Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Mark Dever on the Function of Statements of Faith

by

Last night I listened to an MP3 of Mark Dever speaking on church membership to a group of pastors in South Africa in January 2007. (I’m not sure if this MP3 is available online.)

Dever concludes by presenting what he calls a twelve-step recovery plan for pastors to regain meaningful church membership in the congregation. Step two sheds some light on Dever’s recent controversial statement that it is wrong to include millennial views in a church’s statement of faith. In my radio interview last week, I mentioned that the viability of Dever’s statement turns on his view of the function of statements of faith. Here’s how he stated his view on that in 2007 (53:33 to 55:39 in the MP3; emphasis added):

2. Have and use a congregationally agreed-upon statement of faith and church covenant.

Now I’m aware we’re from different polities at this minister’s conference, and that’s great. If you have a denominational statement, depending on your structure you can take your denominational statement and use that. If you’re a congregational independent church, you can come up with one yourself or use one that other churches before you have used. But with membership in the congregation comes responsibility, and the statements of what the congregation together believes (and in our church we call that our statement of faith) and of how we will live (we call that our church covenant) are very useful tools. They are a clear ground of unity, a tool of teaching, [and] a fence from error and from the worldly who would erase such distinctions or [from] the divisive who want to see them more narrow. We can point to the fact that, “Well actually, this is what we’ve agreed on.”

So, for example, I’ll give you something else provocative. Our church’s statement of faith talks about the second coming of Christ, and it basically says, “He will come back; he will raise the dead; he will judge them; and they will go some to eternal felicity with God and some to eternal torment in hell.” That’s it! “But Mark, what about the rapture? What about the nation of Israel? What about the seven-year tribulation? What about the millennium?” You know, praise God, our statement of faith was written in the 1830s, so Christians hadn’t thought of all that stuff yet. They were just about to get divisive about that in the late nineteenth century, but our statement of faith is so old we only have this really clearly biblical stuff about the return of Christ. And then we can disagree—we can argue with each other—as best we see implications of these other precious truths.

So every Christian in the church should believe a lot more than what’s in your statement of faith, but what you’re trying to define in your statement of faith is “What do we need to have agreement upon in order to be a church together?” And I think we need to know that Jesus is coming back and that he told his disciples that he could be coming back at any time, so they need to be ready. Beyond that, well, you and I can argue about it. We can [dis]agree. We can read and write books.

Are Millennial Views Essential?

by

knowing_the_truthKevin Boling, host of “Knowing the Truth” radio program, contacted me a couple of hours before his hour-long radio program this afternoon and asked me to be his guest to discuss the issue I highlighted in my recent blog post on Schreiner’s and Dever’s positions on millennial views.

Kevin, a gracious host, entitled the program “Are Millennial Views Essential?” The interview is available from SermonAudio as a 55-minute MP3.

Update: See “Mark Dever on the Function of Statements of Faith.”

Schreiner: From Amil to Premil

by

Tom Schreiner, professor of NT interpretation and associate dean at Southern Seminary and preaching pastor for Clifton Baptist Church, just finished preaching through the book of Revelation.

  • In “The Millennium,” his sermon on Revelation 20:1–15 (preached on June 14, 2009), Schreiner begins by explaining that he recently changed his millennial position from amillennial to premillennial, largely as a result of studying that text (HT: Ben Wright).
  • Jason Button transcribes some of Schreiner’s wise introductory remarks here.

Updates:

  1. See A. J. Gibson’s “It’s a Sin to Sever Cooperation with Other Believers over Eschatological Issues,” which comments on the sermon on Revelation 20 that Mark Dever preached yesterday (July 12).
  2. See Ben Wright’s “‘I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view.’” (Ben is a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church.)
  3. Justin Taylor weighs in.
  4. Kevin Bolin interviewed me on this issue on July 14: “Are Millennial Views Essential?“
  5. See Ben Wright’s “Amillennialists and Premillennialists: What Do We Agree On?“
  6. See “Mark Dever on the Function of Statements of Faith.”

Another Dagger-Like Tweet from John Piper

by

John Piper: “Boasting is the response of pride to success. Self-pity is the response of pride to failure.”

Update: Here’s a follow-up: “BOASTING: ‘I deserve praise because I’ve achieved so much.’ SELF-PITY: ‘I deserve praise because I’ve endured so much.'”

Related: If you’re not on Twitter, you can follow John Piper on Twitter in your blog reader via his RSS feed.

Doug Moo on Romans

by

Romans is consuming the majority of my time and thoughts these days since I’m writing a dissertation on the use of the OT in Romans 11:34–35. I recently read and s-l-o-w-l-y reread everything that Douglas J. Moo has written on (1) the theme and structure of Romans and (2) Romans 9–11, and I couldn’t give his outstanding work higher praise. His publications are first-class: the content is superb. I thank God for this man!

Here’s a chronological list of most of Moo’s publications on Romans, which I’ve ranked as introductory, intermediate, and advanced. The most valuable are the NICNT and NIVAC volumes. [Read more…] about Doug Moo on Romans

Two Views on the Duke K. McCall Sesquicentennial Pavilion at Southern Seminary

by

This week I enjoyed following the events at the SBC and SBTS from a distance and wish I would have been in Louisville to experience it. I’m encouraged by what I’ve heard. (Cf. summaries by Danny Akin, Tom Ascol, Timmy Brister, Denny Burk, Greg Gilbert, Owen Strachan, and the many articles by Southern Seminary’s news service.)

In the midst of many reasons for rejoicing in the positive advances made in the convention this year, one event stands out as confusing to Protestant fundamentalists: SBTS dedicated a building (cf. audio and video) to former president Duke McCall, a theological moderate who tolerated theological liberalism and opposed the Conservative Resurgence.

Doran’s Objection

Dave Doran (a graduate of TEDS, senior pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church, and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) reflects on this in these short articles:

  1. “Honor to Whom Dishonor Is Due” (He concludes, “I just don’t get it.”)
  2. “Is This an Application of Loving Your Enemies?“
  3. “We Report, You Decide” (a response to Greg Gilbert’s post)
  4. “Some (Final, I hope) Thoughts on the McCall Pavilion and Objections to My Questioning It” (a response to Mark Rogers’s post)
  5. “Missions, Pavilions, and Wives” (paragraph two responds to Owen Strachan’s post)
  6. “Seeing the Difference between Ideas and Individuals” (an implied response to Gilbert, Rogers, and Strachan)
  7. “Ideas and Individuals (Again)“
  8. “Sticking to the Point . . .“

Reponses to Doran

  1. Greg Gilbert (a graduate of SBTS, former assistant to Al Mohler, and assistant pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church) respectfully responds to Doran’s first article: “Mohler, McCall, Truth, and History.”
  2. Mark Rogers (a graduate of SBTS, son of a pastor in the SBC, current PhD student in historical theology at TEDS, and D. A. Carson’s administrative assistant) also respectfully responds to Doran’s first article: “Southern Seminary’s Anniversary and a Question of Honor.”
  3. Owen Strachan (a graduate of SBTS, former research assistant to Al Mohler, current PhD student in historical theology at TEDS, and managing director of the Henry Center) also respectfully responds to Doran: “At SBTS, Fidelity Matters: A Friendly Response to Dave Doran.”

Mostly Dead vs. All Dead

by

This video clip from The Princess Bride is my favorite light-hearted illustration of the Arminian view of human depravity (an issue integrally related to prevenient grace):

http://vimeo.com/28442042

This is the notable part of the exchange:

“Well it just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. . . . Now mostly dead is slightly alive. All dead—well, with all dead, there’s only usually one thing that you can do.”

“What’s that?”

“Go through his clothes and look for loose change.”

Another good illustration of the effectual call and regeneration:

Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”

The dead man came out . . . . (John 11:43–44)

Recommended resources:

  1. William W. Combs, “Does the Bible Teach Prevenient Grace?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 10 (2005): 3–18.
  2. John Piper, “Total Depravity,” in “TULIP” (a nine-part seminar available in audio and video), 2008.
  3. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 229–46.