Landon Coleman's Blog

Recently a friend attended the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church. That friend brought me a gift from the conference, Sinclair Ferguson’s impressive book, Some Pastors and Teachers: Reflecting a Biblical Vision of What Every Minister Is Called To Be. The book it historical theology applied to pastoral ministry. Ferguson takes his stand with the Reformers and the Puritans, then brings the past to bear on modern day ministry.

One particular chapter struck me as I read it in the middle of my attempt to prepare a sermon on the temple vision of Ezekiel 40-48. That chapter was number 18, “Preaching the Law of God: Reformers and Puritans.” On page 333, Ferguson gives a four point list that summarizes the aim of Puritan preaching. That list is as follows:

Puritan preaching was intended to unmask the hypocrite who relies on works rather than grace.Puritan preaching was intended to convert the sinner.Puritan preaching was intended to comfort the afflicted.Puritan preaching was intended to build up the saints to equip them to glorify and enjoy God and to prepare them for heaven.

Anyone who has done much preaching or teaching to a congregation of any sizes knows the immense challenge of balancing these four aims. How easy it is to frame a sermon around the goal of unmasking hypocrites and false converts! How easy it is to write a sermon solely focused on the conversion of a sinner! How easy it is to craft a message that offers gospel comfort to the suffering people of God! How easy it is to prepare a lesson that will strengthen, edify, and educate God’s people!

But, how challenging it is to balance these aims in a single sermon or lesson!

The pursuit of this kind of preaching and teaching requires the pastor / teacher to keep the varied nature of his congregation in mind. In other words, those who proclaim the Word of God must remember to whom they are speaking.

We speak to hypocrites who wrongly think they are “saved.” We speak to sinners who are in desperate need of Christ. We speak to believers who are struggling and suffering.We speak to Christians who need to be taught and discipled.

Every sermon or lesson will likely not contain an equal measure of focus for each category of listener. However, each message should aim to expose hypocrisy, offer grace, comfort the hurting, and feed the flock.

Several moths back I wrote a post titled “5 Great Books on Prayer.” This post is a follow up list for those who are looking for something shorter than a book – let’s call them booklets. Here are 5 short booklets on prayer – each of which really does pack a big punch and a hefty challenge!

A Call to Prayer, JC Ryle … This is an old book, but the challenge feels very contemporary. Ryle’s questions are deeply convicting.

Why Do We Pray, Stanley Gale … It’s one thing to learn how to pray. It’s another thing to understand why we pray. Motivation matters.

How Can I Cultivate Private Prayer, Joel Beeke … This entire series of booklets is helpful and practical. Beeke’s booklet is a valuable tool.

Enjoy Your Prayer Life, Michael Reeves … Prayer doesn’t have to be all discipline and drudgery and “have-to.” There can be joy in prayer.

Brass Heavens, Paul Tautges … What do you do when your prayers bounce back off the ceiling – or off of “brass heavens?” Tautges offers encouragement.

Charlie Kirk was willing to talk to anyone about anything, anytime, anywhere. In a digital echo-chamber world controlled by algorithms that silo us into bubbles of people just like us, Charlie Kirk talked to his enemies, face to face.

Charlie Kirk was the epitome of civil discourse and respect. He debated fiercely and playfully teased his opponents, but he did not speak angrily, rarely raised his voice, and often smiled even as his enemies berated and slandered him. 

Charlie Kirk was so “anti-fascist” that he literally handed his enemies a microphone so they could convince the crowd of their views. The world often accuses the right of trying to silence objections and debate, but Charlie Kirk actually put vocal amplification in the hands of those who disagreed with him.

Charlie Kirk courageously spoke about (the Christian) faith and (American) politics, and he didn’t pretend like the two could be separated or isolated. He was not dissuaded by the lie that “separation of church and state” implies the “separation of theology and politics.”

Charlie Kirk was brilliant. He built an impressive organization with no previous executive experience. He communicated clearly, intuitively, and persuasively. He boldly defended the Christian faith on the most hostile territory imaginable – secular universities dominated by radical leftists, communists, and LGBTQ activists. 

For all that, Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood. Charlie Kirk was assassinated for speaking against the orthodoxy of the left. Charlie Kirk was martyred for vigorously defending the doctrine and morality of the Christian faith.

The murder, assassination, martyrdom of Charlie Kirk combined with the unhinged reaction of so many on the left lead me to the following conclusions.

One, there is no serious “liberal” party in this country (unless you count the moderate wing of the GOP). There is no left who wants to “live and let live,” to coexist and agree to disagree. The left has morphed into a party that is dominated by radical extremists who don’t want to talk or debate. These radicals want anyone right of Liz Cheney and John McCain silenced – and silenced at all costs. Charlie Kirk sought to dialogue with these people, and rather than dialogue, they killed him. Additionally, the “left” promotes and celebrates the normalization of all manner of sexual perversion and the mutilization of confused children. The radicals want to punish those who refuse to celebrate their moral revolution. The “live-and-let-live-liberal” left is largely gone.

Two, the two political parties in the USA simply cannot be compared with any kind of moral equivalency. The left erupted with violence and chaos, burning cities after George Floyd died. The right responded with prayer gatherings when Charlie Kirk died. When Republicans in Congress wanted to pray for Kirk’s widow and orphaned children, it was Democrats who objected and heckled. In the past, right and left were marginally different. Those days are gone. Right and left are not the same. Get past the wild, baseless comparisons to Hitler and accusations of fascism, and take a look at the self-proclaimed platform of the Democrat party. In no way, shape, or form can the moral agenda of the left be reconciled with New Testament ethics. The embrace and celebration of all manner of sexual perversion and the promotion of child mutilation is nothing short of demonic.

Three, the left hates the white, nuclear family. They’ve said this openly for years in academic circles. Rather than embracing the nuclear family unit as the building block of human civilization and the key to national prosperity, the left sees the white, nuclear family as a hegemonic threat to be dismantled. If you don’t believe me, you don’t have to listen to the academics and critical theorists. Just look at the vitriol posted online regarding Kirk’s death, Kirk’s widow, and Kirk’s orphaned children. This hate was and is horrific, even if it’s not surprising. The same people said the same things to Kirk’s face – why would anyone be surprised they would say the same vile things to his widow and orphaned children? Wicked people digitally laughed in the face of his grieving widow and orphaned children. They laughed because they are filled with and fueled by demonic hate – hate that despises the promotion of a white, nuclear family.

Four, the exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric of the left radicalizes mentally unstable people to violence by calling their enemies Hitler, Nazis, and fascists. The labels used are used with great intentionality. Those who throw rhetorical Molotov-cocktails are hoping to incite violence and revolution. Recent experience shows it is not the GOP or conservatives or even MAGA who attack and murder their political and religious opponents. Islamic extremists continue to persecute and victimize Christians in both Europe and across the Muslim world. Closer to home, polls show that a large percentage of the radical left think political violence is acceptable if the right person on the right is being targeted. Thus, the radical left and Islamic terrorists share a belief that violence should be used to silence one’s opponents. How can one hope to have a “civil debate” with a party in which the majority condones political violence? Short answer, you can’t.

Five, the hypocrites who have taken to their microphones and keyboards to blame Kirk’s murder / assassination / martyrdom on his outspoken personality are nothing short of evil. These people are an outrageous example of blaming the victim while defending and empowering the guilty. Our constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. That speech does not have to be approved by either side of the political aisle, and that freedom should preclude the threat of death for those who say unpopular things. Those who blame Kirk’s boldness for his death will only encourage other mentally unstable people to attack anyone who dares disagree with the orthodoxy of the left. Even a liberal like Bill Maher has recently called for a moratorium on the “Hitler / Fascist” accusations, recognizing it only radicalizes mentally unstable people to violence.

Six, you can kill the messenger, but the message will endure. Charlie Kirk bled out in Utah, but the message of Christ crucified for sinners will endure and overcome, even against the gates of hell.

My church (Immanuel) switched affiliation from the BGCT to the SBTC in 2014. One of the main reasons was the softness of the BGCT on the issue of the ordination of women and the clarity offered by the SBTC as a confessional convention adhering to the Baptist Faith and Message (2000).

Recently, I recently served four years as a member of the Committee on Order of Business for the SBTC. That committee helps plan the annual meeting and make decisions about business that needs to be brought before the messengers. In 2022 Ben Wright made a motion that the SBTC clarify its interpretation of our own bylaws. That motion called the SBTC to clarify that the title and office of pastor was reserved for qualified men.

I was shocked at the opposition to Ben’s motion in 2022. Prominent pastors – men I respected – spoke against Ben’s motion. Again, I was shocked at the opposition in 2023 when we saw a heavy handed push to delay the implementation of the 2022 vote, as well as an announcement for a future amendment that would “carve out” an allowance for female staff pastors. Again, I was shocked at the opposition in 2024 when there was an attempt to use parliamentary rules to go back and undo the clear will of the messengers in 2022. Still again, I am shocked that the Credentials Committee of the SBTC has seemingly allowed a church to remain in friendly cooperation by changing the title “pastor” to “shepherd.” This change is an insult to the clearly expressed will of the messengers of recent SBTC meetings. It is also an insult to the intelligence of the messengers of the SBTC, as if we don’t know that the Greek word poimen is translated “shepherd” or “pastor” in English.

My questions are as follows.

Why are some SBTC pastors dead-set on allowing a carve out for female “staff” pastors? On what basis do some of these pastors distinguish between elders and overseers on the one hand, and pastors on the other hand? I’ve heard the Rick Warren styled arguments, and like most SBTC pastors, I stand entirely unconvinced that there is a distinction to be made between pastors and elders.

Why don’t these churches just affiliate with the BGCT which already allows churches to recognize female pastors? I’m not demanding that anyone leave, nor am I trying to run anyone off. I am wondering … Why didn’t Rick Warren simply leave the SBC? Why didn’t FBC Alexandria simply leave the SBC? Why don’t these egalitarian leaning SBTC churches simply affiliate with the more moderate state convention? They say it’s a matter of church autonomy, and they insist that the SBTC doesn’t have standing to tell churches what to believe. I actually agree about the importance of autonomy – but I also know that the SBTC has every right to set the parameters of “friendly cooperation.” We already do this on a host of other areas – baptism, inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith not works. There is no reason why the SBTC could not clarify this issue as essential to friendly cooperation. Doing so would be no violation of church autonomy – it would only be the rightful exercise of convention authority to define who can partner with the SBTC.

Why don’t these churches simply change the titles female staff members to align with biblical categories? Titles like children’s director / leader / minister all convey biblical ideas without hi-jacking the biblical office (and titles) of elder / pastor / shepherd / overseer which are clearly limited to qualified men. Furthermore, the current push to allow for female “staff pastors” while prohibiting female “senior pastors” is entirely artificial and unstable. What possible exegetical support could their be for allowing one (female staff pastors) while prohibiting the other (female senior pastors)? I’ve heard no reasonable explanation for this position. In other words, if the STBC caves and allows churches to use the title elder / pastor / shepherd / overseer for female staff, we will eventually allow for female senior pastors. Once that hermeneutical approach is accepted, there is no backstop to prevent a collapse.

Why not just recognize the clear will of the messengers in the SBTC is to reserve the title and office and function of pastor to qualified men? Wright’s motion in 2022 passed with an overwhelming majority. The proposed delay in 2023 only passed with a very slim margin. The parliamentary parlor-trick was overwhelmingly rejected in 2024.

Based on what I’ve seen over the last four years, the overwhelming majority of SBTC pastors seem to be in favor of a consistent complementarian position – one that reserves the title and office of elder / pastor / shepherd / overseer to qualified men, and one that allows for female staff to be recognized as directors, leaders, and even ministers. Nevertheless, there seems to be a handful of influential leaders who want to push us toward a more egalitarian position. While I think the cries of “autonomy” are a red herring that have nothing to do with the expressed will of the convention, I do agree that this is fundamentally an issue of ecclesiology. The SBTC is a convention of churches partnering together to plant churches. That means we must have clarity and agreement on what kind of churches we’re going to plant. Furthermore, as a convention that has always stood for the inerrancy and authority of God’s Word, this is an issue of biblical authority. The Word of God is clear. That means we, too, must be clear.

A fellow pastor has written a helpful article on this same issue based on his experience with the credentials committee of the SBTC. You can read that article here.

When people ask me the question, “Are you a Calvinist?” my answer is usually, “It depends on what you think a Calvinist is!” This isn’t an attempt to be evasive or deceptive. Rather, it’s a recognition that most people who have a negative, gut-level reaction to the idea of “Calvinism” are also asking questions that are really objections. These objections are typically based on one of several misconceptions about what “Calvinists” actually believe. Here are the most common misconceptions people have when it comes to “Calvinism.”

“If God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, that means God is the author of evil and God is responsible for sending people to hell.” To be sure, Calvinists do believe that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. However, no real Calvinist believes that God is the author of evil or that God is responsible for sending people to hell. Calvinists believe James 1:13 which says God cannot be tempted with evil, nor does God tempt anyone with evil. God is clearly sovereign over evil (see Job 1-2), and God certainly ordains evil (see the suffering of Joseph and the crucifixion of Jesus), but this doesn’t mean God is the author of evil. Reformed theologians often make a distinction between primary and secondary causes, insisting that God is not the primary cause of evil in the world. Furthermore, the clear teaching of the Bible is that those who spend eternity in hell are receiving the just reward for their sins. Calvinists believe in human responsibility (even if they don’t believe in a libertarian view of free-will that doesn’t reckon with the fall of mankind and the depravity of human beings). Even Calvinists who believe in “double-predestination” would insist that unbelievers spend eternity in hell because of their heinous sin against the holy, holy, holy God.

“If God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, that means evangelism is irrelevant and God is going to save whoever he decides to save.” To be sure, Calvinists do believe that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. However, no real Calvinist believes that evangelism is irrelevant or that God will save people apart from the preaching of the gospel and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists believe Romans 10:13-17 which says everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved – but those who call on Jesus have to first hear about Jesus, which means someone has to first preach about Jesus, which requires someone to be sent. God uses ordained means (the preaching the gospel) to accomplish his ordained ends (the salvation for the elect). Furthermore, Calvinists are solid on the question of exclusivism – only those who hear the gospel, experience the regenerating work of the Spirit, repent of their sins, and believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. Thus, evangelism and missions are both essential and urgent. Historically, there are many examples of Calvinists being deeply and sacrificially committed to the work of taking the gospel to those who have never heard (William Carey, George Whitefield, Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson, Charles Simeon, Henry Martyn, David Brainerd, Charles Spurgeon, Francis Schaeffer, John Eliot, John Stott, D. James Kennedy).

“If God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, that means our choices have no meaning and our actions are pre-programmed and determined.” To be sure, Calvinists do believe that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. However, no real Calvinist believes that human beings are merely pre-programmed robots whose lives and actions and decisions have no moral significance. Calvinists believe Romans 3:23 and 6:23, all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, and the wages of our sin is death. Our sinful hearts move us to commit actual sins, and our sins have real and eternal consequences. Some Calvinists prefer the language of Luther who wrote about the “bondage of the will.” Others prefer the language of Edwards who wrote about the “freedom of the will.” Both men believed that human beings have a will that makes morally significant decisions and choices. And, both men believed that all human beings are born in a state of sin so that – apart from the gracious intervention of God – we always and only choose sin. Luther spoke of bondage to emphasize sin’s control over our wills, while Edwards spoke of freedom to emphasize that our wills were free to choose what we wanted – which, apart from God’s gracious intervention is always and only sin. Thus, Calvinists certainly believe that our choices have meaning, and these meaningful choices are made by our wills – wills that apart from the miracle of regeneration are warped and bound by sin. True freedom is only experienced by those who are born again.

Several months back my church worked through a Wednesday night study of the Apostles’ Creed. Those sermons can be found online at Spotify, Podbean, iTunes, or wherever you listen to podcasts. In this series, we divided the Apostles’ Creed into 14 sections. Each week we gave attention to a line or two from the Creed, and each week we started with one reason creeds and confessions of faith are important. We started each week in this way because most Baptists grow up with the idea that we need no creed but the Bible, that we don’t care about church history – only what the Bible says. This is a simplistic, naive, and foolish way of thinking. So, each week we discussed one reason creeds and confessions are not only helpful, but essential for the life of God’s people. Here’s the list.

All Christians have a creed. Some people do you the dignity of writing down their creed so that it can be studied and compared to the Bible. Others hold their creeds informally and secretly, so that you’re always wondering how they line up to the Bible … “Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation, and, crucially, not therefore subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.” (Carl Trueman, Crisis of Confidence)Christians are believing people. The word “creed” comes from the Latin “credo,” which simply means “I believe.” A creed is simply a statement that summarizes what a person believes about the Bible, Christ, salvation, or some other point of theology … “Each stanza of the Apostles’ Creed begins with the Latin word, credo, ‘I believe.” … Christians are a believing people, and they place their belief in the objective truth claims of the Scriptures.” (Albert Mohler, The Apostles’ Creed)Christians are called to give a reason for our hope in Christ. The work of apologetics is defending what we believe, and the work of evangelism is proclaiming what we believe. Unless you’re going to only quote Scripture in apologetics and evangelism, you’re going to need a creed – a summary statement of what it is that you believe. It is better to have a thought out, well-written creed than to simply “fly by the seat of your pants” in the work of apologetics and evangelism … “The true Christian should be, indeed must be, a theologian. He must know at least something of the wealth of truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures. And he must know it with sufficient clarity to state it and defend his statement. And what can be stated and defended is a creed.” (AW Tozer, The Apostles’ Creed)Christians need guardrails and guidance. When you take a trip, you need a map or a GPS to guide you. Creeds and confessions offer this kind of guidance for the people of God. In addition to guidance, they also offer guardrails, protecting us from theological error and imbalance … “If you are going to travel cross-country on foot, you need a map … If life is a journey, then the million-word-long Holy Bible is the large-scale map with everything in it, and the hundred-word Apostles’ Creed … is the simplified road map, ignoring much but enabling you to see at a glance the main points of Christian belief.” (JI Packer, Affirming the Apostles’ Creed) … “The Apostles’ Creed functions as a guardrail for our teaching and instruction. Indeed, the creeds protect teachers from stumbling into error by providing a rule to follow and boundaries for healthy theological discussion and development.” (Albert Mohler, The Apostles’ Creed)Christians must seek unity in the truth. Many mindlessly repeat the mantra, “No creed but the Bible!” They do so not realizing that this statement in-and-of-itself is a creed, as it is not a direct quotation from the Bible itself. It’s also a pitifully short creed that doesn’t clarify what we believe about important issues. The only way for Christians to find unity is to first agree that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and second to agree about what the Bible says … “The slogan “No creed but the Bible” conceals the fact that in almost any group, crucial biblical statements will be properly understood by some and misunderstood by others. In such cases, it is naïve to say that the Bible unites us. It may not be uniting us at all. It may be a vague cloak for significant disunity. And that doesn’t honor the Scriptures.” (John Piper, Desiring God)Christians must beware of false teachers. Believe it or not, false teachers don’t show up in the church (or online) with a badge that says “Hello! I’m a false teacher.” Rather, they sneak in from the outside and they rise up from within the church. The vast majority of these false teachers don’t show up asking people to ditch the Bible. Instead, they show up with proof-verses for their ideas from the Bible. Therefore, the church needs creeds and confessions to help guard the sheep from the wolves … “The church, however, has understood since its founding that heresy and false teaching exist and that these are horrible dangers to the people of God … Heresy, the denial of a doctrine central to Christianity, departs from the truth and thus has eternal consequences. The church needs the creeds not only to teach the truth but to guard against error.” (Albert Mohler, The Apostles’ Creed)Christians do not believe in solus motus (emotions alone). Today, one’s feelings and emotions are often taken as undeniable and unassailable. We are a people ruled by our inner selves and our personal sense of reality. The objective nature of a written creed is a stark contrast to the “expressive individualism” of our post-modern culture … “In a world increasingly inclined to radical subjectivism, creeds and confessions represent a clear assertion of objective reality … Emotions do play a part in what it means to be a moral person. If I see someone being physically attacked on the street and feel no outrage, then it would be fair to say that there is something morally problematic about me. Yet feelings cannot be the sold guide to morality.” (Carl Trueman, Crisis of Confidence)Christians must disciple new believers. At Pentecost, the majority who were saved and added to the church were Jews steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures. As Gentiles started flooding into the church, the early church found it necessary to develop tools for teaching and discipleship. New converts had to be “brought up to speed” on biblical and theological truth. The Apostles’ Creed was one such tool, and it was often associated with one’s baptism and public profession of faith … “One of the most important functions of the Apostles’ Creed, like all faithful creeds, is that it helps the church to teach and prepare new believers for faithfulness and maturity in the faith of the church. New believers in the early church were often asked to affirm the lines of the Apostles’ Creed, one by one affirming their belief and confession of the true Christian faith.” (Albert Mohler, The Apostles’ Creed) … “The Creed itself was born as an instrument of evangelism – first, as a summary syllabus for catechetical teaching of the faith to non-Jewish inquirers, and then as a declaration of personal faith for converts to use at the time of their baptism.” (JI Packer, Affirming the Apostles Creed)Christians must value Scripture first and tradition second. The Reformation idea of sola scriptura doesn’t mean that we reject all tradition or extra-biblical writing. It does mean, however, that we elevate Scripture to the highest place of authority, allowing the inspired, inerrant Word of God to rule over all of our doctrinal formulations. Thus, Scripture is our highest and final authority, but beneath Scripture we must maintain the faith once for all delivered to the saints through the use of creeds and confessions … “Most evangelicals, for example, will typically use Bible translations … And we can take this reflection a step further. All Protestant pastors, even the most fundamentalist, will, if they are remotely competent, prepare their sermons with the helps of lexicons, commentaries, and books of theology. As soon as they take down one of these books from their bookcases and start to read it, of course, they are drawing positively on church tradition.” (Carl Trueman, Crisis of Confidence)Christians are worshiping people. Jesus calls people to worship in spirit and truth – he wants his followers to worship from their hearts and with their minds. The minute we begin to think about the message of the Bible in words other than the actual words of Scripture, we are engaging in the theological work of creeds and confessions. This includes our prayers and songs, most of which are not verbatim quotations from the Bible even if they are drawn from the Bible … “The Apostles’ Creed delineates the most glorious and splendid truths of the Christian faith. It naturally ushers our souls into heartfelt worship and praise of God. The creeds, therefore, guide the church in worship and contain the most previous truths through which we can worship God and rightly praise his name.” (Albert Mohler, The Apostles’ Creed)Christians are people who believe in Jesus. This point may sound ridiculously obvious – Christians believe in Jesus Christ. That sounds simple enough, that is until one asks the obvious next question, “Which Jesus?” The Mormon Jesus? The Jehovah’s Witness Jesus? The Liberal Jesus? The Nazi Jesus? The atheist Jesus? Intellectual honesty demands that we recognize the fact that these various Jesuses are not the same even as they all claim to be “biblical.” Thus, we need a creed to clarify which Jesus we believe in … “The Holy Spirit does not call us to faith in general, but to faith in particular – to faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.” (RC Sproul, What We Believe)Christians are connected to the past. Many modern people have no sense of history, no sense of the past and those who came before us. Evangelical Protestants tend to be especially guilty of ignorance when it comes to the story of church history. Sometimes reformed evangelicals talk as if church history started with Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is tragic, as there is a wealth of wisdom to be found in the pre-Reformation church. Creeds and confessions like the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, and the Athanasian Creed help connect us to the rich history of the church … “This is why creeds and confessions are even more important now than before: they anchor us in history; they offer us reasonably comprehensive frameworks for thinking about the connections between God, anthropology, and ethics; and above all they point us to the transcendent God who rules over all things.” (Carl Trueman, Crisis of Confidence)Christians ought to think biblically. It’s certainly a good, biblical practice for believers to memorize the Word of God. However, thinking biblically involves more than simply being able to recite Bible verses and addresses. Christians are called to have minds transformed by the Word of God so that they are not conformed to the pattern of this world. Creeds and confessions can help us turn biblical truth into biblical thinking … “These documents do not seek to replace Scripture. Instead, they accurately seek to summarize its content into succinct statements in order to equip Christians with brief yet crucial distillations of the faith.” (Albert Mohler, The Apostles’ Creed) … “There are some who boast that they have no creed, but this is equivalent to saying that they have no faith, for our creed is simply the sum total of our beliefs about life.” (AW Tozer, The Apostles’ Creed)Christians ought to be integrated people. Increasingly, the western world opts for a cafeteria style approach to truth, one in which each person is free to pick-and-choose what they want to believe or not believe. Everyone is now entitled to a bespoke, personal, customized worldview. In this situation, most people don’t ever stop to wrestle with the inconsistencies inherent in their individual worldview. Creeds and confessions can help Christians to think in terms that correspond to the Bible and that cohere as a unified system of thought. Furthermore, creeds and confessions help take what we believe as Christians and transfer those beliefs into worship and action … “Christianity involves a creed, a code, and a cult. The creed sets out the beliefs of the church … The code presents the moral vision for life here on earth … And the cult is the way in which Christians are to worship the God described in the creed and whose character is reflected in the code.” (Carl Trueman, Crisis of Confidence)

“Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost but not I’m found, was blind but now I see.” (John Newton, “Amazing Grace”)

John Newton’s classic song “Amazing Grace” is certainly among the best known and most beloved hymns of all time. This is true among Christians, and surprisingly, it’s also true among non-Christians. I imagine Newton would be surprised to know how often “Amazing Grace” is sung in inter-faith and even non-faith settings. While most Americans know and can sing along with the old hymn “Amazing Grace,” many of us are confused about grace itself. I think Americans tend to make three mistakes when it comes to grace.

Many wrongly think about grace as something we can buy or earn. This misunderstanding of grace is based on the notion that our good works somehow play a positive role in our own salvation. The unbiblical assumption is that we are capable of good works that can contribute to our right standing with God. This seems to be the default understanding of most people in the west. This default belief is that God just wants us to be good, nice, and kind, and those who live such lives will receive a bit of grace to cover any pesky sins that stand between us and God. This is a heinous misrepresentation of the doctrine of hamartiology. Grace is not something we buy or earn!Many wrongly think about grace as God’s kind response to our decision to invite him into our lives. This misunderstanding of grace is based on the notion that God has made salvation possible for all but certain for none. The unbiblical assumption is that Jesus did almost everything necessary for a sinner to be saved – almost. Jesus has done the heavy lifting, so to speak, and now you just need to close the deal. All that’s left is now up to you. If you will just make the right decision as a totally free moral agent, you can finish what Jesus started. This is a radically unbiblical view of the work of Christ and the depravity of human beings. Grace is not God’s response to our decision!Many wrongly think about grace as something that changes our eternity but doesn’t necessarily change us in the present. This misunderstanding of grace is based on a purely transactional view of salvation, and that transaction only changes whether or not you spend eternity in hell. The unbiblical assumption is that those who pray the sinners’ prayer will go to heaven when they die even if their life is not changed as a result of their relationship with Jesus. This offer appeals to those who are frightened by the prospect of hell, but who are comfortable in their sin. This is a truncated view of salvation in which regeneration and sanctification are ignored. Grace is not something that leaves sinners in their sin!

If grace isn’t buyable or earnable, if it’s not merely God’s response to our decision, and if it’s not God simply changing where we spend eternity, what is it?

Ephesians 1 may be the clearest explanation of grace in all the Bible. After praying that the Ephesians would experience both grace and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, Paul explained the Trinitarian nature of grace.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14)

What is grace? Well, according to Paul grace can be thought of as the sovereign, saving work of the Triune God.

God the Father graciously set his love on sinners before the foundation of the world and in spite of our sinful rebellion. In other words, the Father’s grace isn’t something we can buy or earn. The Father’s grace is bestowed freely from before the foundation of the world.God the Son graciously humbled himself by becoming a servant and submitting to a substitutionary death on the cross. In other words, the Son’s grace isn’t something done in response to our decision. The Son’s grace was given while we were still sinners.God the Holy Spirit graciously gives us life out of death, and he seals God’s people, keeping them for the day of redemption. In other words, the Spirit’s grace isn’t something that only changes our eternity. It does that, but the Spirit’s grace also fundamentally changes us.

God’s grace is the source of our salvation from eternity past to eternity future. God’s grace is the foundation of our justification, the power of our sanctification, and the hope of our glorification. God’s grace is the only sure foundation for the salvation of sinners.

Sola gratia.

Recently I read Thomas Boston’s impressive work, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. The book is a thorough treatment of anthropology (the doctrine of humanity) and hamartiology (the doctrine of sin), explaining the four “states” of human nature across the course of redemptive history. Those states are as follows:

The State of Innocence – Adam before the fall (able to obey, able to sin).The State of Nature – Depraved humanity after the fall (not able to obey, able to sin).The State of Grace – Redeemed believers after conversion (able to obey, able to sin).The Eternal State – Glorified believers in heaven (able to obey, not able to sin)

Taken as a whole, Boston’s four states stand as a masterful explanation of what the Bible says about the condition of our hearts as created beings, sinful beings, redeemed beings, and glorified beings. In dealing with both anthropology and hamartiology, Boston also presents us with a robust work of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation).

One specific part of the book that struck me was towards the end, in the section dealing with the eternal state. Boston calls his readers to consider the reality of death and the experience of dying – something that all human beings will face in time. In broaching this subject, Boston encourages us to “die comfortably.” To be clear, he’s not talking about hospice care, palliative treatment, or assisted suicide. Rather, Boston is talking about how to approach the day of death with confidence in the Lord and full assurance of salvation.

Practically, any pastor who has spent time with dying people knows that they don’t all experience death in the same way. Even among professing Christians, there is great variation in how different people “feel” about their impending death. Some seem to be relatively carefree and confident, eager to pass from this life and be with the Lord. Others seem anxious and troubled, as if they aren’t quite certain about what will happen after they take their last breath.

Boston wants you to “die comfortably,” with great confidence in the gospel and with a rock-solid hope in Jesus. To that end, Boston offers five pieces of advice, or counsel, to those who are still on this side of death.

First, “Let it be your constant care to keep a clean conscience.” Boston is talking about keeping a clean conscience toward both God and man. If there are things that stand between our relationships in heaven or on earth, those things ought to be dealt with – better sooner than later.Second, “Be always watchful, waiting for your change.” Boston is talking about being ready for the Lord Jesus to return or to take you home to glory. We know not when either will happen, which is precisely why Jesus urged his people to be ready for either event.Third, “Employ yourselves much in weaning your hearts from the world.” Boston is simply reminding us that this world is not our home. We are strangers and exiles and sojourners here. Thus, we must be careful that we do not become to comfortable in a place that isn’t home.Fourth, “Be diligent in gathering and laying up evidences of your title to heaven.” Boston is certainly calling us to work for our salvation or to earn our way into heaven. That is obvious from the rest of the book. He is, however, calling the people of God to bear fruit that evidences life.Fifth, “Despatch the work of your day and generation with speed and diligence.” Boston is asking us to recognize that none us of has any idea about the number of years, months, days, or hours that will be given to us. This means we must be serious about stewarding our time well.

In summary, Boston is reminding us that the way to die well is to live well, and the only way to live well is to repent of our sin, put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and allow the Lord to lead us in life.

I am a two-time graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. My PhD was done under the supervision of Chuck Lawless, and my dissertation focused on Paul’s view of the “principalities and powers.” The research for that project involved many books on angels and demons. What follows is a recommended reading list of books about angels and / or demons offered by a reformed Baptist.

TIER ONE BOOKS

Bill Cook and Chuck Lawless, Spiritual Warfare … Chuck Lawless was my PhD supervisor, and Bill Cook was my pastor. This book is a sane, biblical, practical treatment of spiritual warfare, touching on many questions relating to angels and demons.

Clinton Arnold, Power and Magic … Clint Arnold is a world-class scholar, and this book focuses on issues of demonic and occultic power in Ephesians.

Clinton Arnold, Powers of Darkness … This volume is broader than Power and Magic, and it focuses on the “principalities and powers” in Paul’s letters. Arnold holds to the view that the rulers and authorities are personal, evil, spiritual beings who wage war against believers and the church.

Duane Garrett, Angels and the New Spirituality … Duane Garrett was my Old Testament professor at Southern, and this book on angels is a helpful work. Garrett specifically thinks about the role angels might play in various expressions of new age spirtuality.

Sidney Page, Powers of Evil … Page’s book is a classic treatment of Satan and demons as presented in the Bible. This is an essential work for those wanting a solid treatment of biblical demonology.

TIER TWO BOOKS

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters … Lewis’ book is a classic, and the first book I quoted in my dissertation. While fictional, it gives great insight into the nature of demonic temptation.

Robert Lightener, Angels, Satan, and Demons … This is a very helpful and faithfully biblical treatment of angels and demons.

Tremper Longman, God Is a Warrior … Longman is a Old Testament scholar, and this book presents the biblical picture of God as the one who fights for his people against the spiritual forces of evil.

Merrill Unger, Biblical Demonology … Unger’s classic work focuses on demons as they relate to topics like possession, magic, divination, heresy, and deliverance.

Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm … As much as any author, Heiser popularized the idea of the “divine council.” While there are parts of Heiser’s work that I disagree with (eschatology, soteriology, anthropology), the broad scope of his work is helpful in seeing the supernatural worldview of the Bible.

TIER NEVER BOOKS

Anything written by Walter Wink. His books were written from a liberal, anti-supernatural perspective.

Anything written by Peter Wagner. His books were heavily shaped by his involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation and the excesses of the charismatic movement.

Anything written by Greg Boyd. His books are birthed from the perspective of “open theism” and a denial of the sovereignty of God.

Anything written about near-death-experiences or trips to heaven and hell. These books are experiential in nature, rather than biblical.

Every father is called to lead his wife and children in the family experience of corporate worship. Here are 4 ways a father can lead in this critical area of Christian responsibility.

First, fathers must insist that church is a priority, not a last option. Apart from illness, there should be no question about whether or not the family is going to church on Sunday. The father should lead in this routine, and that leadership should begin sooner than Sunday morning. Fathers, remember that you will have less than 1,000 Sundays to take your kid to church before they turn 18. Make the most of that time, and insist that church attendance is a priority!

Second, carry a Bible, sing loudly, and take notes. Fathers, your kids are watching you at church. If the see you scrolling through your phone during the sermon, they will assume that what’s being said from the pulpit is of little interest to you. If they see you staring off into space while the congregation is singing, they will assume that you are not interested in acknowledging and celebrating the glory of God. If they see you without a Bible in hand, they will assume Bibles are optional. Fathers, be engaged at church!

Third, speak positively about your church and the people at your church. I’ve attended church my entire life, nursery up to the present. Over the course of four decades, I have come to realize that you won’t be best friends with everyone who attends your church. In fact, some people who are members at your church will be annoying and frustrating. I also recognize that in any church there will be “things” you don’t like or approve of. Still, if fathers get in the car after church and start griping about people and problems, your children will grow up thinking that church is a problem to be avoided.

Fourth, lead your family in a Lord’s Day discussion of what they learned at church. This point moves from the experience of corporate worship to family worship. These discussions can take place over lunch, they can take place later on the Lord’s Day, or they can take place mid-week. Whenever you talk to your kids about what they learned at church, having these conversations forces your kids to think about what happened at church and why it matters. These times also show your children that you are the leader of your home in spiritual matters, and it communicates that what happens at church ought to impact the rest of our lives. Fathers, follow up with your kids after church. Ask questions. Read verses. pray together. Lead your family in corporate and family worship.