I’ve been asked more than once to share a list of my favorite preachers. I thought I would share the list here for anyone who wants to see. This is the second time I’ve shared this list. I removed several preachers because they have become overly absorbed with politics. In addition, I added a list of my favorite podcasts. If you have any suggestions, I would love to hear them. FYI, the list is in order of favorite to least favorite.
Favorite Preachers
Mac Williams (my pastor) Two Rivers Community Church https://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=trcc
I stand against any theology that diminishes the deity of Christ in the slightest. Such a view called the eternal subordination of the son is increasingly gaining wider acceptance among Baptists. I reject this view as a serious error biblically, confessionally, and creedaly. I stand with the ancient Church Fathers, Reformers, and Post-Reformation theologians who confess the consubstantial Trinity and the undiminished deity of Christ. I urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to flee this error and cling to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Traditionally, understood, faith had to do with assent based upon testimony. I can use my rational faculties to assent to the truth of a proposition based upon my evaluation of someone else’s testimony to the truthfulness of that proposition. That is how earlier generations of Christians used the word “faith” or “belief.” Given this understanding of the word, is faith opposed to reason or to evidence? Certainly not. In fact, because faith involves assent, it requires the use of reason.
Puritans on the Grace of the Law. The Puritans are a great antidote for the antinomianism of our day, and Beeke is always great on the Puritans.
Luther and the Ehtiopian Church A new article suggests that the Reformer looked to the Ethiopian church for inspiration for his biblical reformation.
Moynihan’s law is the better things get the worse they seem. Thus, the more complaints there are about human rights, the better human rights are protected.
The Dead End of Research Justice We shouldn’t expect people who believe justice is a social construct to get justice issues right.
Critical Theory values epistemic diversity—as if spiritism or superstition are just as valid as rational and evidentiary forms of knowing. But we must insist that reason and evidence are universal values, not white ones. They are universal because they are gifts from God to be used for his glory, not to be discarded as racist constructs.
There are alternatives to the two parties
Finally, I really enjoyed the new Bill and Ted movie.
I recently received a question on Twitter about where, in patristic sources, we see early Christianity mocked for being a religion filled with women. The short answer: lots of places.
Before we get there, though, we should note that early Christianity received this criticism precisely because it was so popular with women. Sociologist Rodney Stark estimates that perhaps two-thirds of the Christianity community during the second century was made up of women. This was exactly opposite to the broader Greco-Roman world, where women only made up about one-third of the population.
Women left the religious systems of the Greco-Roman world, with which they were familiar, and consciously decided to join the burgeoning Christian movement. No one forced them to do so. No one made them become Christians.
On the contrary, Christianity was a cultural pariah. It was an outsider movement in all sorts of ways—legal, social, religious, and political. Believers were widely despised, viewed with suspicion and scorn, and regarded as threats to a stable society.
And yet women flocked to the early Christian movement anyway.
Here are 12 reasons why public worship is preferred over private worship; why my quiet time is not a substitute for biblical corporate worship; why a devotional with friends or family is not an acceptable substitute for God’s kind of corporate gathering.
Michael Kruger introduces second century Christianity to 21st century Christians in this book. He deals with the church’s sociological make up pointing out “…charges of sexual immorality may have been largely due to the fact that Christians allowed women to participate in their feasts – something more rare in the Greco-Roman world where such feasts were usually composed of men only. If so, then these accusations against Christianity, ironically, were possibly due to the fact that it had a higher and more dignified view of women and valued their participation in religious life.” Next, he discusses the political and intellectual challenges Christians faced introducing the second century apologists, which he calls “the golden age of apologetics”. In chapter 3, Kruger discusses second century ecclesiology, specifically, government and worship. Interestingly, a diversity of modes of baptism were practiced, elements of worship are consistent with contemporary elements, and single bishops presiding over a region evolved for practical reasons.
Chapters four and five are the reason I wanted to read this book. Here he deals with Bauer’s thesis, namely, that in early Christianity there isn’t one orthodox Christianity but many versions of Christianity and that the “orthodox” became orthodox because of later influence. Kruger argues that Bauer is correct that second century Christianity is more diverse than often acknowledged; however, the unity is greater than Bauer admits. Kruger summarizes: “In sum, all of these considerations – early church leadership, geography, literature and rhetoric – appear to be pointing in the same overall direction. And that direction is not in favour of Bauer’s reconstruction of early Christianity.”
In the final two chapters, Kruger discusses matters concerning Scripture such as oral versus textual culture, stability of the text, and cannon. He concludes that early Christianity was “bookish”, had a stable text, and an early core of books, which basically matches the New Testament canon.
I was pleasantly surprised how good this book was. It piqued my interest in second century apologists and was very informative theologically and apologetically. In addition, even though this is an academic book, it wasn’t a difficult read.
For several weeks I’ve been listening to a series of sermons arguing against the so-called Five Points of Calvinism [1]. While there are many things in the series that I could critique: misunderstandings, quotes out of context, and mischaracterizations, one of the pastor’s main arguments against Calvinism [2] is that their theology makes assurance of salvation impossible. If this were true, it would be a good reason to take issue with Reformed Theology. [3] I am not responding because one pastor disagrees but because this often is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Reformed Theology.
So, in this blog post, I would like to demonstrate from the Reformed Confessions that Calvinists historically believe in assurance of salvation and that it can be had by believers. Reformed Theology in no way contradicts the possibility of assurance. Now to be sure, this pastor has an independent, fundamental Baptist understanding of assurance. His understanding of assurance certainly differs from the Reformed view, but having differences is not the same as denying the possibility of assurance.
The best place to start for a Reformed understanding of assurance is with the Canons of Dort, the document from which the traditional Five Points of Calvinism originated:
The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the word of God – such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.
First Head of Doctrine I Article 12
There are three main sections in this statement: 1. The possibility of attaining assurance, 2. The incorrect means of attaining assurance, 3. The biblical manner of attaining assurance. The first section clearly states that assurance is a possibility; however, the Canons of Dort later teach that this assurance is obtained according to the measure of faith of the believer [4]. Therefore, not all believers have full certainty all the time. Yet, it is the norm for believers to strive for and obtain assurance of salvation. Even so, that assurance is given in different degrees and in different measures, that is, not everyone has same level of assurance.
Many who are introduced to the doctrines of grace assume that in order to know that one is elect, you must gain access to a secret list that only God has, which lists the people who are elect and are not elect. Or, that one can only truly know his election when he dies. I think this is the assumption this pastor had. The second section of this article rules this out as an illegitimate way of determining whether or not one is of the elect. If “inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God” was the means to assurance of salvation or election, then it would only be possible for those who receive extraordinary revelation from God to be assured that they are elect (This is actually the view of the Roman Catholics, namely, the one can only have assurance by special revelation). Reformed believers reject the idea that extraordinary revelation is necessary for assurance. Reformed believers teach that “the believer may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of means attain thereunto [assurance].” [5]
The third section share several biblical marks that indicate one is of the elect. These marks come from the word of God. The first thing one should look for to determine if he is part of the elect is a true faith in Christ. If you want to know if you are part of the elect, you have to ask yourself , “Have I believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?” If you have truly trusted in Christ, this is an indication that you’re part of the elect and your faith will endure until the end. Next, consider whether or not you have the reverent fear of God as father rather than a terrified fear of him as judge. This filial fear of God can only be in one’s heart if the Father put it there by his Spirit. Then, consider whether you have a godly sorrow for sin or a worldly sorrow for sin. Paul describes the difference when he says, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourself, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! In every point you have proved yourself innocent in the matter.” [5] Only the elect sorrow over their sin in a godly manner. Finally, although etc implies their are further biblical marks of salvation, you should examine your desires. Do you long to grow in righteousness and to be more like Christ? The non-elect/unbelievers do not have these longings. Having these marks to a greater of lesser degree gives assurance of God’s election and of having obtained eternal life.
Assurance of faith is important theologically and especially practically, and any system of theology that makes assurance impossible falls short of biblical teaching. Reformed Theology as explained above does not contradict assurance of salvation.
[1] The Five Points of Calvinism are often represented as the acrostic, TULIP. However, this mneumonic device is easily misunderstood and was not used until the 20th century. The Five Points actually refer to the five heads of doctrine in the Canons of Dort (See Kenneth J Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism).
[2] I hate the nick name Calvinism because I am not a follower of Calvin but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible not Calvin is the authority for what I believe. For good or ill, Calvin’s name has stuck as a descriptor for the biblical tradition I believe. I would prefer to be called a Confessional Baptist.
[3] I use the names Reformed Theology, Calvinism, and Doctrines of Grace interchangebly.
In 2012, I read a blog that shared advice on how to read more books each year. The main point was to read an hour a day not at one shot but in three smaller increments a day. I’ve not always been able to read an hour a day, but I went from reading 12-15 books a year to 28-49 books a year. From 2012 to today, I’ve read 305 books averaging 38 books a year.
I shared my experience not to boast but to encourage everyone to make more time to read good books. The schedule I’ve tried to keep is 30 minutes in the morning, 15 at lunch, and 15 in the evening. If you can’t read an for an hour or my schedule doesn’t work for you adapt it for your own schedule.
I had originally planned to start a series of blog posts sharing about some of the SBC leaders who make me glad to be a Southern Baptist. Since that time, two events have led me to rethink this series: the release and controversy over Founders “By What Standard?” trailer and Joshua Harris’ apostasy from the faith.
Men whom I really appreciate on both sides of the Founders’ trailer controversy have disappointed me. Moreover, while I never paid attention to Harris’ ministry, I am afraid that the celebrity culture which arose out of the Young, Restless, and Reformed/New Calvinism movement played a part in his apostasy. [1] Leaving me rather jaded regarding people and institutions I thought were trustworthy.
Although the Bible does call believers to “remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God [and to] consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7 ESV), a heavy dose of the reality of sin and depravity helps to ensure that one really “considers the outcome of their way of life” of our leaders so that they do not become idols. Every one will let you down. What Johnny Cash sang is true: “I will let you down. I will make you hurt.”
I am not leaving the SBC nor have I changed my mind about the leaders about whom I considered writing, but I am little more cynical, hopefully, in a healthy way.
I have been concerned for some time with many of the memes and stories about both illegal immigrants and Muslims circulated by Christians online. So many of them are prejudiced and conspiritorial. The prejudice and naivety, which quickly believes every evil report about both illegal immigrants and Muslims is disheartening to me and brings reproach upon Christ, the gospel, and the church of Jesus Christ. The Christians I know even those who post these memes are loving people and would not intentionally mistreat people. Yet, in our politically polarized culture, it is to get swept up into the trends.
There is good reason to be concerned about people illegally crossing our border and illegally remaining in our country. In addition, the influence of Islam on our culture and the very real dangers of Islamic extremism are legitimate concerns. However, Christians of all people should resist the temptations to prejudice and believing the worst of people even if it is unintentional. Because as I reminded the folks at my church Sunday, Christians are obligated to reach all kinds of people with the gospel including illegal immigrants and Muslims. The reminder was based on Paul’s statement: “I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to the foolish.” We will certainly fail at this obligation if we harbor prejudices in our heart and believe the worst of people.
One reason we fail to resist these temptations is that we look at these issueas primarily political problems. We fail to see that we are dealing with people created in the image of God. Instead, we focus on raising awareness and rallying together politcally to get the right person elected and get the right legislation passed. We view those who oppose us as the enemy. We are informed more by right-wing talk radio and click-bait news articles than by Scripture and the gospel.
Although, as I stated above, these are legitimate concerns, Christians should not be looking at these issues primarily through a political lens; instead, we need gospel lenses. Consider that Muslims are difficult if not impossible to reach in their own nation, but now they are coming to us. This is a gospel opportunity. It takes a great deal of resources to reach Mexicans, Central Americans, and South Americans with the gospel, but they are coming to us. This is a gospel opportunity. Truly, the political issues that aggravate us would all be taken care of if these folks embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, instead of sharing prejudiced memes and click-bait news articles on social media regarding these issues, let’s recommit ourselves to prayer, evangelism, and discipleship of all peoples because we are obligated to them.
Gospel Conversations 