G.K. Beale’s “Three Angles of Assurance”

I’m almost finished making my way through G.K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Baker Academic, 2011). It has truly been a rewarding experience in so many ways. Some may question the sanity of reading through a 1,000 page theology book. I have found Beale’s work, however, to be not only intellectually stimulating but also spiritually moving. He unpacks the soul-thrilling message of both testaments of Scripture and like a master jeweler, brings out the innate beauty of the Gem of the Bible in all its brilliance and power. Reading Beale is reading the big picture of Scripture.

Beale also repeatedly brings application and pastoral concerns to bear. He is a theologian with a pastor’s heart, and he never fails to provide the takeaways and connect the dots from theology to Christian living. A perfect example of this is his treatment of assurance. The graphic pictured below is my attempt to reproduce a drawing on pg. 867, in an excursus on assurance, which I found incredibly helpful. I hope my readers will as well.

Beale's 'Three Angles of Assurance'

[Since] Christians do not reach perfection and they sin to varying degrees and in varying ways, and even the most righteous saints become increasingly aware of how sinful they are, how can they be assured that they have a true saving relationship with God? There is no simple answer to this, but there is what may be understood as a cumulative answer that comes from different angles of consideration. We may view the believer’s assurance from three angles, with each angle contributing to an aspect of assurance.

Each point of the [above] triangle represents a truth about how a Christian receives assurance.

Trust in God’s Promise of Salvation through Christ

First, God promises throughout the NT that those who place their faith in Christ and his redemptive work will receive an inner assurance that they have truly benefited from Christ’s work (the top of the triangle). [Beale goes on to discuss 1 John 5:9-15 in support of this point and continues] in this passage from 1 John assurance of true faith comes from (1) the internal witness of the Spirit; (2) the reliability of God’s word that he will give life in the Son to those who believe; (3) the confidence that God hears and answers the faithful prayers of those who ask for salvation in the Son. In fact, the purpose of the entire epistle of 1 John is to give this assurance (v. 13).

Good Works

The role of “good works” is a second angle from which to view the nature of assurance (the bottom left part of the triangle). As we have seen, one who has truly been resurrected (Eph. 2:4-6) and thus becomes a part of the new creation will inevitably and increasingly be characterized by good works (Eph. 2:10) instead of behaving like “dead people” in bondage to “trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1-3). Likewise 2 Pet. 1:3-4 explains that Christians possess God’s “divine power” and reflect God’s image (the “divine nature”), and on this basis they are to grow in the fruits of godliness (vv. 5-8). [Beale goes on to discuss verses 10-11 and concludes that] assurance of one’s “calling and choosing” and final “entrance into the eternal kingdom” increases with growth in doing godly things.

Accordingly, believers’ assurance of truly being part of the new creation comes as they look back at their former life and see the changes that have come about since they became Christian. Those who may have grown up from an early age as a Christian may not have such radical differences between their past and present. Nevertheless, they should not be characterized by the kinds of sins that Paul lists in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Such people also gain a degree of assurance from this recognition. All Christians, to one degree or another, ought to be able to look back and see that they have progressed in godliness during the course of their Christian lives (recalling also that as such growth occurs, ironically so does increasing awareness of remaining sin). This observation ought to bolster Christians’ confidence that they are genuine.

Given time, if confessing believers have not changed the ungodly lifestyles of their former believing lives, then such people should not be given assurance that they have truly believed. Perhaps they are true Christians, but they should not have affirmation that they are…. Possibly, such a lack of assurance might shock them either into the reality of their faith, so that they change, or shock them into truly believing for the first time.

Conviction by the Spirit

The presence of the conviction of sin within professing Christians is a third angle from which to understand assurance… When Christians think or do unholy things, there should be immediate conflict and dissonance with the indwelling Holy Spirit, who is in the process of causing the believer to reach the goal of complete end-time righteousness. Those who are accordingly convicted about their sin will express repentance and change their sinful ways. Those who have no conviction about indwelling sin should have no conviction that they are genuine saints.

Therefore, faithful, growing Christians should receive multiple assurances from these three angles, which have a cumulative force, enhancing the overall sense of confidence about the reality of their Christian experience. What if a Christian is inconsistent in progressing in good works, and an area of life is not under submission to the Lord of the new creation? Such a person should be under great conviction about this sin, and if so, it is a good sign that the Spirit is really in the person, bringing about conviction. Such a person should not doubt knowing God, unless as time goes on the conviction over sin does not issue into repentance, a turning away from the sin being committed.

However, no confidence should exist in those who profess to believe in Jesus but who reflect no discernible change for the good in their lifestyles and who have no conviction about changing their sinful ways.

Generally, the closer people get to God as faith grows, the more such people will desire to please God by what they do, and the more they will be convicted by the remaining sin in them. As a result, they will have even greater assurance as they progress in their Christian lives. [excerpted from pp. 867-870]

I find Beale’s advice to be both important and encouraging. Even our awareness of failure can encourage us, and the very fight against sin is an evidence of being a legitimate child of God (see my post on Heb. 12 on that point). For more on the Biblical teaching on perseverance see any of the following articles:

You can purchase Beale’s book at any of the following retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or direct from Baker.

Reformation Book Giveaway

The Glory of Grace: the Story of the Canons of Dort by William Boekestein     Inside the Reformation compiled by Mark Sengele

It has been a while since I hosted a book giveaway! This week I’d like to offer two books to my readers as a special Reformation Book Giveaway. Each of these books is suited for children, but would make a good addition to the reading list of many parents I know, too. I enjoyed reading through each book, especially after my recent “Survey of the Reformation” series I taught for our adult SS class.

The books to be won are: The Glory of Grace: the Story of the Canons of Dort by William Boekestein and Inside the Reformation compiled by Mark Sengele. You can read my reviews of each of these books by clicking on their titles (or pictures) above.

To enter the contest, simply fill out the Google Form below. Be sure to note the ways to earn additional entries to this contest. The contest runs through Monday night, Feb. 4.

Contest is now closed.

Congratulations to Chad S for winning the contest!

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

The Battle of Jericho & the Christian Life: All They Had to Do Was Trust and Obey

I have often found encouragement in the account of the battle of Jericho. The Hebrew people were faced with an obstacle to their possession of God’s promised good land. A fortress city stood in their way. What were they to do? All they had to do was trust and obey God’s direction. It wasn’t by their effort that they would inherit the promised land, it was a matter of God’s grace.

Similarly, in our Christian life, we walk by faith and depend on God’s promise and His action on our behalf. We take Him at His word. We trust and obey. The promised land of sanctification and God’s blessing in our life, comes through His effort not ours. I made this case previously in a post called “Thoughts on the Battle of Jericho.”

Here is a visual depiction of this same important lesson. It comes from an adaptation of The Jesus Storybook Bible, one of our favorite kid’s Bible story books. Tim Keller referred to this book as “a storybook for preachers” and I quite agree. It communicates the heart of the Bible stories powerfully, and highlights the fact that all the stories in the Bible unfold the wonder of Jesus and His love. It has brought tears to my eyes at times, and if you don’t have this book, you really should get it!

Watch the animated story below of the battle of Jericho, and I pray that you and I both will grow in our trust of Jesus Christ, our true Warrior Leader.

For more on The Jesus Storybook Bible visit JesusStorybookBible.com or preview/purchase the book at the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, or direct from Zondervan.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.