Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Systematic Theology

The Simple Gospel

by

Perhaps the most important truth that Jenni and I have especially internalized in the last couple of years is that the gospel is central to our Christian life—not simply step one. We immediately identified with the following paragraph when we read it recently:

For complex reasons many in the Western church came to speak of ‘the simple gospel’, by which they at one time meant the gospel summarized in convenient and simple form, usually for evangelistic purposes. The result is that for many today ‘the gospel’ or ‘gospel preaching’ refers not to the glorious, comprehensive good news disclosed in scripture but to a very simple (some would say simplistic) reduction of it. Some churches distinguished between ‘worship services’ and ‘gospel services’: one wonders which term, ‘worship’ or ‘gospel’, has been more seriously abused. Doubtless the motives behind these developments were often excellent. But the fact remains that a variety of serious problems were thereby introduced. For many, evangelistic preaching became identified with simplistic preaching. Worse, ‘the gospel’ came to be associated in their minds exclusively with the initial steps of faith rather than with God’s comprehensive good news that not only initiates salvation but orders all our life in this world and the next.

–D. A. Carson, “The Biblical Gospel,” in For Such a Time as This: Perspectives on Evangelicalism, Past, Present and Future (ed. Steve Brady and Harold Rowdon; London: Evangelical Alliance, 1996), 82.

Related: My review of Milton Vincent, A Gospel Primer for Christians: Learning to See the Glories of God’s Love (Themelios 33:1 [2008]: 102–3).

Carson on the Cross at Mars Hill

by

In the first weekend of December 2008, D. A. Carson preached five sermons in Seattle:

  1. “The Center of the Whole Bible” (Romans 3:21-26): audio | video
  2. “The Strange Triumph of a Slaughtered Lamb” (Revelation 12): audio | video
  3. “A Miracle Full of Surprises” (John 11): audio | video
  4. “Why Doubt the Resurrection of Jesus” (John 20:24-31): audio | video
  5. “The Ironies of the Cross” (Matthew 27:27-51): audio | video

The videos are embedded below:

1. “The Center of the Whole Bible” (Romans 3:21-26)

2. “The Strange Triumph of a Slaughtered Lamb” (Revelation 12)

3. “A Miracle Full of Surprises” (John 11)

4. “Why Doubt the Resurrection of Jesus” (John 20:24-31)

5. “The Ironies of the Cross” (Matthew 27:27-51)

Do Calvinists really believe in human responsibility?

by

Justin Taylor’s gentle, respectful response to John Piper notes this:

(1) The fact that God ordains all things (i.e., his secret will) has a limited effect on our decision making. It can’t prescribe how we act, but it can prevent us from having the wrong perspective (e.g., anxiety, fear, despair, misplaced trust, etc.). But in terms of interpreting events, the main way to read providence is backwards (as John Flavel wrote: “Some providences, like Hebrew letters, must be read backward”).

(2) The fact that God ordains means ensures that our actions have significance. The ordained outcome can never be seen as an excuse for complacency or fatalism.

Calvinists believe in God-ordained means. This is not merely a platitude. John M. Frame says it well in Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994):

The relation of divine sovereignty to human responsibility is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. It is plain from Scripture in any case that both are real and that both are important. Calvinistic theology is known for its emphasis on divine sovereignty—for its view that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). But in Calvinism there is at least an equal emphasis upon human responsibility.

An equal emphasis? Many would not be willing to say that about Calvinism. . . . God’s sovereignty does not exclude, but engages, human responsibility. Indeed, it is God’s sovereignty that grants human responsibility, that gives freedom and significance to human choices and actions, that ordains an important human role within God’s plan for history (pp. 14-15, emphasis added).

Three Ways to Spoil the Gospel

by

While addressing the question “Ought We to Pray to the Holy Spirit?”, Graham Cole notes that there are three “ways to spoil the gospel” (p. 64):

  1. addition
  2. subtraction
  3. disproportion (“by a lack of due weight in theological emphasis, by giving an element in it either too much or too little accent”)

Here’s the context (from Graham Cole, Engaging with the Holy Spirit: Real Questions, Practical Answers [Wheaton: Crossway, 2007], 64):

To pray to the Spirit is not wrong theologically, but if that practice displaces prayer to the Father in the name of the Son in reliance upon the Spirit, then there may be another sort of problem that emerges. The problem is that of disproportion. There are many ways to spoil the gospel. [1] One such way is by addition: Christ plus Mosaic circumcision as the gospel for the Gentiles. Galatians addresses this error. [2] The gospel may be spoiled by subtraction. Christ is divine but not human. The recently publicized Gnostic Gospel of Judas appears to take this road. Jesus is depicted as saying to Judas: “You will be greater than all the others, Judas. You will sacrifice the man that clothes me.” This error subtracts human nature from Christ and turns him into only a seeming human. This docetic error was the problem facing the original readers of John’s first letter (1 John 4:1-3). [3] But the gospel may also be spoiled by a lack of due weight in theological emphasis, by giving an element in it either too much or too little accent. A biblical truth may be weighted in a way that skews our thinking about God and the gospel. Arguably, to make prayer to the Holy Spirit the principal practice in Christian praying would be such an error. The Holy Spirit may be prayed to. He is God. But the Holy Spirit is not to be prayed to in such a way as to mask the mediatorship of Christ and our location in Christ as members of his body. For to pray to the Father in the name of the Son in reliance upon the Spirit is to rehearse the very structure of the gospel . . . .

It would be wise to ask yourself (and others who know you!), “Am I spoiling the gospel by disproportion? Is there an area that I am failing to give due weight in theological emphasis by giving an element in it either too much or too little accent?”

Trinity Debate: Ware-Grudem vs. McCall-Yandell

by

Tonight I live-blogged a Trinity Debate between Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem vs. Tom McCall and Keith Yandell on this question: “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?”

During the Q&A, I asked a question from Phil Gons, who was watching the debate via live streaming and emailed me the question. I was disappointed in Dr. Yandell’s answer. Basically, he made fun of the question, apparently because it did not compute with his metaphysical system. Frustrating. Phil shares and explains his penetrating question more here and here.

D. A. Carson: “Making Sense of Suffering”

by

This weekend D. A. Carson spoke at a conference on “Making Sense of Suffering” to Omaha Bible Church:

  1. Part 1
  2. Part 2
  3. Part 3
  4. Part 4 (Gospel Reflections on Trials and Tribulations)

DAC also led a pastor’s session on “Preaching and Biblical Theology.”

HT: Erik Raymond

Related:

  1. D. A. Carson MP3s
  2. The Logical and Emotional Problems of Evil: This links to a handout that lists recommended resources on suffering, including this annotation:

* Carson, D. A. How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. [1. Outstanding, clear, practical, pastoral. The entire book rewards thoughtful reading, especially chapters 11–13. Chapter 11 condenses and updates the major argument of his Ph.D. dissertation completed at Cambridge University in 1975 and reprinted as Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension (2d ed.; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002).]