God's Word Trumps Personal Experience

I preached this last Sunday morning on 2 Peter 1:12-21. Peter is assuring his readers that he will continually repeat and reinforce the message that has been entrusted to him. The truth of the gospel was not a fairytale to Peter. It was not just a collection of stories that encouraged mankind to live elevated lives. No, Peter claims that he was an eyewitness not only to the earthly ministry of Christ, but also to the transfiguration. This event was when God the Father spoke in affirmation of Jesus, and in doing so confirmed the deity of Christ (the Greek phrasing here speaks of a oneness of being). To Peter, the truth of the gospel was real; he had seen it and experienced it for himself. But, when you move past this section in the passage to verse 19 you see Peter reveal something incredible. Peter tells his readers that we have something more sure than personal experience; we have the word of the prophets. Now, Peter is referring not just to the major and minor prophets in the Old Testament; he intends to indicate the Old Testament Scriptures generally (it should not be overlooked that just two chapters over in 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s New Testament writings as Scripture as well). In other words, the word of God trumps personal experience. If we are seeking truth in this life, Peter would argue, God’s word is more sure than anything else, personal experience or otherwise.

Below is a link to the full sermon video:  

Sermon video link 

Thank You, Dr. David Allen

After considering the situation for a bit now, I have decided not to write an extended piece on the recently published A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation (see my previous piece here where I make some preliminary comments on the previously mentioned title). Since there have been so many responses from both sides (many of which were angrily toned), it seems unnecessary for me to attempt to offer something original here. I will, however, recommend that you read (here) a recently released article addressing the perennially important debate between “Calvinism” verses “Traditionalism” in Baptist life. Dr. Allen, though taking a position somewhat different than my own, has written a wonderful and conciliatory piece. Below are two quotes that I find particularly helpful.  

"If we are to come together in unity, we must do so as Baptists, not as Calvinists and Traditionalists.”

“Fifth, generally speaking, all Southern Baptists are concerned about theology. With respect to the current discussion, some of my Calvinist friends as well as some of my Traditionalist friends need to become better and more careful theologians and historians.”

A Preliminary Response to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

A recent doctrinal statement has been released wherein Southern Baptists are implored to reject Calvinism as a theological benchmark and to embrace a series of doctrinal affirmations and denials that presumably affirm a kind of baptistic Arminianism. And indeed a number of prominent and respectable Baptist ministers and theologians have signed their name in approval. The document may be read here.

I have only briefly looked over this document, but I plan on reading it much more carefully in the near future. I will blog on this more fully at a later time. Nonetheless, I have a couple of preliminary observations:

“. . .we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. . . We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.”

Though I generally agree that Calvinism as a baptistic nomenclature is less than helpful (for reasons of ecclesiology and missiology rather than soteriology), I am troubled when the writer asserts that the majority of Baptists are not Calvinists. He may be right about this (in a robust 5 point sense); yet, I find myself asking: how does the writer know? In other words, he did not publish his research.

Also, something else disturbing to me is that the doctrinal affirmations and denials lack nuance. For example, when speaking of election, double predestination is assumed, and there is a failure to acknowledge moderate Calvinism which opts for preterition as an alternative—something that is historically quite common among Calvinists (Andrew Fuller for instance). The result of this lack of nuance is that though I realize my theological views are often different from the writer of this document, I am nonetheless affirming and denying right along with the document (with some obvious exceptions of course). And, the writer, as a result, is in danger, at times, of making a caricature of this so called “New Calvinism.” If we can agree (and I’m preaching to both sides now) that many of our theological conclusions are the same, then, perhaps, we can co-exist with a greater degree of unity. More on this later…

Two Previous and Positive Reviews

I realized recently, after posting Dr. Finn's recent book review, that I have not posted two previous and positive reviews of my book Fullerism as Opposed to Calvinism. They may be viewed here and here. The kind remarks are much appreciated.

Road to Emmaus

A link to a video sermon I recently preached can be accessed here. In it, I am delivering a sermon on the post-resurrection appearance of Christ to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Some of you may have a particular interest in the video starting around 19:00 into the sermon, where I discuss the importance of affirming a bodily resurrection of Christ. This doctrine is contrasted to a spiritual non-physical resurrection.

New Book Review

Below is a link to a new review for my book Fullerism as Opposed to Calvinism. Dr. Nathan Finn, from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the review for the Gospel Coalition website. His candid and constructive remarks are greatly appreciated.

Click here to read the review.

Reflecting Your Christian Confession: II Peter 1:1-11

Below is a video link of a sermon I preached recently, wherein the topic of salvific assurance is treated more completely than my previous post on the subject. Assurance is an important issue in the Christian life, and, for this reason, two posts in close proximity are, perhaps, warranted.

http://vimeo.com/39208215

Thoughts on Easter

Why is it important that Christ’s resurrection actually occurred in history, rather than simply a story that brings one a sense of hope? If Christ has not been raised, then we are spiritually dead—but, he has been raised, though. This Easter morning we were reminded that Christ is risen, and that he is the giver of true life. The apostle Paul says it thusly:

¹There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  ² For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.  ³ For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,  ⁴ in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  ⁵ For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.  ⁶ To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.  ⁷ For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.  ⁸ Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  ⁹ You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.  ¹⁰ But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.  ¹¹ If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Romans 8:1-11

Blessed Assurance

Recently, I preached a sermon on 2 Peter 1: 1-11. The text reads as follows:

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

After we finished looking at the text exegetically, we turned our attention to the subject of salvific assurance. In other words, what are we to believe about our salvation? Can we know whether we are truly saved? The Bible appears to answer this in the affirmative. Peter, in this passage, provides us with one important clue to answering these important questions. Now, the doctrine of assurance can be looked at in two ways. First (and Peter does not touch on this point), there is the objective sense in which we find assurance. Objective is defined as: “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.” So the objective way in which we find assurance of our salvation is by looking at the cross of Christ. Christ made sure the salvation of anyone who will come. If we have reached out to Christ and have trusted him as our only hope of salvation, then we may gaze upon the finished work of the cross as an objective means in order to find salvific assurance.

Now, Peter shows the way we experience assurance in a more subjective way. Subjective may be defined as: “existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.” In other words, once we gaze upon the finished work of the cross, we then believe. And, through the help of the Holy Spirit, we begin to seek after those Christian virtues spoken of in Peter’s epistle, which ultimately bear fruit—they become, in a progressive sense, a reality in our lives. This work of the Holy Spirit is something we sense and perceive in our lives. The apostle Peter says it in the following way: “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Everybody Believes in God?

I spoke for the FBCLC D-Now this last weekend. It was a great time, and the students were a blast. Since the theme was about living your whole life for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), I thought I would start by laying some spiritual groundwork. I began with Hebrews 11:6: “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” Honoring God with your life starts with drawing near to God. As a result, we must believe in God! I exposed the students to a number of philosophical arguments that support theism (the Cosmological argument, Teleological argument, Ontological argument, Anthropological argument, and the Moral argument—we were loving God with our minds). But in the end, I asked if we really need these kinds of arguments to justify belief in God. In other words (as Alvin Plantinga supposes), it seems right to consider belief in God as a basic belief. In the same way that we do not need arguments to justify our belief in a past (it is possible that everything came into being 10 seconds ago, complete with aged material and all of our memories) or our belief in other minds (everyone around me might just be figments of my imagination), we do not need arguments to justify our belief in God. It is natural for humans to acknowledge a transcendent creator.

          But what about the fact that some humans disbelieve that there is a God? The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1:18-20 that “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Romans teaches us here that we know God exists, but because of our sin we suppress the truth that he is real. God has made it perfectly clear that he is real to everyone.

But, consider, as a result of our sin, our position before God. God’s wrath (vs. 18) is looming over us. You see God is a good judge, and he always punishes sin. What would we think of an earthly judge if he let criminals go? Well, God does not exemplify the worst traits in earthly judges; rather, he is perfectly just and always punishes sin. Notice Hebrews 9:27: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” This is a problem for us, because we have all sinned. Because of our sin, we are separated from God—separated from our maker! But God loves us, and he has made a way for us to be reconciled back to him. God sent Jesus (God the Son) to die for our sins. Jesus paid the penalty for sin on the cross. 1 Peter 3:18a says “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.”

For these students, I challenged them to not just know that God is real, but, to confront this knowledge and to reach out to Christ.

John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Trinitarianism and T. D. Jakes

Recently the mega-church pastor, T. D. Jakes, has admitted to shifting from a oneness view of God (a kind of modalism which denies the orthodox one God three persons formula) to a proper trinitarian view of God. This is great news! Nevertheless, it is still somewhat disturbing that a man that has built an entire ministerial dynasty upon the foundation of an idolatrous understanding of God can carry on with very little scrutiny. The following link has the full story:
http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=13742&page=2

Violence and the Cross

Violence and the Cross: Fullerism's Answer to Contemporary Attacks on Substitutionary Atonement

 

The following is an audio link of a paper that I presented at a conference, hosted by the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary several months ago. The paper answers contemporary attacks on the substitutionary atonement of Christ through a presentation of Fuller's theological writings on the subject. I welcome any comments you may have.



http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3756