New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS)

Michael Bird announces a new commentary series called The New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS). The series will be edited by Craig Keener and Michael Bird and published by Wipf & Stock between 2009 and 2014.

Here are the projected volumes and authors:

Continue reading ‘New Covenant Commentary Series (NCCS)’

New NSBT Book on the Trinity

There’s a new book on the Trinity that I’m looking forward to picking up in a couple of months. Andres J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain have coauthored Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel, volume 24 in the New Studies in Biblical Theology (NSBT) series, edited by D. A. Carson. It’s 224 pages and due to be released sometime in July.

Here’s how Köstenberger summarizes the book:

Part One situates John’s trinitarian teaching within the context of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Part Two examines the Gospel narrative in order to trace the characterization of God as Father, Son and Spirit, followed by a brief synthesis. Part Three deals more fully with major trinitarian themes in the Fourth Gospel, including its account of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and mission. A final chapter discusses the significance of John’s Gospel for the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, and a brief conclusion summarizes some practical implications.

Continue reading ‘New NSBT Book on the Trinity’

Moulton on 1 Corinthians 15:28

I just installed the new Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar Collection from Logos.

It comes with the four volumes of A Grammar of New Testament Greek:

• Vol. 1: Prolegomena by James H. Moulton
• Vol. 2: Accidence and Word-Formation by James H. Moulton and Wilbert F. Howard
• Vol. 3: Syntax by Nigel Turner
• Vol. 4: Style by Nigel Turner

It also includes Turner’s volume Grammatical Insights into the New Testament.

Continue reading ‘Moulton on 1 Corinthians 15:28′

Interview with N. T. Wright

Said at Southern points to a video interview with N. T. Wright that took place at Asbury Seminary in November of 2007. (Here’s the announcement about Wright’s visit.) Several minutes in Wright shares some brief thoughts on Piper’s book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright.

The audio from Wright’s chapel talks is also available:

• Nov. 13 | “Use of Scripture in Contemporary Political Discourse” [ Hi :: Low ]
• Nov. 14 | “God in Public? Biblical Faith in Tomorrow’s World” [ Hi :: Low ]
• Nov. 14 | “Acts and the Contemporary Challenge of the Gospel” [ Hi :: Low ]

Is There Regret in Heaven?

John Piper is one of my favorite living theologians. His writings and preaching have had a profound impact on my thinking, and he is regularly a means of great encouragement and motivation. I rarely find myself disagreeing with him.

I recently picked up the 24-volume John Piper Collection from Logos and have been enjoying working through Life As a Vapor. It’s composed of 31 chapters making it an ideal book to read for a month’s worth of devotional reading.

The second chapter is entitled “Suffering, Mercy, and Heavenly Regret,” in which Piper poses the question, “Is there regret in heaven?” He continues, “Can regret be part of the ever-increasing, unspeakable joy of the age to come, purchased by Jesus Christ (Romans 8:32)? My answer is yes” (19).

Continue reading ‘Is There Regret in Heaven?’

John Frame on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Eternal Subordination

In his section on the Trinity in The Doctrine of God,¹ Frame gives four lines of explanation for texts that teach that the Son is in some sense less than or subject to the Father. He is commenting specifically on John 14:28; and 1 Corinthians 11:3; and 15:28.

In his first comment, Frame offers what strikes me as a potentially helpful perspective on the issue of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Complementarians and egalitarians agree that during the incarnation the Son was functionally subordinate to the Father. Where they disagree is (1) how long that subordination lasts and (2) on what basis it exists. Frame thinks it lasts eternally on the basis of His eternal humanity.

Continue reading ‘John Frame on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Eternal Subordination’

1. Cf. the Logos John Frame Collection. [↩ Back]

Hierarchy Does Not Necessitate Opposition

I’m baffled when I read egalitarians who think that functional hierarchy presupposes disunity or the prospect of it.

Take, for example, this statement by Gilbert Bilezikian:

One of the weirdest heresies that has been generated in the last century pertains to the postulation of a hierarchical order within the members of the Trinity—as if there ever could exist a threat of discord or of misconduct that would require the exercise of authority within the oneness of the Godhead.¹

Continue reading ‘Hierarchy Does Not Necessitate Opposition’

1. Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 1, emphasis mine. [↩ Back]

Intratrinitarian Reconciliation?

Jenson, Robert W. “Reconciliation in God.” In Reconciliation in God.” In The Theology of Reconciliation, edited by Colin E. Gunton, 158–66. London: T&T Clark, 2003.¹

Jenson’s opening lines set the stage for his main thesis:

When I am invited to speak at a conference, I know I am supposed to indulge in the sort of trinitarian and christological speculation that skirts the edge of the sayable. So I have posed the question to myself: is there anything in God himself that might plausibly be called “reconciliation”? (158)

He goes on to argue that the traditional understanding of the Father begetting the Son and spirating the Spirit is inadequate because incomplete. He posits that the Spirit liberates the Father for the Son and reconciles the Son to the Father (158).

Continue reading ‘Intratrinitarian Reconciliation?’

1. Cf. Amazon. [↩ Back]

Dan Phillips on John Frame

Dan Phillips of Biblical Christianity (and TeamPyro) posted about his new appreciation for John Frame. One of Frame’s former students, Tom Chantry, a Reformed Baptist pastor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, chimed in with a lengthy appeal to “be very, very careful with John Frame.” I, of course, had to make a plug for the new Collected Works of John M. Frame, which I’m really looking forward to getting. But the interesting part was where John Frame responded to Tom. The exchange is worth a read.

Continue reading ‘Dan Phillips on John Frame’

Free Upgrade from Logos Bible Software OC to ND

Logos just released a new round of base packages labeled ND. No, that’s not an abbreviation for anything. They serve merely to distinguish the various versions of the base packages. The previous base packages were OC, the ones before that were QB, and the ones before that were RA. You can upgrade from your current OC package to the corresponding ND package for free (you pay only for the media and shipping). They’ve added the TNIV and NIrV to all of the base packages that include the NIV (i.e., all but Christian Home and Original Languages).

Are You a Practical Modalist?

I’ve been reading Robert Letham’s excellent book The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. It’s a must for any serious study of Trinitarianism. In many ways Letham represents a mediating position when it comes to the debates regarding subordination in the Trinity. He differs from someone like Wayne Grudem and maintains that talk of subordination and hierarchy in the ontological Trinity is inappropriate—even functional.¹ However, he also differs from someone like Kevin Giles (cf. this post) who flattens out all the distinctions among Father, Son, and Spirit. Letham rightly sees τάξις (in the sense of order, not rank) in the Trinity. The various functions and roles of Father, Son, and Spirit are not arbitrary or reversible. The Father’s acting through the Son by the Spirit expresses ontological reality; the economic Trinity reveals the immanent Trinity.

Continue reading ‘Are You a Practical Modalist?’

1. In an appendix where he responds to Gilbert Bilezikian’s article “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Trinity,” JETS 40:1 (March 1997): 57–68, he refers to subordination as “a term [he] never use[s] and steadfastly den[ies].” He continues, “[In my article] I never use subordination or hierarchy or their functional equivalents—indeed, I sedulously avoid them” (480). I’m open, but not yet convinced that he is correct, largely because Scripture speaks of the Son’s eternal ὑποταγή (τότε [καὶ] αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα) to the Father at the end of all things (1 Cor 15:28). [↩ Back]

Books for Christmas

I put a few books on my Christmas list this year, and my parents and brother graciously purchased some of them for me. I’m enjoying digging into them a little already. Here’s what I got:

• White, James. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1998.
• Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.
• George, Timothy, ed. God the Holy Trinity: Reflections on Christian Faith and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
• Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan: 2006.
• Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007.

Continue reading ‘Books for Christmas’

Migne’s Patrologia Graeca in Logos

Users have requested Migne’s 161-volume Patrologia Graeca many times. It seems that Logos is now giving some serious thought to pursuing it. Bob Pritchett, President and CEO of Logos, recently wrote this in the Logos Greek newsgroup:

Continue reading ‘Migne’s Patrologia Graeca in Logos’

The Failed Strategy of “Trinity & Subordinationism”

Kevin Giles’s The Trinity & Subordinationism is easily one of the worst books I have ever read.¹ I say that not because I disagree with the position he defends (i.e., the Son is not in any sense eternally subordinate to the Father); I’m still in the process of evaluating the evidence. Rather, I make that statement based primarily² on what the book itself sets out to do.

Giles’s goal in T&S is to move beyond the exegetical impasse regarding eternal subordination in the Trinity by appealing to tradition.

Quoting biblical texts and giving one’s interpretation of them cannot resolve complex theological disputes. . . . I believe this approach [to "doing theology"] should . . . be abandoned today because it always leads to a “text-jam.” . . . What we have today is a bitter stalemate (3).

Continue reading ‘The Failed Strategy of “Trinity & Subordinationism”’

1. I should clarify that I have read and am referring to only his section on the Trinity, which is its own distinct unit. [↩ Back]
2. I’ll probably follow up this post with the book’s other problems, such as (1) misunderstanding and misrepresenting complementarians, (2) selective reading of history, (3) eisegesis of historical texts, (4) category confusion, etc., etc. Here’s one example of misrepresentation to give you an idea of the way Giles interacts with complemenatarian Trinitarianism throughout the book: “Rather than working as one, the divine persons have been set in opposition—with the Father commanding and the Son obeying.” I wrote this in the margin, “Opposition?!!! What a massive misrepresentation!” I challenge Giles to show one complementarian who considers the Father and the Son to be in a relationship of opposition! [↩ Back]

The Father = The Trinity

This is the assertion of Kevin Giles in The Trinity and Subordinationism (IVP, 2002):

Here it is to be recalled that in the Bible and in the early church, the title “Father” is used in two cognate ways: in reference to the Godhead and to the person of the Father. Torrance argues that the Cappadocians’ error was to completely conflate these two meanings of the title “Father.” In the former sense, the Father (i.e., the Godhead) may be thought of as the source or font of all being. In the second sense, the Father (i.e., the Father of the Son) is he who is coequal and coeternal with the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit (43).

Continue reading ‘The Father = The Trinity’