Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Systematic Theology

Popular Culture’s View of Love

by

Don Carson, who doesn’t sharply distinguish between popular and high culture, opens his book Love in Hard Places (2002) by summarizing some points from The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (2000):

First, popular culture saunters between a sentimental view and an erotic view of love. The erotic view is fed by television, movies, and certain popular books and articles; the sentimental view is nurtured by many streams, some of which we shall think about as we press on, but the result is a form of reductionism whose hold on the culture is outstripped only by its absurdity.

  1. Applied to God, the sentimental view generates a deity with all the awesome holiness of a cuddly toy, all the moral integrity of a marshmallow. In the previous lectures, I briefly documented this point with examples from films and books.
  2. Applied to Christians, the sentimental view breeds expectations of transcendental niceness. Whatever else Christians should be, they should be nice, where “niceness” means smiling a lot and never ever hinting that anyone may be wrong about anything (because that isn’t nice).
  3. In the local church, it means abandoning church discipline (it isn’t nice), and in many contexts it means restoring adulterers (for instance) to pastoral office at the mere hint of broken repentance. After all, isn’t the church about forgiveness? Aren’t we supposed to love one another? And doesn’t that mean that above all we must be, well, nice?
  4. Similarly with respect to doctrine: the letter kills, while the Spirit gives life, and everyone knows the Spirit is nice. So let us love one another and refrain from becoming upright and uptight about this divisive thing called “doctrine.” (pp. 11–12; numbering added)

How Should We Interpret the New Testament’s Graphic Descriptions of Hell?

by

I attempt to answer that question in the latest 9Marks eJournal: Hell: Remembering the Awful Reality [PDF | HTML].

“Hellfire and Brimstone: Interpreting the New Testament’s Descriptions of Hell.” 9Marks eJournal 7:4 (September–October 2010): 16–19. [PDF | HTML]

Introduction:

The New Testament graphically and horrifically describes hell. And that raises a thorny question: How should we interpret those dreadful images? May we simply label them “metaphors” to soften their bite?

Outline:

  1. How does the New Testament describe hell? [five ways]
  2. How do people interpret the New Testament’s horrific descriptions of hell? [three ways]
  3. How should we interpret the New Testament’s horrific descriptions of hell? [two of the three ways are plausible]

Conclusion:

We may disagree about some finer nuances of our literal and metaphorical interpretations of hell’s darkness, fire, and suffering, but we should agree that, at the very least, the New Testament teaches that hell is eternally miserable, terrifying, and painful. It’s certainly no better than being cast into literal “outer darkness” or being tormented with literal “fire and sulfur.”

More.

Three Recent Interviews

by

Three people recently interviewed me about Keswick theology, and MP3s are available for each interview:

  1. A 55-minute interview on Kevin Boling’s “Knowing the Truth” Radio Program broadcast live on July 22.
  2. Aaron Blumer, publisher for Sharper Iron, interviewed me on the campus of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on June 21, and he published a 32-minute interview on July 28 (part 1 | part 2).
  3. John Starke, managing editor of TGC Reviews, led a phone interview on July 22, and he published a 17-minute interview today.

Radio interviews provide all sorts of opportunities for embarrassing bloopers. In this case I misspell Keswick by emphasizing the silent “w” and omitting the final “k”!

Here are a few pics from Kevin Boling’s interview:

Related: Let Go and Let God?

Update on 8/23/2017: My latest book attempts to survey and analyze “let go and let God” theology more accessibly:

No Quick Fix

Interview on Keswick Theology with Alex Chediak

by

I recently answered these questions from Alex Chediak about my book on Keswick theology:

  1. Keswick theology teaches that, after salvation, one must pursue the second blessing. Having received it, can one lose this “second blessing”? If so, what would be the mark(s) of such a loss?
  2. How would such a person get it back?
  3. Is Keswick thinking in any way at the root of the struggle many have with discerning “the personal will of God” for their lives?
  4. Some of us might read names like Andrew Murray, J. Hudson Taylor, and Amy Carmichael and think “Wow. Whatever it is, it can’t be that bad.” Does Keswick thinking, historically, have a track record of promoting more holy living on the part of Christians?
  5. In your handout, you say, “Since it is unlikely that all living believers will agree on their view of sanctification, believers should promote unity on this issue as much as possible.” Can you unpack this a bit?
  6. Romans 7 is a text that divides Christians, with some saying that Paul is referring to the believer’s ongoing struggle with sin, and others (like Doug Moo, and Martin Lloyd-Jones) arguing that Paul is referring to a pre-converted man (possibly himself). Is it possible to take the latter view and still not be a proponent of Keswick theology?
  7. Related to the previous question, when discussing the believer’s ongoing struggle, should we use the word “flesh” or “old man” to refer to what John Owen called our “remaining corruptions”? Is there a difference?

—Part 1 | Part 2

Related:

  1. Let God and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology
  2. Interview on Keswick Theology with Kevin DeYoung

Update on 8/23/2017: My latest book attempts to survey and analyze “let go and let God” theology:

No Quick Fix

The Importance of Argument

by

I’m listening to an audio-essay of J. Gresham Machen’s “The Important of Christian Scholarship” (HT: Phil Gons), and this sentence stood out to me: “But because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary.” I’ve placed it in bold below so that you can read it in context.

The Importance of Argument

Certainly a Christianity that avoids argument is not the Christianity of the New Testament. The New Testament is full of argument in defense of the faith. The Epistles of Paul are full of argument—no one can doubt that. But even the words of Jesus are full of argument in defense of the truth of what Jesus was saying. “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?” Is not that a well-known form of reasoning, which the logicians would put in its proper category? Many of the parables of Jesus are argumentative in character. Even our Lord, who spake in the plenitude of divine authority, did condescend to reason with men. Everywhere the New Testament meets objections fairly, and presents the gospel as a thoroughly reasonable thing. [Read more…] about The Importance of Argument

Lectures on Keswick Theology

by

I posted on this in March 2008, but I’m highlighting it again since these lectures on Keswick theology summarize my book Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology.

Detroit Baptist Theology Seminary is hosting the following resources from the lecture series I presented there in 2008:

  1. Handout. This five-page PDF ends with diagrams of major views on sanctification.
  2. Power Point presentation as a PDF. This collection of eighty slides is filled with pictures of the forerunners, proponents, and successors of Keswick theology.
  3. MP3s. About three hours of lectures:

Update on 8/23/2017: My latest book attempts to survey and analyze “let go and let God” theology:

No Quick Fix