From the Finger of God: The biblical and theological basis for the threefold division of the law

This looks very interesting.  Christian Focus have just released Philip Ross' From the Finger of God: The biblical and theological basis for the threefold division of the law

This book investigates the biblical and theological basis for the classical division of biblical law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. It highlights some of the implications of this division for the doctrines of sin and atonement, concluding that theologians were right to see it as rooted in Scripture and the Ten Commandments as ever-binding.

More here

"A book of great relevance with an immensely important message for the contemporary church, From the Finger of God is to be welcomed with open arms. It is a fine example of careful, readable biblical, theological, and historical scholarship that leads to deeply satisfying conclusions." 

Sinclair B. Ferguson ~ Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, South Carolina

"Philip Ross has dealt with issues lying near the heart of the Christian life (and indeed, of the healthy functioning of any human society) in this careful, fair, and, at times, humorous (or at least, entertaining and attention-holding) study of the continuing validity of God's law... I will be frequently referring to his volume in my classes, and warmly commend it 

Douglas F Kelly ~ Richard Jordan Professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina

"The question dealt with in this book is the relationship between the laws and requirements of the Old Testament and those of the New. Are these still obligatory on the New Testament Church? In dealing with this question the author suggests a threefold classification, and provides a very full analysis of the arguments in favour of that classification from many authors down through the centuries, as well as of those who write against that classification. I commend it to all who wish to live by the Scriptures." 

Lord Mackay of Clashfern ~ Retired Lord Chancellor & Patron of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship

"This book is a valuable contribution to discussion about the question of the nature of the unity of biblical law in the context of the diversity of its threefold historical function. It demonstrates how the finality of the person and work of Christ is the crux of the matter and how the atonement has law as its background. A readable presentation of the biblical data relevant to the subject that leaves no stone unturned." 

Paul Wells ~ Professor of Systematic Theology at Facult' Libre Theologie Reformee in Aix-en-Provence, France.

"Like me, you may never have thought that the division of the Law into the categories of civil, ceremonial and moral needed prolonged enquiry. When you read this book you will be glad that Dr. Ross thought otherwise. The book would be worthwhile if only for the discussion of the Decalogue or of the fulfilment of the Old Testament in the New , but there is something for the Bible lover on every page, as well as a demanding but readable opening up of a huge area of biblical enquiry, that takes us with profit from Genesis through to the Lord Jesus and his apostles. A real and rewarding mind-opener."

Alec Motyer ~ Well known Bible expositor and commentary writer

"In recent times, little has weakened biblical theology more than the tendency to collapse all the rules and statutes of the Old Testament into one uniform corpus of law material. In this timely and extremely helpful study, Dr Philip Ross demonstrates not only that the division of the law into moral, civil and ceremonial categories arises out of a natural reading of the biblical text, but that its adoption in Patristic, Reformed and Puritan literature shows it to have been the orthodox position of the church. To lose this confessional distinctive is to drive an unbiblical wedge between the Testaments, and to eviscerate the gospel itself. Unless the moral law is still in force, how can we define sin? And unless we can define sin, what gospel can we preach? Dr Ross's work is an important corrective to much misunderstanding on the nature and place of God's law in the Bible, and a reliable guide both to the primary and secondary literature on the subject." 

Iain D Campbell ~ Minister, Point Free Church of Scotland, Isle of Lewis

"It is a given for scholars in a variety of allied disciplines (e.g., biblical studies, systematic theology, Christian ethics) that the ancient Christian distinction between the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws is without foundation. Philip Ross dissents from the consensus and he does so thoughtfully, lucidly, and wittily. Those who are new to the question and those are willing to reconsider their views will find in Ross an able guide through the labyrinth." 

R. Scott Clark ~ Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Westminster Seminary, Escondido, California

"This is one of the most important theological books to be published for several years. And it is a book which is desperately needed and which should be read by pastors and church leaders worldwide as a matter of urgency." 

Eryl Davis ~ Head of Research, Wales Evangelical School of Theology, Bridgend, Wales

"Elegantly written, this work is an impressive achievement in biblical studies combining systematic clarity with exegetical analysis."

Theodore G. Stylianopoulos ~ Archbishop Professor of Orthodox Theology and Professor of New Testament (Emeritus) Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline, Massachusetts

"In this remarkable work Dr. Philip Ross studies the threefold Division of the Law as traditionally held by the Reformed, Orthodox and Catholic Churches and establishes this framework to be scripturally based. Ross's study is a welcome contribution to this topic especially in the context of challenges to this formulation from several modern authors who reject it as non-biblical, challenges which this study effectively refutes. This study is to be commended not only for its scholarly rigor but also for its ecumenical relevance."

George Keerankeri, S.J., ~ Reader in Sacred Scripture, Vidyajyoti College of Theology, Delhi

The Unbegotten Son? Is Driscoll right to reject the eternal generation of the Son of God?

This is the second in a series of posts that sets out to examine the claim made by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, in Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, that the attempt to"define eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided" (p. 27) and that "it is best to omit the creedal terms 'begotten' and 'proceeds' from our definition of the Trinity" (p.28).  You can read the first post here. 

I need to underline the fact that the whole chapter on the Trinity is very helpful, and the applications are worth reading, weighing and living by.  In fact, from what I have read so far, the book strongly combines doctrine and application in a way that I, and I hope many other readers, will benefit from.

The eternal generation of the Son of God, that he was "begotten by the Father, before all worlds" is a doctrine found in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Chalcedonian Definition, and, among other Reformed Confessions, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Standards.  It is no small thing to jettison a doctrine with that kind of theological pedigree.  Driscoll and Breshears affirm the eternal Sonship of Christ, but argue that we should not use the category of Christ being the eternally begotten Son.  He is then the eternal but unbegotten Son.

In the next post I will interact with the three reasons they give for omitting the eternal generation of the Son from the doctrines that we should believe, but before doing that there are some matters of theological method that I want to touch upon that would unnecessarily lengthen that discussion, hence this separate post. 

Here are some things to bear in mind as you enter the world of Trinitarian theology. 

Every mental power that you possess is inadequate to grasp the infinities and immensities of the Triune God.  The capacity for rational thought granted to you by the Trinity, a rationality that has, in believers, been sanctified by the Spirit, is a finite rationality that must receive the truth of God's revelation about himself knowing full well that the God who stoops to speak to us is ultimately incomprehensible to us as creatures. 

Faith seeking understanding is no futile endeavour once we place ourselves under the authority of the word of God written, in conscious dependence upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit.  God's verbal revelation to us in Scripture gives us all that we need to know and establishes the boundaries of what may and may not be known. 

Failure to respect the Creator-creature distinction, failure to acknowledge that God accommodates himself to our level when speaking to us, failure to remember that all of God's revelation of himself to us in Scripture is properly anthropomorphic (it is a knowledge of God suited to our capacities as creatures, given to us by God) will leave us in a world of theological confusion, pain and destruction.  In a word this knowledge is analogical. 

For example God remembers Noah in the ark.  We remember where we left our car keys.  But we do not remember things in exactly the same way that God does.  He never forgot where Noah was.  We retrace our steps mentally to figure out where the car keys are, God knows things immediately and entirely.

God reveals himself to us in three persons.  The second person is said to be the Son of the first person.  Indeed he is his only begotten Son, not a Son by adoption but his natural or proper Son.  If we begin with our own experience of fathers and sons we might be tempted to think that designating the second person as the Son of the first inescapably leads us to conclude that he is lesser, that he has a point of origin.  Or, in the words of the Arians, that "there was when he was not."  That would hold true if we were dealing with finite persons.  I have two daughters.  Before they were born I was not a father.  I only became a father when my first child was born.  With finite persons begetting occurs in time.  But God the Father and God the Son are eternal persons.

In human generation a father always exists prior to a son.  In divine generation, because we are dealing with infinite and not finite persons, this is not the case.  Athanasius underlined this point:

Nor, as man from man has the Son been begotten, so as to be later than his Father's existence, but he is God's offspring, and, as being proper Son of God, who is ever, he exists eternally.  For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God's offspring is eternal, for his nature is perfect.

When did the first person of the Trinity become a Father?  He has always been the Father, because he has always had a Son.  Did the Son become the Son at a point in eternity past?  If he did then at the same time, if one may bend language in this way, that was when the Father became the Father.

The Father-Son relationship in the being of God is archetypal of creaturely father-son relationships.  The original and proper reality is in God.  In God this relationship is eternal, in creatures it is temporal.

We need to keep in mind the counsel of W.T.G. Shedd:

There is no analogy taken from the finite that will clear up the mystery of the infinite -- whether it be the mystery of the eternity of God, or that of his trinity.

If we depart from this then the next station down the line is Idolville Central.

Some people struggle to accept that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct persons.  They see that statement and think "but that's three Gods" (the heresy of tritheism), or they reduce the mystery to that of one God playing out three successive roles (the heresy of modalism), or else they consider one person (the Father) to be God and the other two persons to be creatures made by the will of God (the heresy of Arianism).

What categorical mistake unites these three errors?  It is that God can only be one person.  Why would we think that?  Because when it comes to finite essences, finite beings, a second person demands that there be a second essence or being.  That holds true for finite beings.  With God we are dealing with an infinite being.  The real question is, what has he actually told us about himself? 

The Christian Church has confessed, on the basis of the Old and New Testaments, that there is only one true and living God, one being who is eternal, infinite and unchangeable, who is one in substance or essence, and three in persons.  To quote Shedd again:

The essence...is not prior to the persons, either in order of nature or of time, nor subsequent to them, but simultaneously and eternally in and with them

The heresies of tritheism, modalism and Arianism have in common a non-negotiable commitment to think of God according to the measure of the fallen human mind.  They are all afraid of infinitude.  Doug Kelly, in the first volume of his systematic theology, cites some helpful words on this from T. F. Torrance, "the epistemological principle of the Arians (was)...that what men cannot understand cannot be true."  That principle can only ever result in the embracing of heresy.

It is worth us bearing in mind that with regard to God being one in essence and three in person, with regard to the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, those who have believed these things and defended them have done so conscious of how much these truths are infinitely above our capacity to understand them.  Listen to the voices of four giants as they guide us on these matters.

Consider the wise counsel of the Puritan John Owen:

We have, I say, words and notions about these things; but as to the things themselves what do we know?  What do we comprehend of them?  Can the mind of man do any more than swallow itself up in an infinite abyss, which is as nothing; give itself up to what it cannot conceive, much less express?

 Is not our understanding 'brutish' in the contemplation of such things, and is as if it were not?  Yea, the perfection of our understanding is, not to understand, and to rest there.  They are but the back parts of eternity and infiniteness that we have a glimpse of.

What shall I say of the Trinity, or the subsistence of distinct persons in the same individual essence -- a mystery by many denied, because by none understood -- a mystery whose every letter is mysterious?  Who can declare the generation of the Son, the procession of the Spirit, or the difference of the one from the other?

This counsel echoes that given more than a millennium before by Ambrose:

I inquire of you when and how the Son was begotten?  Impossible it is to me to know the mystery of this generation.  My mind faileth, my voice is silent -- and not only mine, but of the angels; it is above principalities, above angels, above the cherubim, above the seraphim, above all understanding.


Lay thy hand on thy mouth; it is not lawful to search into these heavenly mysteries.  It is lawful to know that he was born -- it is not lawful to discuss how he was born; that it is not lawful for me to deny -- this I am afraid to enquire into.

Gregory of Nazianzen grasped the limitations that these truths place upon us:

But the manner of his generation we will not admit that even the angels can conceive, much less you.  Shall I tell you how it was?  It was in a manner known to the Father who begat, and to the Son who was begotten.  Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.

Finally the great Athanasius wrote:

nor again is it right to seek...how God begets, and what is the manner of his begetting.  For a man must be beside himself to venture on such points; since a thing is ineffable and proper to God's nature, and known to him alone and the Son, this he demands to be explained in words...It is better in perplexity to be silent and believe, than to disbelieve on account of perplexity.

Doctrine: A review you will actually want to read

My friend Iain D. Campbell has written a review of Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears.

Iain D. writes:

There are some books I wish I’d written. Let me re-phrase that. There are some books I come across, whose design and structure is so brilliantly simply that I could wish I had thought of it myself.

This new book on ‘Doctrine’ has a structure that gets right to the heart of theology. Theology is about God. It is not about proving that there is a God; nor is it about our responses to the world around us. It is simply a bringing together of the great themes and strands of revelation, without which there can be no theology.

So the chapter headings in ‘Doctrine’ all remind us of this simple fact: ‘Trinity: God is’, ‘Creation: God Makes’ ‘Covenant: God Pursues’, ‘Incarnation: God Comes’ – and so on. It is all about God...It is a matter of knowing God before it is a matter of serving him. Creeds are far more important than deeds or needs.

The review contains notes of appreciation and notes of disagreement. It is well worth reading. Here is Iain D.'s conclusion:

So would I give ‘Doctrine’ to someone for their theological education? Absolutely, although I would insist on Berkhof as a companion volume. This book, however, is a masterpiece of thoroughness and simplicity, covering all the theological topics in one simple, readable volume. That’s the sort of book I want to write one day.

You can read the whole thing here

The Simple Pastor reviews Risking the Truth

I'm grateful to Phil Whittall, a New Frontiers pastor in Shrewsbury, and proprietor of The Simple Pastor blog, for reviewing Risking the Truth. You can read the review here.

Given that the book is dominated by senior pastors and seminary professors who would self-identify with the historic Reformed and Baptist Confessions it is helpful to have the book reviewed by someone who is not part of that world.

Phil commends some aspects of the collected interviews and expresses some criticisms. I would like to respond to some of those concerns in an irenic spirit as there are one or two matters that I think may require a little clarification. Before doing that let me offer an important caveat for the book, and one that I sometimes make for the blog.

Thinking about the subject of heresy bids us to enter a dark, gloomy, dingy world of sin, pride and folly that has remained uncorrected, and has hardened into soul destroying error. This is the world that Paul describes to Timothy in the following words (1 Timothy 6:3-5):

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

I take no pleasure in this world. I want to be a doctor knowledgeable about diseases not because he has an unhealthy interest in them, but because he loves patients and wants to cure them, to build up their immunity against infections, and to promote the things that will make for health.

Part of the reason for the blog, and the book, is to promote a better understanding of these issues and to promote responsible ways of handling them. In order to do that we have to take error with apostolic seriousness. In some circles there is a lack of seriousness about error, in others this seriousness can tip over into pre-occupation. We have to safeguard ourselves from both of these dangers.

I want to sing in tune with the notes that Paul sounds in Colossians. There is the note of warning as Paul speaks in solemn tones about the subtle errors of the false teachers, and there is the note of adoration as he sings about the supremacy and sufficiency of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, with regard to Phil's concerns, he says that the "whole tone of the book is somewhat defensive" and that "if this volume is anything to go by" the Reformed revival "is defensive and rather fearful."

The defensiveness is bound up with the nature of the book. I set out to ask questions about the errors that we are facing and how we should respond to them. Defending the faith is commanded in Scripture (Jude 3, 2 Timothy 1:14, Titus 1:9; Rev. 2:2, contrast that with 2:20). So being defensive is not, in and of itself, something negative that we should shy away from or feel bad about. Every day as a parent I protect my children from harm. So, the adjective is appropriate, and to be expected. In fact the apostle Paul uses militaristic language on several occasions to describe the Christian life in general and the work of pastoral ministry in particular.

What about being fearful? I couldn't tell what the adjective was related to. I asked Ligon Duncan about his hopes and fears for the future evangelicalism and confessionally Reformed churches, to which he replied "I do not fear and I am deeply concerned. I do not fear. the Lord will build his church..." He's right. God's truth will triumph.

Phil's other concerns are found in four paragraphs which are below, in blue, with my comments in black.

Here are a few observations from the various interviews, firstly it would be a mistake to view ‘reformed’ as a uniform block. There are narrow, very narrow and extremely narrow views as to who is acceptable and who might be saved. I find myself excluded by many.

"Reformed" is a definable label like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Socinian. I'm not sure that a clearly defined position can be described as narrow, and given that Reformed theology found historic expression in churchly confessional statements that have living subscribers across the world it isn't left to individuals to define the term. But I know that not everyone will agree with me on that. On who might be saved or not then we must be as broad and narrow as Paul is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-10.

One view put forward is that anyone who claims ‘the gift of miracles and healing is a crook and a liar’, while ‘tongues speaking is gibberish’ and the main theological dangers confronting us today include the introduction of drums into worship, the use of humour, powerpoint and women reading the Bible in church.

I requested interviews from Mark Driscoll and Wayne Grudem but neither were available at the time of asking. Had they done so then I would have been quite prepared to include them. Not all of the contributors would agree with each other, in fact some would have massive disagreements on who should be baptised and when, and over who should be admitted to the Lord's table. I couldn't agree with everything in the book, but things are there to reflect the views of individual contributors and to retain the book's journalistic feel.

Secondly, all claim that the Westminster Confession and others like it are not Scripture but equally it is true that you won’t find anything in Scripture that contradicts these confessions either!

This is par for the course. Whether you hold to a fairly minimalist evangelical statement of faith or a more maximalist Reformed confession, you only want things in there that you believe Scripture teaches. If it's not in Scripture then you don't want it in your confessional statement.

Lastly, it seems that being ‘reformed’ remains a very serious business indeed, being a Christian remains a serious undertaking, teaching in a seminary more serious still while leading a church is such a serious business that one wonders where joy is to be found among those who love the ‘doctrines of grace’.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Psalm 2:11 tells us to "Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling." Seriousness and joy are not antithetical affections, in fact the psalm says that they can co-exist. John Piper has a brilliant chapter on the "Gravity and Gladness" of preaching in his fine book, which I must read again, The Supremacy of God in Preaching. The seriousness is there in Galatians 1, and part of Paul's beef with the false gospel of works and grace is that it extinguishes joy (Gal. 4:15).

That the accent in the book should be on seriousness does not mean that there is an agenda to suppress or neglect joy. To even suggest otherwise would be to cast aspersions on these men and their ministries.

A Portrait of Paul: Identifying a true minister of Christ

Later this year Reformation Heritage Books will be publishing A Portrait of Paul: Identifying a true minister of Christ by Rob Ventura and my friend Jeremy Walker. Jeremy blogs here. You can pre-order the book here.

This book looks like it will be a really helpful read.

Here's the blurb:

What does a true pastor look like, and what constitutes a faithful ministry? How can we identify the life and labors of one called by God to serve in the church of Jesus Christ? To address these questions, Rob Ventura and Jeremy Walker examine how the apostle Paul describes his pastoral relation to the people of God in Colossians 1:24–2:5.

By discussing these essential attitudes, qualities, and characteristics of a faithful minister of Christ, A Portrait of Paul provides gospel ministers an example of what they should be, and demonstrates for churches the kind of pastors they will seek if they desire men after God’s own heart.

Here are the chapter headings:

1. The Joy of Paul’s Ministry
2. The Focus of Paul’s Ministry
3. The Hardships of Paul’s Ministry
4. The Origin of Paul’s Ministry
5. The Essence of Paul’s Ministry
6. The Subject of Paul’s Ministry
7. The Goal of Paul’s Ministry
8. The Strength of Paul’s Ministry
9. The Conflict of Paul’s Ministry
10. The Warnings of Paul’s Ministry

The qualifications for pastoral ministry are so important for the life of the church and it is good to see that this book aims to help:

· Churches looking for a pastor will find guidance in what a faithful man of God will look like.

· Christians looking for a church will find a tool by which they can assess the pastors of the flock in the light of God’s Word, finding men to whom they can commit the care of their souls.

· Christians already in a church will be better equipped to pray for their pastors and will further understand what it really means to be shepherded by a man after God’s own heart.

· Ministerial students pursuing the work of the ministry will see a picture of a man they should seek to imitate.

· Pastors will be encouraged to persevere in the high calling of gospel ministry.

Finally the book has been commended by John MacArthur, Geoff Thomas and Sam Waldron:

"The apostle Paul has always been a hero whom I look to as a model for my ministry. His unrelenting faithfulness in the worst kinds of trials is a remarkable example to every pastor and missionary.

In the midst of suffering, hardship, and (in the end) the abandonment of his own friends and fellow workers, Paul remained steadfast, dynamic, and utterly devoted to Christ.

This invaluable study of Paul’s life from Rob Ventura and Jeremy Walker is a wonderful, powerful, soul-stirring examination of Paul’s self-sacrifice and his unfaltering service to the church. It will both motivate and encourage you, especially if you’re facing trials, opposition, or discouragement in your service for Christ."

- John MacArthur

"For the first two decades of my life as a Christian, I had an abundance of role models who seemed to enflesh for me how a minister of God should live.

I realize now that I even took their presence and consistent example for granted. I looked forward to the future under the protection of their mature lives of patience, wisdom, and many kindnesses. The labors of most of those men have come to an end and today I face another situation.

There are now numbers of fine younger men in training and starting out on their own ministries. What grace and zeal they have, but there appears to be less role models than the company with which I was favored.

What Walker and Ventura have done in this splendid book is to return to the fountainhead of Christianity, to the apostle Paul with the authority the Lord Christ gave to him, his wisdom and compassion, and examine the apostle’s relationship with one congregation, how he advised and exhorted them concerning the demands of discipleship and their relationship with fellow believers.

Paul became Christ’s servant and mouthpiece to them and he has left us with a timeless inspired example. He exhorted his readers more than once to be followers of him as he followed God.

With a refreshing contemporary style, and with humble submission to the Scripture, these two ministers have given to us a role model for pastoral life. This is a very helpful book and a means of grace to me."

- Geoff Thomas

"What is A Portrait of Paul Identifying a True Minister of Christ? It is, first, the effort of two young pastors to teach themselves and their churches what it means to be a true minister of Christ.

It is, second, an exposition of Colossians 1:24–2:5 which attempts to understand how Paul's ministry gives them and their churches a paradigm of faithful ministry.

It is, third, biblical exposition of Scripture in the best historic and Reformed tradition with careful exegesis, sound doctrine, popular appeal and practical application. As such, it is a very challenging book to read as Rob and Jeremy lay before us, for instance, the selflessness and suffering true ministry requires. It is, however, a good, useful, and profitable book to read. It can, and I hope it will, do much good!"

- Sam Waldron

Rob Ventura is a pastor of Grace Community Baptist Church in Cumberland, Rhode Island.

Jeremy Walker is a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church in Crawley, England.

The Work of the Pastor

Christian Focus are due to release a revised version of William Still's The Work of the Pastor this May.

Concerning this book Sinclair Ferguson writes:

A great little book by a remarkable missionary to whom I owe an immense personal debt. Every minister should read it once a year - at least!

More details here

The Rage Against God

Peter Hitchens, brother of arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens, has a very interesting book just out, The Rage Against God: How atheism led me to faith. You can read some sample pages from the first chapter, 'The generation who were too clever to believe', here

The UK edition is already out and has a different subtitle. The book is being published by Zondervan in the States.



(HT: Justin Taylor)

Time will end at 23:59 on 19th April 2010

Sorry, the title is not an attempt on my part to dabble with some eschatological predictions. It is a reference to the time limit on a special deal from Christian Focus. If you live in the UK you can get a 35% discount on Don Carson's new book Don Carson's book From the Resurrection to His Return: Living in the last days.

Christian Focus are offering a special deal on this book, in partnership with 10ofthose.com, of 35% off from 00:01 on the 18th March until 23:59 on the 19th March. You can order it by going here.

Here's a brief summary:

This short, accessible, book is designed for the whole church. Based on 2 Timothy 3 Carson gives wise counsel to the Church, imploring us to avoid false teachers and to seek good mentors.

I've read the pre-release pdf and was struck by the number of vital issues and principles for the life of the Church that Carson draws out of 2 Timothy 3. This is a short, challenging, book and one that clearly points out the things that matter as we wait for Christ's return.

Here's the blurb:

This is not another book on what view to hold about the reality of Jesus' return but it is about how to live in the light of his imminent return. Don Carson accurately determines that the Christian church has always lived in what the bible terms 'the last days'...the period between his ascension to his Father in heaven and his return on the clouds of heaven.

Based on Paul's teaching in 2 Timothy 3, Don Carson gives wise counsel to today's church to avoid false teaching and to seek good mentors, those who will lead us in truth.

He shows that to rely on worldly wisdom is folly, that the world is utterly sinful, but rather to cling to the Bible as the source of our counsel and guidance and help. But more than that he shows us that it is in holding the Bible out to a needy world we take its message to where it is needed the most.

To live in the last days is not to hang on in quiet desperation but to boldly take the word of God and apply it to every situation knowing that it will meet every need just as it has throughout the two millennia since Jesus promised to return again. That is how to live in the last days!

Augustine and the Trinity: Lewis Ayres

This book looks very interesting. Shame that it is so expensive. I shall have to cancel the family holiday to buy it. I'm sure the kids will understand.

Here's the blurb:

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) strongly influenced western theology, but he has often been accused of over-emphasizing the unity of God to the detriment of the Trinity.

In this book Lewis Ayres demonstrates how Augustine’s writings actually offer one of the most sophisticated and persuasive of Nicene Trinitarian theologies. Culminating recent research by scholars in Europe and the US, Ayres argues that Augustine's earliest Trinitarian writings drew on a variety of earlier Latin traditions which stressed the irreducibility of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as on the Neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus.

Ayres then demonstrates how Augustine's mature writings offer an elaborate and unexpected account of the Trinity as defined by the inter-personal life of Father, Son and Spirit. Ayres also shows that Augustine shaped an account of Christian ascent toward understanding of and participation in the divine life which begins in faith and models itself on Christ’s humility.

This new treatment of Augustine of Hippo’s theology of the Trinity defends one of the most influential figures in western religious thought against the long-held assumption that he over-emphasized the unity of God. Culminating recent research, Ayres argues that Augustine actually offered one of the most sophisticated early Trinitarian theologies.

The tragic regress of heresy

Here's a snippet from Don Carson taken from his new Christian Focus title From the Resurrection to His Return (35% discount available on UK orders from 18-19th March, details here).

The church is usually not too badly troubled by teachers who are, from the beginning outside the framework of confessional Christianity, teachers who are saying all kinds of things that Christians view as foolish, dangerous, or simply false – because they’re recognised as moving in another circle, they’re bringing another set of assumptions.

By contrast, if you find someone who has been a public teacher of Christianity for some time and who then gradually moves away from the centre of the faith, it sometimes takes a while to discern the nature of the drift.

When the first people to notice begin to wave a red flag, others say, ‘Oh, come on, you’re being much too critical. After all, we trust this person; he’s been such a huge help to us.’ It might take a very long time before many people clearly see how serious this
drift is.

Such teachers, then, are traitors.

They have turned their backs on what they once taught and defended, and so they have become treacherous.

It is not uncommon for such people to become rash.

They become impetuous in the sense that they do not think through the long-term eff ects of the stances that they are now adopting.

They become conceited, far too impressed by their own new-found opinions and deeply persuaded that the people whom they have left behind are narrow-minded and bigoted.

With egos the size of small planets, they become unwilling to think through things out of a confessional heritage anymore; they are too busy telling everybody else how wrong
they are.

But where is God in such behaviour? It is tragic to find unambiguous examples of people who are ‘lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God’.

35% discount on Don Carson's new book

This special offer is for UK readers only. Christian Focus are about to release Don Carson's book From the Resurrection to His Return: Living in the last days.

Here's a brief summary:

This short, accessible, book is designed for the whole church. Based on 2 Timothy 3 Carson gives wise counsel to the Church, imploring us to avoid false teachers and to seek good mentors.

The book is due out on the 18th March and Christian Focus are offering a special deal, in partnership with 10ofthose.com, of 35% off from 00:01 on the 18th March until 23:59 on the 19th March. You can pre-order, or order, depending on when you are reading this, by going here.

Here's the blurb:

This is not another book on what view to hold about the reality of Jesus' return but it is about how to live in the light of his imminent return. Don Carson accurately determines that the Christian church has always lived in what the bible terms 'the last days'...the period between his ascension to his Father in heaven and his return on the clouds of heaven.

Based on Paul's teaching in 2 Timothy 3, Don Carson gives wise counsel to today's church to avoid false teaching and to seek good mentors, those who will lead us in truth.

He shows that to rely on worldly wisdom is folly, that the world is utterly sinful, but rather to cling to the Bible as the source of our counsel and guidance and help. But more than that he shows us that it is in holding the Bible out to a needy world we take its message to where it is needed the most.

To live in the last days is not to hang on in quiet desperation but to boldly take the word of God and apply it to every situation knowing that it will meet every need just as it has throughout the two millennia since Jesus promised to return again. That is how to live in the last days!

The Reformation and Deformation of the Church in Scotland: New titles from Christian Focus

Christian Focus have two new titles on the stories of gospel faithfulness and doctrinal decline among nineteenth century Scottish presbyterians.

Thanks to Iain D. Campbell for pointing out Sandy Finlayson's new book on the Free Church Fathers Unity & Diversity: The Founders of the Free Church of Scotland. Iain says of this volume "where there is a love for the gospel in Scotland, their story deserves to be told, and Sandy Finlayson has told it well. A highly commended volume."

Here's the blurb:

It has been many years since there has been a popular level book, which has looked at the life and ministry of some of the 'fathers' of the Free Church of Scotland. This book looks at the life and ministry of a number of the key figures in the Disruption era and late 19th Century Free Church.

Beginning with Thomas Chalmers, each chapter has a biographical sketch of a key figure with an emphasis on why these men mattered in their time and what they still have to say to us in the 21st century.

All of the men portrayed were committed to the advancement of the Gospel in Scotland and further afield. While they shared a commitment to the Confession of Faith and reformed theology, this was expressed in unique ways by each of these men. Hence both unity and diversity is on view in these fascinating pages.

Carl Trueman writes about the book:

"Sandy Finlayson's study of the nineteenth century leaders of the Free Church of Scotland is neither hagiography nor iconoclasm; rather, it is the thoughtful reflection of a committed presbyterian on the men who helped shape the Scottish church through their commitment to orthodoxy, evangelism, and social action.

The attractive churchmanship which these church leaders represented is all too rare today; and I hope this work will do something to restore it to its rightful place in the wider Christian landscape."

More details, sample pages and the contents page can be found here


Christian Focus are also due to release Ian Hamilton's book on The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Drifting from the truth in Scottish confessional churches.

Here's the blurb:

This revealing read will give you an opportunity to learn from history. How do strong confessional churches that seem to be doing all the right things drift inexorably from the truth?. What is clear from Ian Hamilton's fascinating study is that it doesn't happen over night but it is a gradual erosion of theological and doctrinal standards.

Nineteenth century Scotland was seen as a Christian nation composed of church-going people. Among its churches, Presbyterianism was strongest, and within Presbyterianism there were several large denominations. The future looked bright and optimism marked many of the church leaders and congregations. Yet the sad fact is that most of them were blind to the presence of the warning signs that ultimately caused the decline and not the continued growth of the church in Scotland.

To understand how this happened Ian Hamilton looks at the changes that took place within one of these large Presbyterian denominations - the United Presbyterian Church - and analyses the roots, developments and consequences of these changes, particularly the departure from the doctrines summarised in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

It is a salutary lesson to observe that the movements for church unions and increased evangelism of the nineteenth century were not signs of spiritual health; instead they were inadequate sticking plasters that hid dangerous spiritual disease. This book also includes discussion on the nature of subscription to the Confession at time of 1733 secession, the atonement controversy 1841-45, the Union controversy 1863-1873 and 1879 United Presbyterian Church Declaratory Act.

More details can be found here

Remythologizing Theology: Kevin Vanhoozer interviewed by Guy Davies

My old pal Guy Davies recently interviewed Kevin Vanhoozer about his new book Remythologizing Theology. My mother's maiden name was McAndrew and I don't mind telling you that when I saw the price of the book my Scottish blood yelped.

Here's a taster:

GD: What is your main aim in this book?

KV: For years I’ve felt that the doctrine of God was a relatively weak spot in evangelical theology. Then open theism happened and my suspicions were confirmed.

One major aim, then, is to provide a retooling of classical theism that takes into account the concerns of open theists – in particular, the integrity of God’s loving relationship to the world – while simultaneously maintaining what I take to be the correct Reformed emphasis on divine sovereignty.

Another aim is to scrutinize the oft-heard claim in contemporary theology that God’s love entails divine suffering.

GD: What do you mean by "remythologizing theology"?’

KV: I don’t mean “mythologizing again”! “Remythologizing” pertains first and foremost not to myth but “mythos,” Aristotle’s term for dramatic plot.

I’m using “remythologizing” as a contrast term to Bultmann’s demythologizing. Where Bultmann fails to take seriously either the Bible’s depictions of God’s acts or the Bible as the product of God’s authorship, remythologizing starts: with God as one who speaks and acts, the latter often by way of speaking.

Remythologizing is a proposal for “first theology,” a way of thinking God and Scripture together. Specifically, it views God’s being on the basis of God’s acts, especially his communicative acts. God is as God does, and God does as God says.

Remythologizing theology is all about speaking well of God on the basis of God’s own speech. To remythologize theology is to set forth the ontology of the one who speaks in Scripture, the one whom Scripture is also about.

GD: What do the words of the subtitle, Divine Action, Passion and Authorship, say about your attitude towards the impassibility of God? Isn't he a being "without body, parts or passions"?

KV: The sub-title alone does not make a statement but announces a theme. The question of God’s suffering – that is, his ability to be affected by human creatures – is a red thread that runs throughout the book. If Nicholas Wolterstorff is right in comparing classical theism to a seamless garment where one loose thread spells the unraveling of the whole, then divine impassibility makes for an excellent case study.

Remytholgizing Theology is a minority opposition report on the “new orthodoxy” of divine suffering. While I want to take the biblical depictions of God’s dialogical interaction with human beings seriously, I don’t want to pull God down to the creaturely level.

The challenge, then, is to specify to what the biblical descriptions of God’s emotions actually refer. There is not much on the meaning of divine emotions in the history of theology. Classical theists tend to take this language as anthropomorphic; open theists tend to take it literally.

I had to resist the temptation simply to choose one side rather than the other. The prior question is: what is a divine emotion? I do provide an answer, but the water in that pool is a bit too deep to dive into here.

You can read the whole thing here

I'm working my way through, at the second attempt, Vanhoozer's The Drama of Doctrine. Maybe the first time the extended imagery failed to make a vivid impression on me, then again haven't you found that a book you just couldn't get in to proved to be rewarding a few months or years later?

Here is a sentence from the Introduction that made me rub my eyes a few times:

With regard to the overarching theatrical model, the theologian is best associated not with the director (this role is best reserved for the Holy Spirit and for those ministers the Spirit gifts and equips to be assistants) but with the dramaturge, the person responsible for advising the director on how best to understand and perform the script (chap. 8).

I know what he means, but it sounds a lot like "Kevin Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology and Special Advisor to God the Holy Spirit."

After the Lord Mayor's show

Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity is not released by Amazon in the UK for another two days, but already reviews are coming in thick and fast from the other side of the pond. McLaren has been an influential voice in the last five years and his writings hve been big sellers, so it is important to interact with him.

The flavour of the book, judging from the reviews, puts a premium on discussion and dialogue and not on definitive answers, and yet at the same time polices that discussion so that the Greco-Roman Platonic corruption of Christianity is unmasked and barred from the conversation. One wonders if Adolf Harnack's ghost was peering over Brian's shoulder as he sat at his keyboard.

But as we are so behind the Americans and Canadians in getting the book that any review of mine will be appearing well after the Lord Mayor's show has ended, a fact that diminishes my willingness to write one. All I can say to those across the pond is at least we got to read Pierced For Our Transgressions before you did. Hey we even had Tom Wright's book on justification before you. So there.

In addition to the ongoing review by Mike Wittmer, he is now up to Question 5 "What is the Gospel?" (part 1 and part 2) there is this review by Tim Challies, and there is to be a three part review by Kevin De Young.

In denial: A New Kind of Christianity (review links)

Michael Wittmer is doing a pretty good job of that as he works his way through Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity, offering a good blend of exposition and analysis. It is worth following his commentary on Brian McLaren's answers to, to quote from the book's subtitle, "ten questions that are transforming the faith."

Christian orthodoxy is a definable, stable, reality. You can know what Christians believe and there are objective ways to assess whether someone is moving toward or away from orthodoxy.

That means you can also assess whether a proposal to transform the Christian faith is in fact a deviation away from the Christian faith as biblically understood and historically believed, taught and confessed. It is one thing to say that, here in the year 2010, you have discovered the true nature of the Christian faith that former generations have misconstrued, it is quite another to overturn what has been previously believed by superior exegesis and theology.

Here are the posts so far:

Introduction

Question 1: What is the overarching story line of the Bible?

Question 2: How should the Bible be understood?

Interlude: The Defining Issue

Question 3: Is God violent?

Question 4: Who is Jesus and Why is he important?

A New Kind of God?

Michael Wittmer continues his review of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. In his latest post he looks at McLaren's answer to the question "Is God Violent?" Have a read and see what you make of it. I cannot help but wonder whether the next stopping point on this journey is atheism. I say that with absolutely no pleasure at all. There is a way back from error.

Here are the opening paragraphs from Michael Wittmer's assessment of McLaren's third Q & A:

Brian begins this section by admitting that he has a big problem. It helped his new kind of Christianity to assert that the Bible is our cultural library rather than authoritative constitution, but he still has to wrestle with the fact that this library contains many bloody books. In Brian’s words, he needs a way to deal with the numerous “violent images, cruel images, [and] un-Christlike images” of God that are found in the Bible.

Most troubling is the God who appears in the Noah narrative. Brian complains that “a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship. How can you ask your children—or nonchurch colleagues and neighbors—to honor a deity so uncreative, overreactive, and utterly capricious regarding life?”

And here are his five key observations:

1. Brian seems to agree with Feuerbach that religion—and in this case the Bible—is merely our human projection of God. Our view of God tells us everything about ourselves and nothing about what God is like. If this is his view—and his endorsement of Pete Rollins gives more reason to suppose that this is the case, then he needs to find another line of work. If we don’t have a revelation from God, then we’re all wasting our time here.

2. Brian writes that he treasures the Bible, even calling it God’s inspired Word, but then he says that much of it, especially the older parts, is just wrong. I am not able to make much sense of that.

3. Brian solves the problem of a violent God in Genesis 6 by saying that this immature deity is later replaced by the New Testament perspective on God. I wonder how this coheres with Brian’s comment in question 1 that he prefers the earlier Hebrew God Elohim over the later Greek God Theos. It seems that Brian only accepts the Bible when it says something he likes, and then fishes for a reason to justify his decision, even if the reason contradicts his argument for another passage.

4. Brian has embraced the red letter Bible, where Jesus’ words and actions count more than what Paul or Peter wrote. He said that one evangelical’s “transparent willingness to grant Jesus no more authority than Paul renders me speechless.” I am not necessarily trying to shush Brian, but I will second what the evangelical said: Paul’s epistles have the same authority as the words of Jesus, for both are the Word of God.

5. Here’s the kicker which you knew was coming. Brian alleges that those of us in “seminaries and denominational headquarters” who say that every description of God in Scripture is authoritative are guilty of “conceptual idolatry,” for we are “freezing” our “understanding of God in stone.”

Conversely, I think that God’s problem with idolatry is not that the idols don’t develop but that the idols are false gods. Did God oppose Baal simply because he didn’t move? Also, if a static understanding of God is conceptual idolatry, then wouldn’t God, who I assume has a perfect, unchanging understanding of himself, be guilty of this sin?

You can read the whole post here

A New Kind of Christianity

Michael Wittmer, author of, among other things, Don't Stop Believing, is currently reviewing Brian McLaren's latest book A New Kind of Christianity.

I've read several of McLaren's earlier books in my time but was not aware of this one. It strikes me that it belongs in the "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" section of the bookstore, and we wait to see what beautiful orthodox items we must jettison in the process. An after reading the commendations for the book from Steve Chalke, Phyllis Tickle and Pete Rollins I'm half wondering if it will make a greater impact than the Bible.

Here are Wittmer's reflections on the introductory chapters:

I read the introductory three chapters of A New Kind of Christianity, and so far it’s an updated version of the Brian we’ve seen before. He claims to be “a mild-mannered guy” who is only looking for a new way to be a Christian that will boost the declining numbers in our churches, and he can’t understand why his critics respond with “fear,” “clenched teeth,” and “suspicion and accusation.” Brian’s really good at winning sympathy, and soon I was loathing myself for ever politely disagreeing with such a nice man.

But then I remembered that this debate about the Christian faith—which he and his friends started—is not a personality contest. You can’t dismiss what Christians have always believed and then expect a free pass because you’re likeable. And just below the surface of Brian’s humble, can’t-we-all-just-get-along vibe is an accusatory tone that repeatedly compares his critics to a religious Gestapo whose leaders defend their conservative beliefs because they don’t want to lose their jobs.

That doesn’t sound like me. I am an easy-going guy who just wants to love Jesus. But to love Jesus, I have to know and believe something about him. Jesus is not an elastic symbol for whatever we happen to value (e.g., inclusive love), but is an actual person who can be known, trusted, and loved.

So why doesn’t Brian want me to know and believe the truth about Jesus? He says that his new kind of Christianity is led by Doug Pagitt, who isn’t sure that Jesus is God; Marcus Borg, who argues that Jesus is dead; and Harvey Cox, a Harvard Divinity professor who wants to blow the whole thing up and construct a new view of God that will connect with our secular age.

The rest of the post can be found here

The next post is on McLaren's first question, "What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?" On which Wittmer comments:

Brian’s real beef with Creation-Fall-Redemption is not the C or the R but the F. He does not believe that there was a Fall (or original sin or total depravity or hell) but that what we have traditionally called the Fall is actually “a coming-of age story” which—wait for it—describes “the first stage of ascent as human beings progress from the life of hunter-gatherers to the life of agriculturalists and beyond.” I have quoted him verbatim so you know I am not making this up. I asked my Old Testament colleague where Brian may be getting this from, and he said that this sounds like modern Judaism (which doesn’t believe in a Fall or original sin), except that even it wouldn’t say that Genesis 3 represents a step up.

Brian says a lot of other things in Part 1, but as you can see, he is no longer having a Christian conversation. He prefers the Hebrew God Elohim over the Greco-Roman God Theos, for the former prefers the messiness of story and evolution while the latter is a “perfect—Platonic god” who “loves spirit, state, and being” and is “perfectly furious” with his fallen creation and just wants to smash it all to hell. Theos may be popular with the “fire-breathing preacher” (does anyone know anyone like this?), but he “is an idol, a damnable idol.” Brian writes that he would rather be an atheist than believe in the God that most of us think is found in the Bible.

Four observations follow this:

1. Brian seems to be offering a modern Jewish rather than Christian perspective on the opening chapters of Genesis. His flat-out denial of a Fall, original sin, and total depravity and his dismissal of Theos raises questions about his view of Paul, who clearly teaches the former in Romans 5, and the New Testament, which refers to God with the Greek term Theos.

2. Brian does not seem to believe that there was a first man and a first sin, but that Genesis 3 is a myth which describes how the entire human race became farmers. This view fits with his acceptance of evolution, as most who embrace evolution find it hard to believe that there was a first man who rebelled in a cataclysmic Fall. I don’t know how the farmer bit fits, but it is funny.

3. The fourth question which Brian will address in this book is “Who is Jesus and why is he important?” Given that Brian doesn’t believe in a Fall, original sin, or hell, that is a very good question. I can’t wait to hear why God would come and die for a world that didn’t need his help.

4. Brian seems incapable of writing a book without taking repeated cheap shots at seminary education. He often reminds us that he missed out on seminary and is better for it, that he would not see what he sees in Scripture if he had gone to seminary. On that we agree.

You can read the whole thing here

(HT: Todd Pruitt)

The Apostles' Creed

I'm a little late with this (in blogging terms) but the next volume in the Classic Reformed Theology series, Olevianus' Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, is now avaliable.

Scott Clark explains:

Caspar Olevianus (1536-87) was a significant figure in the Reformation of Heidelberg in the 1560s and 1570s and one of the pioneers of Reformed covenant or federal theology.

As a teacher he influenced several other significant pastors and teachers in the period and inspired others such as Johannes Cocceius. Olevianus published a number of biblical commentaries, including a massive 700 page commentary on Romans.

He also published three explanations of covenant theology via an explanation of the Apostles’ Creed. Now, for the first time since the 16th century, Olevianus’ Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed is available in English in a new translation, by Lyle Bierma, as volume 2 in the series Classic Reformed Theology.

This is a brief, clear, account of the Reformed faith. In an age when there seems to be considerable ignorance of and even greater confusion about what the adjective “Reformed” means, volumes such as these provide a much needed beacon of light.

One of the more interesting features of this work is the way Olevianus tied together the themes of covenant and kingdom. According to Olevianus the Kingdom of God is fundamentally eschatological (heavenly) but it breaks into history and manifests itself in the visible institution church. That place, the church, also the place where the covenant of grace is administered. Indeed, the administration of the covenant is also the administration of the kingdom.

This volume will be useful for pastors, elders, students, and anyone who wants to know more about how the Reformed faith reads the Scripture, what covenant theology is, and how it works out in Reformed piety and practice.

You can also listen in to Scott being interviewed about the book here

The doctrine of the atonement

I'm delighted to see that George Smeaton's two volumes on the doctrine of atonement are back in print. Many thanks to the Banner of Truth Trust for doing this.

Check out Christ's Doctrine of the Atonement and the Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement

Here are some gems:

Jesus was visited with penal suffering because he appeared before God only in the guise of our accumulated sin; not therefore as a private individual, but as a representative; sinless in himself, but sin covered; loved as a Son, but condemned as a sin-bearer, in virtue of that federal union between him and his people, which lay at the foundation of the whole. Thus God condemned sin in the flesh, and in consequence of this there is no condemnation to us.

Were the atonement not the principal matter of the gospel, and the highest exhibition of the united wisdom, love and faithfulness of God,--in a word, the greatest act of God in the universe,--that terrible anathema on its subverters would seem to us something inexplicable, if not intolerable. But the doom is justified by the nature of Christ's death, and by the great fact of the atonement.

Knowing God

I wasn't raised on Reformed theology. I didn't start out with a rugby ball in one hand and the Heidelberg Catechism in the other.

In fact I'm not sure that had read any serious theology until, aged sixteen, I had a knock on the door from the Jehovah's Witnesses and a conversation that triggered some serious research. My roots were in the right place regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, but they weren't down deep enough.

But, looking back on those mid to late teen years, I'm grateful for those first books that informed me about the exegetical basis for the two natures and one person of the Lord Jesus Christ, books that I read late into the night.

My point is that we need books to help us grow in grace and knowledge, to help us think deep thoughts about a great God, and to set us on a path of further reading and reflection on the riches of the Christian faith. Truth has edges and boundaries. Step outside of these, or behave as if they don't matter, and you will walk into a spiritual minefield.

A non-doctrinal faith is impossible. A faith wrongly informed because it has been fed on false doctrine is disastrous. A faith rooted in an experiential, subjective moralism, can easily pose as Christian faith, but it is no substitute for faith in a gracious Saviour, who is both God and man, a faith rooted and grounded in the Word of God. And not to care about these matters is really not to care about God.

On these points this is a helpful video:

(HT: Jonathan Thomas)