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.
Theology
Accountability
By Philip R. Gons, Matthew C. Hoskinson, and Andrew David Naselli
(cross-posted at our respective blogs: Gons, Hoskinson, Naselli)
Christians will give an account to God for their lives, and wise Christians live in light of that sobering reality (Rom 14:12; 2 Cor 5:10). Consequently, we have covenanted to keep each other accountable in preparation for our future accounting. Since some of our friends have asked us about our method of accountability, we decided to co-author this article in order to glorify God by provoking other Christians to seek out a greater degree of accountability.
God has used many different means to emphasize to us the importance of accountability. Among these are Scripture (e.g., Heb 3:12–13; James 5:16), books (e.g., Paul David Tripp’s Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands and Bryan Chapell’s Holiness by Grace), and especially John Piper’s pastoral accountability questionnaire. Chapell, for example, describes the importance of accountability:
Augustin on Postmodernism
Chapter 14.—Error of Those Who Think that There Is No Absolute Right and Wrong.
22. But when men unacquainted with other modes of life than their own meet with the record of such actions, unless they are restrained by authority, they look upon them as sins, and do not consider that their own customs either in regard to marriage, or feasts, or dress, or the other necessities and adornments of human life, appear sinful to the people of other nations and other times. And, distracted by this endless variety of customs, some who were half asleep (as I may say)—that is, who were neither sunk in the deep sleep of folly, nor were able to awake into the light of wisdom—have thought that there was no such thing as absolute right, but that every nation took its own custom for right; and that, since every nation has a different custom, and right must remain unchangeable, it becomes manifest that there is no such thing as right at all. Such men did not perceive, to take only one example, that the precept, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,”1 cannot be altered by any diversity of national customs. And this precept, when it is referred to the love of God, destroys all vices when to the love of one’s neighbor, puts an end to all crimes. For no one is willing to defile his own dwelling; he ought not, therefore, to defile the dwelling of God, that is, himself. And no one wishes an injury to be done him by another; he himself, therefore, ought not to do injury to another.2
- n34: Matt. 7:12. Comp. Tobit 4:15. [↩]
- ECF 2.2.1.2.3.14; NPNF1, II, 562. [↩]
“Savior” in Titus
In my Bible reading a couple of days ago, I was struck by Paul’s use of Savior (σωτήρ) in Titus. Several things stood out to me. First, it occurs 6 times in the small letter of only 46 verses—twice per chapter. It occurs only 24 times in the whole NT. So it’s significant that 25% of the NT occurrences are in Titus.
Second, it occurs three times with reference to the Father and three times with reference to the Son. Paul alternates consistently between calling the Father our Savior followed by the Son as our Savior. The occurrences in chapters 1 and 3 even share the same main thought.
Titus 1:1–4
[Read more…] about “Savior” in TitusThe Triune God ≠ A Non-Triune God
A couple of evenings ago I read Rick Love’s response to John Piper’s thoughts on “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You.'” (“A Common Word Between Us and You” is available at http://www.acommonword.com/.)
One portion caught my attention:
Q: The Yale Response seems to imply that Allah is the same God that Christians worship. Is this true?
A: I do not hesitate to refer to the God of the Bible as Allah, since Arab Christians before and after the birth of Islam use the term Allah to describe the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Christian and Muslim views of God are similar in that we both worship the one true God, creator of the heavens and the earth. We both believe this God will judge all peoples at the end of history. We both believe this God has sent His prophets into the world to guide His people. Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I believe that Muslims worship the true God. But I also believe that their view of God falls short of His perfections and beauty as described in the Bible. Thus, I try to model my approach to Muslims after the apostle Paul who said to the Athenians: “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).
Muslim background believers all over the world testify that they were previously worshiping God in ignorance and now they have come to know him in Jesus Christ.
Essential Equality and Functional Subordination: A Complementarian Novelty?
Did complementarians invent the notion that beings can be equal in essence and yet one be subordinate to the other in terms of function or role? That’s what many egalitarians claim.
Here’s an interesting selection from Ambrosiaster:
The subjection of Christ to the Father means that every creature will learn that he is subject to Christ, who in turn is subject to the Father, and will thus confess that there is only one God. But Christ’s subjection to the Father is not the same thing as our subjection to the Son, because our subjection is one of dependence and not the union of equals.1
“Christ’s subjection to the Father is . . . one of . . . the union of equals.” The notion that a being can be equal in one sense yet subject in another sense is quite apparently not novel.
- Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, 81.3:173–74. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna, 1866–. Quote in Gerald Lewis Bray, “1 Corinthians 15:28,” 1–2 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: NT 7 (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 163. [↩]
“He Disarms the Wrath of God”
Shanna purchased 25 new songs from SacredAudio.com a couple weeks ago, several of which came from a new album entitled Depths of Mercy. I was able to squeeze all but one on a CD, which we have had playing in the car on the way to and from work.
One line in “Depth of Mercy” bothers me every time I hear it: “He disarms the wrath of God.”
The original text was written by Charles Wesley in 1740. Here is the slightly revised text from the audio version we have.
Depth of mercy! Can there be
Mercy still reserved for me?
Can my God his wrath forbear?
Me, the chief of sinners, spare?
Whence to me this waste of love?
Ask my Advocate above!
See the cause in Jesus’ face,
Now before the throne of grace.
I my master have denied,
I afresh have crucified,
And profaned his hallowed name;
Put him to an open shame.
Jesus speaks and pleads his blood!
He disarms the wrath of God;
Now my Father’s mercy move,
He receives me with his love.
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.
While most of what I have to say about Letham’s book is positive, I have had a few minor issues here and there. For example, Letham maintains that most Western Christians are practical modalists. I’m not strongly opposed to Letham’s assertion, but he does a very poor job of establishing its veracity. Here’s what he says:
[Read more…] about Are You a Practical Modalist?- 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). [↩]