The weekend before Christmas I was doing some reading and research on the Trinity (which is what I spend most of my weekends doing), and I stumbled across something in a journal article that sounded very much like something I had read in a systematic theology book. So I opened the book to compare, and sure enough it was verbatim (the only difference being a single word missing the italics from the original source).

So I turned back to the article expecting to see that the author was quoting a large portion from the theology book and that I was simply reading somewhere in the middle of the quote, but I saw no quotation marks and no mention of the author’s work. Perplexed I started comparing further, wondering if perhaps this was just a very long extended quotation. To my shock I discovered the the author of the journal article had reproduced without quotation marks nearly verbatim (somewhere between 95% and 99% identical content) the entirety of his 24-page article from the other individual’s theology book—almost a complete copy and paste with just a handful of very minor cosmetic changes. The only credit he gave to the author of the content was a mention in his first footnote where he listed a few sources on the doctrine of the Trinity. At the end of the footnote, he mentioned his particular indebtedness to the author whose content he plagiarized. (Most readers have no idea how indebted he really was!)

I was completely baffled, and I struggled to try to figure out if there was a better explanation than the one that was staring me in the face. But I could not—and still cannot—begin to fathom how major plagiarism like this could have happened inadvertently. I came up with only two possible ways to explain what I had found.

1. Under pressure and in a time of weakness, the author of the article intentionally plagiarized content from the author of the theology book.
2. A teaching assistant wrote the article for the stated author, and he intentionally plagiarized content from the author of the theology book (perhaps without the knowledge of the stated author).

A few thoughts:

1. I realize that unintentional plagiarism happens quite frequently (I’ve come across numerous instances of it), but I thought that intentional plagiarism was the stuff of slacker high-school and college students, not pastors, professors, and published authors.
2. None of us is above sin—any kind of sin. When I ponder the sin of others, I try to call to mind the words of Jonathan Edwards, who in his 8th resolution said, “Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.”
3. Public sin, especially the kind that makes its way into print and digital resources and onto the internet, can have long-lasting consequences. “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Num 32:23), especially digital sins that allow readers to harness the power of Google and Libronix.

I debated whether or not I should blog about this, but I thought it could prove to be a means of grace to those of us who research and write—or who struggle with sin of any sort.

I just emailed the author and asked him in as kind a way as possible to help me make sense out of the similarities between his article and the section from the other author’s theology book. I hope that either (1) he has a good explanation that is escaping me or (2) he has long since repented and made his sin right with the Lord and the author. I pray that if he hasn’t already dealt with this, that God would grant him the grace to humble himself before God and man and repent.

I may or may not post an update if he responds.

Update: After a week or so, I hadn’t received a reply to my first email. So I emailed him again, letting him know that I would be calling him if I didn’t get a reply. He replied immediately and rather curtly informed me that, though he had an explanation, it was none of my business, and since it happened so long ago it should be treated as ancient history. I replied with a gentle explanation of why I felt biblically obligated to email him and told him that I’d been praying for him. I got a slightly kinder reply this time that said I’d caught him at a bad time and that he’d be back in touch sometime down the road. After the first reply from the individual, I also contacted the author who was apparently plagiarized to see if it had been dealt with on his end, but my email was the first he had heard about this. He is now evaluating what he should do.

I read an endorsement recently that really grabbed my attention. A well-known individual described a book that is not very well known in these terms:

This book is much better than any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.

The individual was Jonathan Edwards.

The book was Peter Van Mastricht’s A Treatise on Regeneration, which was published by Soli Deo Gloria, now a part of Reformation Heritage Books.

Wow! I want to read that book. I wonder how it compares with John Piper’s Finally Alive.

Here’s the description of A Treatise on Regeneration from Monergism:

Jesus said that people must be “born again,” and that without that occurring they could not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, the new birth, or regeneration, is a thing of great importance. But is regeneration the result of faith, or is it the cause of faith? And what part does the human will play in this eternally significant event? These are the questions answered in this book by this great theologian Peter Van Mastricht. He was educated at the University of Utrecht, and held pastorates in Germany and Denmark before accepting a position as professor of Hebrew and practical theology at Frankfurt, and later at his alma mater. This material is taken from his Theologia Theoretico-Practica (Theoretical and Practical Theology). The great Jonathan Edwards incorporated many of Van Mastricht’s ideas in his famous book, The Freedom of the Will, also published by Soli Deo Gloria.

Jonathan Edwards once said of this book: “This book is much better than any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.”

This line from Edwards is quoted on the front cover of the book. Curious of the context, I wanted to track it down. After a little hunting, I was able to find it in the Works of Jonathan Edwards Online. Here is the full context of the quote.

In a letter to the Joseph Bellamy on January 15, 1746/7, Edwards writes,

Dear Sir,

I received your letter by Mr. [Job] Strong this day. Mr. [John] Searle was here at my house presently after, and I gave your questions to him, and told him the bearer intended quickly to return.

(As to the affair of sheep, I am much obliged to you for the pains you have taken. I believe you have acted the part of a trusty friend therein. I suppose it is known by this time, whether the man that went to Newtown has succeeded. If he has, and the sheep are bought, we shall rest in what you have done; but if not, and you shall have found no opportunity till this letter reaches you, it is so late in the year, that I desire you would keep the money till shearing time is over and then buy; when I suppose they may be bought much cheaper than now. But I would pray you to send us word by the first opportunity, that if we are not like to have any sheep this year, we may seasonably be looking out, and laying in for wool elsewhere, for the supply of the family. In the spring, if you can give us any encouragement, I should be glad to lay out £60 more for sheep in those parts, as soon as shearing time is over, – 217 – besides the £30 you have in your hands. But only, if you buy so many sheep for us, it might be perhaps expedient, on some accounts, for the present, not to let it be known who the sheep are for.)

As to the books you speak of: Mastricht is sometimes in one volume, a very thick, large quarto; sometimes in two quarto volumes. I believe it could not be had new under eight or ten pounds. Turretin is in three volumes in quarto, and would probably be about the same price.¹ They are both excellent. Turretin is on polemical divinity; on the Five Points, and all other controversial points; and is much larger in these than Mastricht; and is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in controversies. But take Mastricht for divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity and it is much better than Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion. I have thoughts of sending, myself, this year, to England for a few books, and have written to Mr. [Edmund] Quincy, a merchant in Boston, about it, to desire his advice and assistance, as to the course to be taken to obtain ‘em. If I employ him to send for me, I shall be willing to serve you, as I desire you to serve me about the sheep. I am willing to take your money and put it with my own, and put your books into my catalogue and have the books all come as mine; or shall be willing to serve you, if I can in any respect, by writing to my correspondents in Scotland.

I have been reading Whitby, which has engaged me pretty thoroughly in the study of the Arminian controversy; and I have writ considerably upon it in my private papers. I must entreat you, if possible, to borrow for me Dr. Stebbing, on the Spirit.² I had rather pay something for the use of it, than not have some considerable opportunity with it. I have got so deep into this controversy, that I am not willing to dismiss it, till I know the utmost of their matters.

I have very lately received a packet from Scotland, with the several copies of a Memorial, for the continuing and propagating an agreement for joint prayer for the general revival of religion; three of which I here send you, desiring you to dispose of two of ‘em where they will – 218 – be most serviceable.³ For my part, I heartily wish it was fallen in with by all Christians from the rising to the setting sun.

I have returned you Mr. Dickinson’s book, but must pray you [to] let me have further opportunity with Dr. Johnson’s.⁴ If you could inquire of Dr. Johnson, or Mr. [John] Beach, or some other, and find out what is the best book on the Arminian side, for the defense of their notion of free will; and whether there be any better and more full than Whitby, I should be glad; provided you have convenient opportunity. I don’t know but I shall publish something after a while on that subject.

Dear Sir, we have so many affairs to confer upon that concern us both, that I would propose that you should come this way again in February or March. You han’t a great family to tie you at home as I have. But if you can’t come, I must desire you to write fully and largely on all the foregoing particulars of this letter. Herein you will oblige, your cordial and affectionate friend and brother,

Jonathan Edwards.

P.S. It now comes to my mind that I heard that Dr. [Joseph] Pynchon of Longmeadow has Turretin, and that he lately offered to change them away for other books; so that in all probability you may there have those books at a moderate price.

(“73. To the Reverend Joseph Bellamy,” in Letters and Personal Writings (WJE Online Vol. 16), ed. George S. Claghorn, 216–18.)

There are two things worth pointing out about this use of the quote from Edwards. I work in marketing, so I’m aware of the importance of presenting products in the best possible light, but it appears that this quote has been massaged just a tad—assuming that what I found is the real source of the quote.

1. I see no indication that Edwards was referring to this particular section of Van Mastricht’s Theoretica-Practica Theologia. (Would it be accurate to say that Edwards thought that the best book in the world was Nahum, just because it is part of the Bible, which he did indirectly refer to as the best book in the world?)
2. Edwards qualifies his “it is much better than . . . any other book in the world” statement by referring to “divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity.” Granted, that is fairly broad, but I think it would be wise to stop short of saying that Edwards called the part or the whole “better than . . . any other book in the world” without any qualification.

The quote on the book and on the product page should probably read, “For divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity . . . [Peter van Mastrict's Theoretica-Practica Theologia, from which A Treatise on Regeneration is excerpted and translated] is much better than . . . any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.” But that doesn’t have quite the same marketing force. :)

Anyway, my quibbles with the use of the quote aside, it still is a noteworthy endorsement.

So what’s your second favorite book in the world? I’m not sure I have one.

Footnotes

1. The books referred to are Peter van Mastrict, Theoretica-Practica Theologia, ed. nova (Utrecht, 1699); and Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ (3 vols. Geneva, 1679—85). ↩
2. Daniel Whitby, A Discourse Concerning I. The True Import of the Words Election and Reprobation. II. The Extent of Christ’s Redemption. III. The Grace of God. IV. The Liberty of the Will. V. The Perseverance or Deflectability of the Saint (London, 1710); and Henry Stebbing, Treatise Concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit (London, 1719). ↩
3. JE included the Memorial as part of the introduction to An Humble Attempt. See Works, 5, 324—28. ↩
4. Jonathan Dickinson, Vindication of God’s Sovereign Free Grace (Boston, 1746); Samuel Johnson, Letter from Aristocles, to Authades Concerning the Sovereignty and the Promises of God (Boston, 1745). ↩

Jenson, Robert W. “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).

To defend this idea, Jenson turns to Gethsemane and the baptism of Jesus. In the Garden, the will of the Son is “reconciled” to the will of the Father. Although it’s not explicitly stated, it is reasonable to assume the Spirit’s involvement.

The Son says, “Not my will but yours.” The utterance itself is, of course, precisely the act of his will to be one with his Father, but nevertheless this very act is itself a reconciliation of two wills. Were Gethsemane a scene in anyone else’s life, we would not hesitate to say that what we see here is a man being reconciled to his destiny or to one who determines his destiny.

The evangelists do not explicitly name the Spirit as the agent of this reconciliation. But the classical trinitarian tradition names the Spirit as the vinculum amoris between the Father and the Son, and if the love of the Father and the Son includes a reconciliation between them, then the Spirit is the agent thereof. (160)

Jesus’ baptism, though, is more explicit. There

the Spirit mediates between the Son and the Father, and that this mediation is essential to the Son being the Son. . . . The prophetic and creative Spirit, known throughout the Old Testament, appears between them, as the power of the proclaimed relation. (161)

Jensen proposes that the Spirit’s role as vinculum amoris is the key to seeing the Spirit as the reconciler between the Father and the Son.

It requires an active third person to make a bond of love between two; a person who gives himself to them, just so to unite them. And what would one call such a gift, except the act of a reconciler? (161)

You are probably alarmed at this point by the implications of intratrinitarian “reconciliation,” which typically denotes the act of restoring friendly relations between two or more parties.² But Jenson quickly qualifies, “There of course cannot be any suggestion that Jesus and his Father were ever at odds” (161).

An analogy might be the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Generation implies origin. Adding eternal makes it clear that the Son never had a beginning.³ It seems that what Jenson is suggesting is a doctrine of eternal reconciliation, though he doesn’t use the term. The Father and the Son have always been in a reconciled relationship due to the person and work of the Spirit.

From here Jenson explores how the Son might reconcile the Father and the Spirit and how the Father might reconcile the Son and the Spirit. The speculation gets even more strained, and the argument is too complex to summarize concisely. You can read it for yourself on pages 161ff.

In his discussion of the Son as the reconciler of the Father (the source) and the Spirit (the future), he warns of modalism, which he curiously describes as “the doctrine that God’s story is infinitely dull in itself and that only in his condescension to time does it acquire any excitement” (162).

I love his concluding paragraph:

The trinitarian geometry is exhausted; there are no more possibilities to be tried. What, if any, of the above makes sense and what does not, is hard to tell. I offer the whole for whatever truth a reader may discern in it. (166)

Hmm. You have to wonder when the author himself doesn’t even know if what he wrote makes any sense or contains any truth!

Though it’s a little too speculative for my liking, Jenson’s view of the Spirit as “reconciler” of the Father and the Son bears some similarities to the Trinitarian theology of Jonathan Edwards, both of whom follow Augustin in seeing the Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son.

And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God’s understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.⁴

Some, like Letham, would object to both of these models and maintain that “the Holy Spirit can never be assimilated into the mutual love between the Father and the Son.”⁵ Letham gives two primary objections: (1) the Spirit is reduced to an attribute and loses His personality,⁶ and (2) the implications of preexisting disunity or a “fragile unity” between the Father and the Son are inescapable.⁷

I find neither objection compelling, but neither am I drawn strongly toward the Augustinian model of the Spirit as the intratrinitarian vinculum amoris.

More reading and pondering to do.

Footnotes

1. Cf. Amazon. ↩
2. COED. ↩
3. FWIW, at present I am inclined to reject the doctrine of eternal generation. But many prominent theologians, like Letham, still affirm it, so I am going to give it some more thought. ↩
4. “An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity.” ↩
5. The Holy Trinity, 331. ↩
6. Ibid., 287. This is one of Letham’s biggest criticisms of Barth’s trinitarianism. ↩
7. Ibid., 287, 331. ↩

This month’s free audiobook download from ChristianAudio.com is Jonathan Edwards’s The Life of David Brainerd. This is one you’ll definitely want to pick up. It’s a classic, and its reflective, devotional nature will make for great listening. Make sure to use the code OCT2007.

It’s read by Nick Cordileone, has a runtime of 9 hours and 55 minutes, and consists of nine MP3s totaling 273.3 MBs.