that without knowledge of God we cannot know ourselves, our world, or anything else. If there is no God, we would have no reason to trust our reason.

Tim Keller on Preaching and Ministry

by

I love listening to Tim Keller preach or explain how he preaches and ministers in Manhattan. I don’t always agree with his exegetical steps, but I always learn from his penetrating insights and stimulating observations.

I recently listened to two thought-provoking lecture series that Keller presented at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary:

  1. Evangelism and Church Planting in Postmodern Cities (2003)
  2. Preaching to the Heart (2006)

The CDs (which aren’t cheap) include extensive PDF handouts.

Related:

  1. Preaching Christ in a postmodern world (a 22.4-hour D.Min. course)
  2. Preaching to the heart (two lectures in 2008)
  3. Three central emphases of Keller’s preaching
  4. Reason for God DVD and other related resources

Doctrinal Boundaries

by

Dave Doran recalls six books or articles by evangelicals “about the need to formulate doctrinal boundaries” and “the question of separation”:

1. Carson, D. A. Love in Hard Places. Wheaton: Crossway, 2002.

2. Mohler Jr., R. Albert. “Reformist Evangelicalism: A Center without a Circumference.” Page 131–50 in A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times. Edited by Michael S. Horton. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.

3. Grudem, Wayne. “Why, When, and for What Should We Draw New Boundaries?” Page 339–70 in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2003. [Read more…] about Doctrinal Boundaries