Dr. Bruce Ware on The Providence of God: Lectures on God’s Sovereignty and Human Freedom

Bruce Ware (Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary) is professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

He recently lectured on God’s providence as Mars Hill Church in Seattle. These are very insightful lectures on an issue that is very prevalent for the church today. I encourage you to make time to listen to what he has to say.

Below are the MP3s, PDFs of the handouts, and video’s of the lectures;

Session 1: Uncertain Hands of God and Men: Providence in Process Thought and Open Theism

Session 2: Independent Hands of God and Men: Providence in Classic Arminianism

Session 3: Coordinated Hands of God and Men: Providence in the Reformed Tradition

Thanks to Justin Taylor for posting this resource.

Edmund Clowney and Tim Keller on Gospel Centered Preaching and Teaching

One of the things I try to use my blog for is pointing teachers and preachers to good gospel-centered resources. Resources that help one grasp and teach the Bible with a Christ-centered focus. It’s been said that ‘preaching and teaching- instruct the listener on how to read, study, and understand the Bible.’ Therefore it is important that we as teachers help our listeners grasp the gospel of Jesus Christ with all its implications. (2 Timothy 1:13-14)

Reformed Theological Seminary has posted a wonderful (and free) lecture series on iTunes University that helps one understand how to teach and preach with a Christ-centered focus. These lectures were recorded in a seminary classroom taught by Dr. Edmund P. Clowney and Dr. Timothy J. Keller. Here are the titles of the lectures;

1. Introduction to the Christ-Centered Model and an Introduction to the Christ-Centered Exposition.

2. Expounding Christ: Structure of Redemptive History (1)

3. Expounding Christ: Structure of Redemptive History (2)

4. Applying Christ: Introduction Into Christ-Centered Application

5. Applying Christ: Getting to Christ

6. Expounding Christ: Structure of Redemptive History (3)

7. Expounding Christ: Telling God’s Story, Narrative Analysis

8. Applying Christ: Getting Down to Earth (1)

9. Applying Christ: Getting Down to Earth (2)

10. Expounding Christ: The Parable of the Prodigal Son

11. Expounding Christ: Christ and the Law

12. Applying Christ: Getting Inside Their World (1)

13. Applying Christ: Getting Inside Their World (2)

14. Expounding Christ: Christ in the Psalms

15. Expounding Christ: Christ in Wisdom Literature

16. Adoring Christ: Spiritual Reality

17. Expounding Christ: Asking Questions, Discourse Analysis

18. Adoring Christ: Communion With God

The “unofficial” notes for this class can be found here.

I would recommend that every pastor and teacher listen to these lectures (in the car, while walking, while mowing the grass…). I don’t care if you have been teaching or preaching for 30 years, don’t ever think that you are beyond learning.

One of the biggest hindrances to the gospel is non-Christian preaching- moralism, legalism, self-help, and vague religious talk. This tragedy of non-Christian preaching and teaching happens in pulpits and classrooms all across American Christian churches and seminaries, and is often done in ignorance.

Here is a good resource for sharpening your gospel focus in teaching. Use it.

Thoughts and Cautions on using the term “Free Will”.

Human freedom, or “free will” is a subject that we need to discuss with clarity and precision. In these discussions it is important to determine the nature and extent of human freedom. When most people talk about “free will” they have in mind the idea of uninfluenced, absolutely unaffected choices. No one has this type of freedom, no one.

For an absurd example, if I decided I wanted to fly, I could not. Flying is not part of my essential nature. A moral example, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). God is always perfectly true and cannot be less than God, and therefore cannot lie.

The idea of “absolute freedom” is a myth and absolutely impossible.

“Free Will”- Philosophical and Theological Considerations

Philosophically speaking, if humans had the absolute power to the contrary, we could thwart the plans of God, and we cannot (Job 42:2). Therefore, we need to be precise when we talk about human “freedom.”

“Free will” is a philosophical term (not a biblical term), and affirming the idea of absolute “free will” in humanity is very difficult to defend. The term “free will” is often unnecessarily confusing and requires too many qualifications.  Human freedom, in the absolute sense, must entail that human choices are entirely free from divine constraint or influence. This is problematic on many levels.

We are free, in a certain sense, but not absolutely. Any notion of freedom that we adopt must include the idea that our decisions are based on underlying reasons, and I think most of us would affirm that they are.

We are, as Wayne Grudem states, free to “make willing choices, choices that have real effects.” But this should not be confused with absolute freedom. As Christians we affirm that God ordains all things- everything. See Isaiah 46, “I will accomplish all my purpose.”

John Frame provides some good discussion boundaries in his article “Determinism, Chance, and Freedom.”

Basic human intuition reveals that we choose among various alternatives, but it never reveals to us that any of our choices are absolutely uncaused. In fact, Scripture contradicts this notion of “absolute freedom”, by ascribing divine backing to human decisions (Exod. 34:24, Is. 44:28, Dan. 1:9, John 19:24, Acts 13:48, 16:14), even when humans make sinful choices, God is not surprised (Gen. 45:5-8, Ps. 105:24, Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23-24, 3:18, 4:27-28, Rom. 9:17). But, this does not eliminate human responsibility.

Also, Scripture also contradicts “absolute freedom” by teaching that human decisions come from ones inner desires (Luke 6:45), and by teaching that the human heart is not free from God’s influence (Ps. 33:15, Prov. 21:1).

Finally, In Scripture, the basis of human responsibility is not absolute freedom, but God’s sovereign right to evaluate the conduct of his creatures (Rom. 9:19-21), and the knowledge (Luke 12:47-48, Rom. 1:18-32) and resources (Matt. 25:14-29) God has given to each person shows that in Scripture there is an important relation between responsibility and ability, but the abilities in view here do not include the absolute ability to choose opposite courses of action.

I agree with Martin Luther here; “I wish the word “free will” had never been invented. It is not in the Scriptures, and it were better to call it “self-will” [In my opinion, human volition, or human responsibility, anything other than free will].

“Freedom”- Towards Clarity

I think Don Carson makes some important points to affirm when talking about human freedom.

First, “human freedom cannot involve absolute power to the contrary; that is, it cannot include such liberal power that God himself becomes contingent.” To affirm absolute freedom one must also agree that God is always reacting to the actions of humans in order to fulfill his purposes. Even more so, it means that God cannot know in advance what free choices human beings would make. This is heretical.

Secondly, human freedom must be discussed in relation to the fall of mankind. Our wills are not truly free because they are enslaved by sin (John 8:34). Therefore, true freedom is only found in perfect obedience to God. Perfect obedience is not possible by sinful humanity, yet was accomplished by Christ. This is why we believe true freedom is found in Christ, and in Christ alone. Anthony Hoekema put it like this;

“Man’s true freedom, which he lost in the Fall, is restored in the process of redemption. [I take this to mean that total freedom, to be obedient to God, will ultimately be restored in the resurrection body] When the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, renews the image of God in him or her, and begins in him or her the work of sanctification, that person is enabled to turn to God in repentance and faith, and to do what is truly pleasing in God’s sight…Redemption therefore means deliverance from the bondage of the will; the regenerated person is no longer a slave to sin.”

For more, here is an excellent post on “Free Will” by John Piper.

Resources on engaging the “New Atheists”- Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett.

Here are a few good resources on engaging the “new atheist” movement that I have bookmarked over the last year or so;

1. Tim Keller“New Atheists: How should Christians Respond” (Video)

2. John Piper“Making Room for Atheism” (Article), and sermon clip “Atheist Worldview” (the whole sermon is titled “In Him was Life”)

3. Albert Mohler Lectures on New Atheism (Video)

Lecture 1: The New Atheism and the Endgame of Secularism
Lecture 2: The New Atheism and the Assault on Theism
Lecture 3: The New Atheism and the Defense of Theism
Lecture 4: The New Atheism and the Future of Christianity

These lectures were later published as a book titled, “Atheism Remix.”

4. Gary Habermas- The Plight of the New Atheism: A Critique (Journal Article)

5. William Lane Craig- God is Not Dead Yet (Magazine Article)

Speak the truth in love…

The Gospel and Evangelical Pietism!

I am currently finishing a book called “Jesus, Made in America.” In this book Stephen J. Nichols traces Jesus in American culture. He shows how Jesus has been shaped by our cultural sensibilities throughout American history. It is a fascinating read.

I am not going to regurgitate the book for you, but I do want to expound on one key point. Nichols points out that the evangelical church champions personal pietism. What is pietism?

Simply put, this strand of pietism places all emphasis on personal experience, champions devotion, focuses on practice- and often times ignores doctrine.

When doctrine is ignored pietism is extremely dangerous. Actually, in my opinion pietism by itself- is anti-gospel.

Nichols writes;

“Pietism leads us to say that imitating Christ is far better than having a right set of beliefs about who Christ is. Pietism leads to viewing Christ primarily from the lens of personal experience rather than the lenses of Gospel pericopies or of theological formulations.”

This is almost humorous. I don’t know how someone can even imitate Christ unless they have a right set of beliefs of who He actually is? Plus, the main aim of the Christian life is not to imitate Christ, but to trust in Christ. My fear is that too many Christians trust in themselves, and even attempt to justify themselves by their “imitation of Christ.”

The gospel is at stake.

The sad thing is that many contemporary Evangelical Christians lean more on their devotion to Christ, rather than Christ Himself. Catch the subtle nuance here- it’s huge.

Leaning on your “devotion to Christ” tells you that your Christian identity and self-worth are based on how hard you work, or how moral you are. This is not the Gospel. This is when personal pietism becomes a deadly idol.

Here is a good post to help you think through this issue in your own life. “The Gospel vs. Religion”– (via Nathan Finn)

“What is God’s Will for My Life?”

People are constantly stressing over “God’s will for their lives.” I hear it all the time. It’s the false idea that “we need some clear miraculous sign before we make any decision.” I read a great book last night that deals with this faulty mindset…

The book is Kevin DeYoung’s“Just Do Something.” I love the subtitle, which is “How to make a decision without dreams, visions, fleeces, impressions, open doors, random Bible verses, casting lots, liver shivers, writing in the sky, etc.”

I also love the purpose of the book. He writes, “I’d like us to consider that maybe we have difficulty discovering God’s wonderful plans for our lives because, it truth be told, He doesn’t really intend to tell us what it is. And maybe we’re wrong to expect Him to.”

DeYoung is simply attacking this idea that “God’s will” is some mystical majestic purpose that God has for you, and if you don’t find it your life will be a failure. While must of us don’t use these exact words- we prove his point in our lives. The point is simple, “stop thinking about God’s will like a corn maze, a tightrope, or a bulls-eye.”

He writes, “God is not a magic 8-ball that we shake up and peer into whenever we have a decision to make. He is a good God who gives us brains, shows us the way of obedience, and invites us to take risks for Him. We know God has a plan for our lives…The problem is we think He’s going to tell us the wonderful plan before it unfolds.”

This book is written clearly with biblical grounding, sharp analysis, and wit. Without revealing the whole of the book I will simply say that DeYoung effectively shows us that God’s will is simple- that we would be sanctified. More than that, when it comes to hard decisions we should use biblically informed, spirit filled wisdom rather than waiting for “a sign.”

Too many people worry so much about finding God’s perfect will for their lives that they end up in a frustrated state of paralyzed indecision. But DeYoung provides a good biblical grid to rethink what we actually mean when we talk about God’s will.

I highly recommend this book. – “JUST DO SOMETHING.”

Also- See this post.

Also- See this lesson written by Derek Radney.

David Nelson: “A Curmudgeon on Evangelical Worship”

A curmudgeon is a “crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man.” In my opinion this is a funny word to use in reference to critically thinking about worship music in the church today. Funny because,

1. That’s the way we view most complaints against the particulars of church life in the first place- as coming from the church curmudgeon.

2. What makes this title even funnier, in my opinion, is that Dr. Nelson knows that he will be charged as a curmudgeon for being honest. So, I guess I get the irony here…

Either way, I think these are good thoughts on trajectory of most worship music used in American churches today.

David P. Nelson is senior vice president for academic administration and dean of the faculty at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he teaches courses in systematic theology and worship. Dr. Nelson has contributed to a book on this topic titled Authentic Worship, his chapter is on “the use of music in worship.” I am not sure how many more entries he will post?

A Curmudgeon Weighs in On Evangelical Worship

A Curmudgeon Weighs in On Evangelical Worship, Part 2

A Curmudgeon Weighs in on Evangelical Worship, Part 3

The Return of the Curmudgeon: Disney-World Worship (Part 2): Musical Disproportionality

A Curmudgeon Weighs in on Evangelical Worship: Disney World Worship (Part 3): The Sovereignty of Technology

The Gospel of Jesus Christ- 1 Corinthians 15:1-9

In D.A. Carson’s keynote address delivered at The Gospel Coalition’s first conference in May 2007 he explained the different “angles” of the gospel using 1 Cor 15:1–19. The message was titled “The Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is a great read! So many times we, as Christians, forget the essence of the gospel message. Carson provides us with a good reminder.

The Gospel is…

  1. Christological: The gospel centers on the person and work (the life, death, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ.
  2. Theological: The gospel tells us that sin is first and foremost an offense against God and that salvation is first to last the action of God, not our own.
  3. Biblical: The gospel is essentially the message of the whole Bible.
  4. Apostolic: The gospel is passed on to us by Jesus’ disciples as authoritative eyewitnesses.
  5. Historical: The gospel is not philosophy or advice on how to find God, but rather news of what God has done in history to find and save us.
  6. Personal: The gospel must be personally believed and appropriated.
  7. Universal: The gospel is for every tongue, tribe, people, and individual.
  8. Eschatological: The gospel includes the good news of the final transformation, not just the blessings we enjoy in this age.

Carson then offers “5 clarifying sentences” on the gospel.

1. This gospel is normally disseminated in proclamation.
2. This gospel is fruitfully received in authentic, persevering faith.
3. This gospel is properly disclosed in personal self-humiliation.
4. This gospel is rightly asserted to be the central confession of the whole church.
5. This gospel is boldly advancing under the contested reign and inevitable victory of Jesus the king.

Read the whole thing, it’s well worth it! Click here.

The Gospel vs. Christianized Therapeutic Deism

The other night I was reading David Wells’ plenary address to the 2007 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The address was titled “Christian Discipleship in a Postmodern World.”

Part of Wells argument pointed out that we live in a culture obsessed with ‘display’ where we can “create our own lifestyle and image.” He showed examples from our culture of our obsession with “projecting our own individuality and style” and how it dominates our way of thinking.

The point, we are captivated with ourselves.  So much so that ‘we’ have become the center of our own reality, and we insist on asserting our own autonomy.

Some of you are thinking…”thank you captain obvious.” (I admit, this post is a little ironic considering that I am writing on “my blog”)

Here is where all this social analysis becomes important. Our faith is not formed in a vacuum. Many people in our culture think that the chief end of Christianity is to “make us feel better, help us make better choices, and resolve troubles.” For many Americans the gospel of Jesus Christ is about ‘themselves.’

And this becomes the message that many preachers ‘sell’ their people every week. It’s what many of the books on the shelves at the Christian book store push. It’s why we offer so many classes at our churches that have very little to do with developing true gospel maturity- seriously, think about it.

We need to realize that the point of the Gospel is not to make us  “feel good” about ourselves- in and of ourselves we have no reason to feel good about who we are. The point is that we all are radically depraved sinners and Christ is our only hope! The point of the Gospel is for us to joy in who Jesus Christ is, and what He alone can offer us!

The purpose of the Gospel is not the “help us make better choices”– but to show us that we cannot be saved by our own moral goodness (making all the ‘right choices’). The goal of the church is not to develop self willed morality in our people, but a gospel centered heart that understands and exposes sinful nature- and turns to Christ as our only hope! This kind of heart results in obedient lives.

The Gospel does not simply “resolve our troubles” but shows us that we have so many troubles that we need to be saved, we must trust in something else other than ourselves, namely Jesus Christ.

But, here is where Wells nails it-

In a culture obsessed with display, where I can project any image of “myself” I desire, or ‘be who I want you to think I am’, it becomes very easy to ignore who we really are. Or, to put it another way, it becomes very easy to project to our Christian friends ‘that which we are not.’

This is where thinking deeply about God’s word comes into play.

The Word of God is what “summons us to come outside of ourselves to know the God who transcends all cultures and times.” It is by this Word- that God “intrudes upon us, and invades our private space.”

Wells’ makes the argument that “we are captivated with ourselves” even stronger by pointing out that “it is entirely possible to affirm the inspiration of Scripture and yet miss its whole point…Scripture is not a manual for success, nor yet a textbook for therapeutic help, but the Word of God.”

This means that we- as Christians- need to be honest about who we are in and of ourselves, who God is, and who we are in Christ.

God and only God can break this captivity to ourselves and to our own autonomous subjectivity. What I fear is that the gospel message (for many people) promotes nothing more than “Christianized Therapeutic Deism” rather than a God exalting- humble realization of our own sin and a deep confidence in Jesus Christ.

May God’s Spirit do a deep work in the American church.

Jonah 3:10- “Does God Repent?”

“When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented (some translations read ‘repent’) of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”Jonah 3:10

A Perspective from Biblical Theology

Too often the prophets are thought of mainly as predictors of the future. But the truth is that they were mainly forthtellers, for they spoke forth the word of God over against the rising tide of idolatry, apostasy, and sin of the nation.

Now, some care must be taken to distinguish between the prophetic words that were unconditional and unilateral versus those prophecies that were conditioned on the responses of the person(s) addressed.

The unconditional promises of God were the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants- wherein God alone obliged himself to fulfill what he had said.

But all other words of declared judgment had an expressed or unexpressed contingency clause in their words of certain doom.

So, while Jonah gave a confident message that in forty days judgment would come to Nineveh, he had an awful feeling that if they repented, God would relent, and the judgment would be held off for a period of time.

Ultimately we find out that a century later, the same nation, in another generation, felt that the prophet Jonah had cried wolf, and judgment finally came.

The principle for asserting this kind of interpretation can be found in Jeremiah 18:7-10.

“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

The implications follow;

Kiser notes: “Whenever the Lord announces that a nation is to be destroyed, and that nation repents, then God will not bring the disaster he had threatened them with, despite the fact that there were no contingency clauses- no “if’s” or “unlesses” directly listed with the threat. However, just as true was the reverse situation: God may declare his blessing on a nation only to find that nation cares very little, if at all, for him. God will then rescind his word of promise to bless that people by bringing disaster on that nation he would have blessed had they responded differently.”

Perspective from Linguistic Data

The words used to translate the Hebrew verbs sub and niham have caused considerable debate about the immutability of God.

Here is the key: the verb sub (to turn) is used to describe the people of Nineveh’s repentance. It has the idea of “changing direction” and “repenting of evil ways.”

While the verb niham is used of God repenting (relenting) has the idea of being moved to pity- having compassion. He, in his longsuffering, takes it upon himself the evil which is the wages of man’s sin. According to Bladwin verses 8-10 give us a deep theological picture of God;

8. “Let each man turn”
9. “God may be moved to pity”
10. “God saw that they had turned, so God relented.”

Allen translates it as follows,

“When God saw their reaction, how they turned (sub) from their wicked ways, he relented (niham) and did not carry out the punishment with which he had threatened them.”

While the English term ‘repent’ conveys the idea of a change in behavior from worse to better, the Hebrew word niham refers rather to a decision to act otherwise. The English word ‘relent’ conveys the actual message clearer.

God relenting here reveals God’s earnest desire to be true to his own immutable character- as revealed in Jeremiah 18:7-10. God’s action in relenting does not challenge the doctrine of immutability, for immutability simply states that;

a. God is unchanging in His being and character.
b. God is unchanging in His purposes and will.

We need to distinguish between God’s eternally unchanging character and how we understand His actions towards us humans- who exist in time.

What we do see however is that God is free to decide how he will relate to humans. In being consistent with his attributes and purposes- God relents from His anger when a sinner repents. (2 Peter 3:9)

This is accomplished without ramifications to his Holy character because of Christ’s work on the cross. (Romans 3:25)

Note: I think John Piper sums it up well here;

“God’s repentance is not like man’s. I take that to mean that God is not taken off guard by unexpected turns of events like we are. He knows all the future. (“Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them,” Isaiah 42:9). Nor does God ever sin. So his repentance is not owing to lack of foresight nor to folly.

Rather, the repentance of God is his expression of a different attitude and action about something past or future—not because events have taken him off guard, but because events make the expression of a different attitude more fitting now than it would have been earlier. God’s mind “changes,” not because it responds to unforeseen circumstances, but because he has ordained that his mind accord with the way he himself orders the changing events of the world.”