Or perhaps I should have titled that “Rob Bell Discusses Homosexuality and Andrew Wilson Discusses the Bible,” because there was a disturbing lack of Bible in Rob Bell’s answers and arguments. Instead, Rob argued along these lines (and I’m paraphrasing):

• People don’t like Christianity. Therefore, we should change the parts they don’t like.
• The modern world affirms homosexuality. Therefore, we should too.
• Monogamous homosexuals aren’t hurting anyone. Therefore, they’re not sinful.
• Monogamy is better than promiscuity because the latter is dangerous and destructive.
• Because homosexuals want to share their lives with each other, they should be able to.

I wasn’t familiar with Andrew Wilson prior to watching this video, but I appreciate the way he interacted with Rob. He was direct, logical, kind, persistent, and uncompromising.

Watch it for yourself.

This issue is not going away anytime soon. So it’s important that we understand it and be prepared to engage in the discussion.

Here’s another great video worth watching. Andrew Sullivan and Douglas Wilson debate the question “Is Civil Marriage for Gay Couples Good for Society?” (HT: Mark Ward).

Finally, in case you missed it, last week Jason Collins, an NBA player with a Christian upbringing, announced that he’s a homosexual; and Christian sports analyst Chris Broussard (among others) responded. Here are several posts that address those events:

• Broussard, Bigotry, and the NBA
• Homosexuality, the NBA, and the Morality of Making Moral Judgments
• Homosexuality: Six Ways to Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin
• A Response to Jason Collins’ Announcement
• Jason Collins, Chris Broussard, and Our Cultural Temperature

See also:

• Same-Sex Marriage as a Civil Right—Are Wrongs Rights?
• Gay Marriage and Christian Imagination
• An Open Letter To All Those Who Call Me An Intolerant Bigot

Orthodox trinitarianism typically refers to God in terms of three persons or subsistences (personas, subsistentia, or ὑποστάσιες) and one essence or substance (essentia, substantia, or οὐσία). But is there a sense in which God is one person? To put it another way, is God’s oneness personal?

Here’s how three Princeton theologians addressed this topic.

B. B. Warfield (1851–1921)

The elements in the doctrine of God which above all others needed emphasis in Old Testament times were naturally His unity and His personality. The great thing to be taught the ancient people of God was that the God of all the earth is one person. Over against the varying idolatries about them, this was the truth of truths for which Israel was primarily to stand; and not until this great truth was ineffaceably stamped upon their souls could the personal distinctions in the Triune-God be safely made known to them.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Spirit of God in the Old Testament,” chapter 3 of Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), 127 (emphasis added).

Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949)

God’s being may not be called personal in the abstract but only in His threefold existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In God personality is not one but three. There are not four but only three persons in the Godhead. (17)

17. Must we ascribe personality to God’s being in itself?

No, for then we obtain four persons. The essence, however, is not impersonal for it exists in three persons. Only if one abstracts the essence from the latter can one say that it is not personal. (43)

Geerhardus Vos, Theology Proper, vol. 1 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), 17, 43.

Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987)

We speak of the essence of God in contrast to the three persons of the Godhead. We speak of God as a person; yet we speak also of three persons in the Godhead. As we say that each of the attributes of God is to be identified with the being of God, while yet we are justified in making a distinction between them, so we say that each of the persons of the Trinity is exhaustive of divinity itself, while yet there is a genuine distinction between the persons. Unity and plurality are equally ultimate in the Godhead. The persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another, and therefore of the essence of the Godhead. God is a one-conscious being, and yet he is also a tri-conscious being.

. . .

. . . the work ascribed to any of the persons is the work of one absolute person. . . .

. . .

It is sometimes asserted that we can prove to men that we are not asserting anything that they ought to consider irrational, inasmuch as we say that God is one in essence and three in person. We therefore claim that we have not asserted unity and trinity of exactly the same thing.

Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person. We have noted how each attribute is coextensive with the being of God. We are compelled to maintain this in order to avoid the notion of an uninterpreted being of some sort. In other words, we are bound to maintain the identity of the attributes of God with the being of God in order to avoid the specter of brute fact. In a similar manner we have noted how theologians insist that each of the persons of the Godhead is co-terminous with the being of the Godhead. But all this is not to say that the distinctions of the attributes are merely nominal. Nor is it to say that the distinctions of the persons are merely nominal. We need both the absolute cotermineity of each attribute and each person with the whole being of God, and the genuine significance of the distinctions of the attributes and the persons. “Each person,” says Bavinck, “is equal to the whole essence of God and coterminous with both other persons and with all three,” (“Elk persoon is daarom gelyk aan het gansche wezen en evenveel als de beide andere of als alle drie saam”). Over against all other beings, that is, over against created beings, we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective “personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality. Yet, within the being of the one person we are permitted and compelled by Scripture to make the distinction between a specific or generic type of being, and three personal subsistences.

. . .

. . . To say that God is one person and at the same time to say that he exists as three persons, he will say, is not merely to contradict yourself verbally, but is to say that all predication is analytic. It is to assert that being is already fully complete; that it cannot be added to. All the difficulties that Parmenides faced are thus said to face the Christian believer.

Cornelius Van Til, “The Trinity of God,” chapter 17 of An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 229ff. Cf. John Frame, “Father, Son, and Spirit,” chapter 27 of The Doctrine of God, vol. 2 of A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R), 703ff.

Gordon Clark, a contemporary of Van Til’s, considered the key issue avoiding contradiction:

[T]he Godhead [is] one in one sense and three in a different sense. Whether this difference be called person or substance is inconsequential. . . . Although it is not familiar to our ears, one could say that God is one person and three substances. In fact, translate substance back into Greek and it is most orthodox to say that the Godhead is three substances. It makes no difference what term one uses, provided that he clearly states that they are not synonymous. God is one and three in different senses. (The Trinity [Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1985], 52–53)

See also “Is the Trinity One ‘What’ and Three ‘Who’s’?”

R. C. Sproul’s The Truth of the Cross is available as a free download through April 30, 2013 from Ligonier Ministries and Reformation Trust. The best option is to grab the Logos version. It’s also available for Kindle and as an EPUB.

Here are the ten topics he covers:

1. The Necessity of an Atonement
2. The Just God
3. Debtors, Enemies, and Criminals
4. Ransomed from Above
5. The Saving Substitute
6. Made Like His Brethren
7. The Suffering Servant
8. The Blessing and the Curse
9. A Secure Faith
10. Questions and Answers

Download your copy now:

1. Logos
   
2. Kindle
3. EPUB

Learn more at the Ligonier blog.

John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied is one of my all-time favorite books. I highly recommend it as a biblical and Reformed study on the atonement and the ordo salutis.

I’m preparing to teach on union with Christ at my church in a couple of weeks, and I decided to reread Murray’s chapter on the subject. It was time well spent.

Here are some highlights:

Nothing is more central or basic than union and communion with Christ. . . . [U]nion with Christ is in itself a very broad and embracive subject. It is not simply a step in the application of redemption; . . . it underlies every step of the application of redemption. Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ. Indeed the whole process of salvation has its origin in one phase of union with Christ and salvation has in view the realization of other phases or union with Christ. (161)

It is obvious that we must not reduce the nature and the mode of union with Christ to the measure of the kind of union that exists between the chief corner stone and the other stones in the building nor to the measure of the kind of union that exists between the vine and the branches, nor to that of the head and the other members of the body, nor even to that of husband and wife. The mode, nature, and kind of union differ in the different cases. There is similitude but not identity. But just as we may not reduce the union between Christ and his people to the level of the union that exists on these other strata of being, so we must not raise it to the level of the union that exists within the Godhead. Similitude here again does not mean identity. Union with Christ does not mean that we are incorporated into the life of the Godhead. (168)

Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation. All to which the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured and procured for them in the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption, all of which they become the actual partakers in the application of redemption, and all that by God’s grace they will become in the state of consummated bliss is embraced within the compass of union and communion with Christ. (170)

There is no truth, therefore, more suited to impart confidence and strength, comfort and joy in the Lord than this one of union with Christ. It also promotes sanctification, not only because all sanctifying grace is derived from Christ as the crucified and exalted Redeemer, but also because the recognition of fellowship with Christ and of the high privilege it entails incites to gratitude, obedience, and devotion. (171)

John Murray, “Union with Christ,” chapter 9 of Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 161–73. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955. [Amazon | Google Books | WTS Books]

See also my union with Christ bibliography and my review of Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

On the heels of announcing the demise of Google Reader (and several other services), Google has launched a new note-taking app called Google Keep, which has as its tagline “save what’s on your mind.” Keep is currently an Android app, which requires Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) or higher, and a web app (under the Google Drive brand). I imagine an iOS app is forthcoming, but there’s no word from Google on that yet.

Most are comparing Google Keep to Evernote (and, to a lesser degree, OneNote). While there is some overlap, Evernote is still a much more robust product with a bigger feature set and far greater device compatibility. Google Keep has an attractive user interface and is being met with a pretty positive response—an average rating of 4.4/5 stars in the Google Play store so far, but it’s presently nowhere near Evernote’s capabilities.

Here’s a breakdown of the pros and cons of Google Keep vs. Evernote:

Pros of Google Keep / Cons of Evernote

1. Easier to make and manage checklists. Checklist is a note type. You can easily drag-and-drop to reorder items.
2. Easier to dictate a note and have it transcribed.
3. Possibility of deeper integration with Android and the Google ecosystem.
4. Set note colors, perhaps as a way to categorize your notes.

Cons of Google Keep / Pros of Evernote

1. No rich-text editing. No ordered or unordered lists, no hyperlinks, no bold or italics, etc.
2. No ability to clip web pages.
3. No ability to attach documents like PDFs, Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, etc., though I imagine we’ll see Drive and Docs integration eventually.
4. No OCR-like functionality.
5. No notebooks or tags or similar tools for organization.
6. No integration with Google Tasks.
7. No collaberation.

So is Google Keep better than Evernote? For me the answer is clearly a no. Does it have the potential to get there? Perhaps, but it’s not clear what Google’s long-term plans are for it. For the Google user looking for very basic note-taking functionality who doesn’t need all the bells and whistles that Evernote offers, Google Keep might be the better choice.

Google Keep won’t be replacing Evernote for me anytime soon—at least not without addressing most of the issues mentioned above. But it does look like a nice app worth keeping an eye on. And the competition in the note-taking space means we all benefit.

Learn more about Keep in this overview video.

If this does turn into a winner, let’s just hope that they don’t pull the plug on it in a few years in a future round of spring cleaning.

What do you think about Google Keep? Do you see it becoming your go-to note-taking app?

See also my list of other Android apps.

Google Reader has long been the best RSS aggregator available. It arrived on the scene in 2005 and quickly overtook the competition. I switched from Bloglines to Google Reader shortly after it was released and never looked back.  Their web app is excellent, and their Android app is pretty solid too, even if not as advanced as some of its competitors’ offerings. Its robust API is also the foundation for most mobile RSS apps.

Although RSS has never really taken off with the masses, those of us who are more technologically inclined consider it one of the most useful and efficient ways to keep up with content from multiple sources.

The End of Google Reader

Unfortunately, Google announced that they’re retiring Reader.

We launched Google Reader in 2005 in an effort to make it easy for people to discover and keep tabs on their favorite websites. While the product has a loyal following, over the years usage has declined. So, on July 1, 2013, we will retire Google Reader. Users and developers interested in RSS alternatives can export their data, including their subscriptions, with Google Takeout over the course of the next four months.

It’s not because a better product came along and stole their market share. It’s not because RSS is dead. Rather, Google is cleaning house and refocusing its resources.

On that note, this tweet made me smile: “We need to focus. Keep the self-driving cars, magic glasses, laptop, handheld OS, and Brazilian social network. Ditch the feed reader.”

Replacing Google Reader

I don’t think there’s a comparable replacement for Google Reader. So if you go searching for one, you’re most likely going to be disappointed.

One option is to give up on RSS and use Twitter instead, since most sites push their RSS feed—either manually or automatically—to Twitter. Some will make that move, but I doubt most will be satisfied to ditch RSS entirely.

For those who want to stick with RSS, there are a few options that provide some of the same functionality. Here are the ones I’ve explored so far:

• Feedly
• The Old Reader
• Taptu
• Netvibes

Digg also announced their plans to build an RSS reader.

For me, a viable replacement for Google Reader needs to have a robust web app and an Android app (an iPad app is optional, since I rarely use our iPad anymore). It also has to sync everything in the cloud for seamless integration between my desktop computer and Nexus 7. Finally, it needs to allow me to import and manage all my current feeds from Google Reader.

Feedly—for Now

It seems that for now the best option is Feedly. It meets all my criteria above for a replacement—or at least it will in the near future. It has a nice “web app” (via a Chrome, Firefox, or Safari browser extension) and an Android app (with optional iOS app and Kindle Fire app), and it syncs your settings to the cloud.

It currently relies on Google Reader’s API, but they plan to build their own back-end system called Normandy—a clone of the Google Reader API—which will be released before July 1. They promise a smooth transition:

When Google Reader shuts down, feedly will seamlessly transition to the Normandy back end. So if you are a Google Reader user and using feedly, you are covered: the transition will be seamless.

It also has a nicely design user interface, is fairly customizable, uses the same keyboard shortcuts as Google Reader, and has nice integration with social and other sharing, storage, and reading applications.

I’ll continue to use Google Reader until it shuts down, but I’ll also start to slowly transition over to Feedly, unless a better alternative comes around between now and then.

What are your plans? Have you found something better than Feedly?

Update: The Old Reader looks like a decent option if you just want a web reader. It doesn’t have any mobile apps, and it doesn’t have a API that other apps can use. For me, that rules it out as an option. Currently, there’s a long waiting list to import your feeds from Google Reader. I currently see this message: “There are 29,478 users in the import queue ahead of you.”

Here’s how Geerhardus Vos articulates the core affirmations of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:

1. There is only one divine being. Scripture expresses itself decisively against all polytheism (Deut 6:4; Isa 44:6; Jas 2:19).
2. In this one God are three modes of existence, which we refer to by the word “person” and which are, each one, this only true God. In Scripture these three persons are called, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. These three persons, although together the one true God, are nevertheless distinguished from each other insofar as they assume objective relations toward each other, address each other, love each other, and can interact with each other.
4. Although these three persons possess one and the same divine substance, Scripture nevertheless teaches us that, concerning their personal existence, the Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Spirit the third, that the Son is of the Father, the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Further, their workings outwardly reflect this order of personal existence, since the Father works through the Son, and the Father and Son work through the Spirit. There is, therefore, subordination as to personal manner of existence and manner of working, but no subordination regarding possession of the one divine substance.
5. The divine substance is not divided among the three persons as if each possesses one-third. Neither is it a new substance beside the three persons. Finally, neither is it an abstraction of our thinking in a nominalistic sense. But in a manner for which all further analogy is lacking, each of these persons possesses the entire divine substance.

Geerhardus Vos, “The Trinity,” chapter 3 of Theology Proper, vol. 1 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), 38–39.

By the way, today is Vos’s 151st birthday. In honor, Logos Bible Software just posted a 14-volume collection of Vos’s works on Pre-Pub. They’re also working on the first ever English translation of Vos’s Reformed Dogmatics, from which the above quotation comes.

I’ve been using a Nexus 7 (from Google and Asus) for the last seven months, and I’ve really enjoyed it. It’s a nearly perfect device—at least for my needs. It replaced my third generation iPad (which my wife and daughter now share) and my HTC Evo phone.

John Piper’s view on alcohol consumption is encapsulated in these three sources:

1. “Total Abstinence and Church Membership,” a sermon preached on October 4, 1981
2. “Flesh Tank and Peashooter Regulations,” a sermon on Colossians 2:16–23 preached on January 17, 1982
3. “Is It Okay to Drink Alcohol?” Ask Pastor John podcast, May 8, 2010

Total Abstinence and Church Membership

“Total Abstinence and Church Membership,” though delivered nearly 32 years ago, is his most extensive treatment on the subject (that I’ve come across). In it he gives four main reasons that he personally abstains from alcohol consumption:

1. “. . . because of my conscience.”
2. “. . . alcohol is a mind-altering drug.”
3. “. . . alcohol is addictive.”
4. “. . . to make a social statement.”

While he argues that “Christians in America today [should] abstain from the use of alcoholic drink as a beverage,” he acknowledges that Scripture doesn’t explicitly forbid it. In fact, he also argues that “abstinence [should not] be a requirement for church membership” and even led the elders at his church to alter a line in their church covenant that required total abstinence for membership.

As a result, they replaced “We engage . . . to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage.” with “We engage . . . to seek God’s help in abstaining from all drugs, food, drink, and practices which harm the body or jeopardize our own or another’s faith.”

Flesh Tank and Peashooter Regulations

“Flesh Tank and Peashooter Regulations” was a follow-up message preached the Sunday before that change officially took place. In it he reiterates his objections to alcohol consumption, but primarily goes after legalism and why requiring abstinence for church membership is wrong.

. . . God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism. If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind, I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement. . . .

. . . Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don’t feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. Therefore, what we need in this church is not front-end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure. . . .

Another source, “Brothers, Don’t Fight Flesh Tanks with Peashooter Regulations,” in Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry [Logos], 151–58 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), simply reworks and condenses this sermon.

Is It Okay to Drink Alcohol?

A more recent treatment of the subject is found in this Ask Pastor John video.

I don’t drink alcohol, for many of the same reasons that Piper doesn’t. I’d probably add at least two others:

1. Cost: It’s more expensive than water, which is almost all I ever drink.
2. Taste: Like coffee, alcohol tastes horrible. (I had a sip of wine for communion in a Russian Baptist Church in Riga, Latvia. And I also had a non-alcoholic beer with a missionary in Krakow, Poland.) Friends who drink alcohol tell me that you have to learn to like it.

I also think it is useful to acknowledge that the alcoholic beverages of today are generally more alcoholic than the beverages in New Testament times, so that it’s not an apples-to-apples (or grapes-to-grapes!) comparison.

I appreciate Piper’s desire to convince others of the wisdom of total abstinence. But I equally appreciate his balance in not going beyond Scripture and forbidding what Scripture does not.

For more from Piper on this subject, see these additional sources:

1. “Don’t Turn to Alcohol, Turn to the Spirit,” in “Be Filled with the Spirit,” a sermon on Ephesians 5:18 preached on March 8, 1981
2. “The Issue Is Scripture!” Taste and See article, October 20, 1981
3. “Is It a Sin to Smoke or Eat Junk Food?” Ask Pastor John podcast, February 1, 2008

See also my post “Thoughts on Proverbs 31:6–7.”

Life in a Risen Saviour: Being Discourses on the Argument of the Fifteenth Chapter of First Corinthians by Robert Candlish is free from Logos Bible Software this month as part of their Free Book of the Month program. After you get the free book, you can read in one of the free reader apps for PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle Fire—or online at Biblia.com.

You can also enter to win a free copy of the 15-vol. Works of Robert S. Candlish.

Life in a Risen Saviour consists of 21 sermons. Here’s how Candlish introduces the volume:

I have endeavoured, in these Discourses, to illustrate the line of argument pursued by the Apostle. It is not, as I apprehend it, an argument about the resurrection generally. It has respect to one particular view of the resurrection; its bearing on the believer’s spiritual and eternal life. I have sought to trace the line of thought which gives unity and coherence to the Apostle’s reasoning. I have by no means, however, aimed at anything like a complete commentary or exposition. I have rarely discussed different interpretations, and have abstained from minute criticism. There is no attempt, on my part, to occupy the place already so well filled by such learned and acute scholars as Dr. John Brown, and other recent writers, who have bestowed research and study on the examination of this portion of Scripture. I have not quoted authorities. But I must name Isaac Taylor’s “Physical Theory of Another Life,” as having suggested interesting lines of thought connected with the future state.

I crave indulgence for some diffuseness, as well as for occasional repetitions, not easily to be avoided in a series of compositions for the pulpit, prepared often hastily from week to week, and all having reference, more or less directly, to one theme. I might have recast what I had thus prepared, so as to give it the form of a more compact treatise. But that is always an irksome task,—and not always a successful one. I have thought it best to publish the Discourses very much as they were when I preached them.

He traces Paul’s argument along these lines:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2—The consistency of Paul’s preaching, and its acceptableness
2. 1 Corinthians 15:3–11—The substance of Paul’s preaching, and its evidence
3. 1 Corinthians 15:12–17—If there is no resurrection, Christ is not risen, and we are yet in our sins
4. 1 Corinthians 15:18, 19—The pious dead are lost, and we are miserable
5. 1 Corinthians 15:20–23—But Christ is risen, and is become the first-fruits of them that sleep
6. 1 Corinthians 15:24–28—The end; the delivering up of the kingdom to the Father
7. 1 Corinthians 15:29–32—Why baptism for the dead, and other hazards? Why not live for the passing day?
8. 1 Corinthians 15:33, 34—Danger of Antinomian license, as the fruit of dallying with “profane and vain babblings.”—(2 Tim. 2:16–18)
9. 1 Corinthians 15:35–38—How are the dead raised?—Not as they die—Analogy of the bare grain yielding ripe fruit
10. 1 Corinthians 15:39–42—Varieties of bodies in nature—Terrestrial and celestial
11. 1 Corinthians 15:42–44—Bodies changed from corruption, dishonour, and weakness, to incorruption, glory, and power
12. 1 Corinthians 15:44—The natural and the spiritual body
13. 1 Corinthians 15:45–49—The two Adams
14. 1 Corinthians 15:50–53—“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”
15. 1 Corinthians 15:53, 54—“Flesh and bones”—Kinsmanship, and community of nature
16. 1 Corinthians 15:54—Death swallowed up in victory
17. 1 Corinthians 15:55, 56—The sting of death—Sin—The strength of sin—The law—Victory the free gift of God in Christ
18. John 11:25, 26—Christ the resurrection and the life
19. 1 Corinthians 15:58—Steadfastness in the faith of the resurrection
20. 1 Corinthians 15:58—Abounding in the work of the Lord—Its reward—Resumption of it
21. Isaiah 25:8—The Church’s progress—Her final victory over all the earth—Her missionary character

Here are the books that Logos has offered for free so far:

1. January 2012: Temptation and Sin, vol. 6 of The Works of John Owen, by John Owen (cf. the 24-vol. Works of John Owen)
2. February 2012: Revelation and Inspiration, vol. 1 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, by Benjamin B. Warfield (cf. the 20-vol. B. B. Warfield Collection)
3. March 2012: Authentic Christianity, by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (cf. the 10-vol. Selected Works of Martyn Lloyd-Jones)
4. April 2012: Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, by John Bunyan (cf. the 3-vol., 61-title Works of John Bunyan)
5. May 2012: The Godhood of God, by A. W. Pink (cf. the 40-vol. A. W. Pink Collection)
6. June 2012: The Four Hundred Silent Years, by H. A. Ironside (cf. the 65-vol. Works of H. A. Ironside)
7. July 2012: Selected Sermons of George Whitefield, by George Whitefield (cf. the 13-vol. Works of George Whitefield)
8. August 2012: The Epistle to the Hebrews, by B. F. Westcott (cf. the 14-vol. Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament)
9. September 2012: The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts, by Isaac Watts (cf. the 14-vol. Works of Isaac Watts)
10. October 2012: The Christian Doctrine of Prayer, by James Hastings (cf. the 3-vol. Great Christian Doctrines)
11. November 2012: Genesis to 2 Chronicles, vol. 1 of Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, by John Nelson Darby(cf. the 5-vol. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible)
12. December 2012: Dr. Ryrie’s Articles, by Charles Ryrie (cf. the 31 vol. Charles Ryrie Legacy Collection)
13. January 2013: A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, by Jonathan Edwards (cf. the 2-vol. Works of Jonathan Edwards and the 26-vol. Works of Jonathan Edwards)
14. February 2013: Satan, by Lewis Sperry Chafer (cf. the 9-vol. Lewis Sperry Chafer Collection)
15. March 2013: Life in a Risen Saviour, by Robert Candlish (cf. the 15-vol. Works of Robert S. Candlish)

To make sure you don’t miss future free books, sign up for the Free Book of the Month email list.

A reader pointed out a forthcoming book on union with Christ: One with Christ: An Evangelical Theology of Salvation. This 256–page book by Marcus Peter Johnson is supposed to be published by Crossway on August 31, 2013.

Here’s the description from Amazon:

Regeneration, justification, sanctification. These are the primary words that come to mind when talking about the theology of salvation. However, the Bible teaches that each of these concepts is firmly rooted in something more foundational: our union with Christ. In this accessible book, Johnson introduces us to this neglected doctrine, arguing that it is the dominant organizing concept for salvation in the New Testament. In eight thought-provoking chapters, Johnson shows how a believer’s position “in Christ” is the lens through which other all other facets of salvation should be understood. Interacting extensively with the biblical text and drawing on lessons from church history, Johnson presents a compelling case for the unique importance of this beautiful, biblical doctrine.

Marcus Johnson holds a PhD from the University of Toronto and is an assistant professor of theology at Moody Bible Institute. His doctoral dissertation was entitled “Eating by Believing: Union with Christ in the Soteriology of John Calvin.” PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2007. [Proquest]

He has also published several articles on union with Christ:

• “‘The Highest Degree of Importance’: Union with Christ and Soteriology in Evangelical Calvinism.” In Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011.
• “Participation in Adam and in Christ: A Way Forward on the Question of the Transmission of Original Sin.” In Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011.
• “New or Nuanced Perspective on Calvin? A Reply to Thomas Wenger.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 3 (September 2008): 542–58.
• “Luther and Calvin on Union with Christ.” Fides et Historia 39, no. 2 (2007): 59–77.

This volume follows these three excellent additions to the subject of union with Christ in the last two years:

1. Billings, J. Todd. Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. 192 pp. [Amazon]
2. Campbell, Constantine R. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. [Amazon]
3. Letham, Robert. Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2011. 208 pp. [Amazon]

See more in my Union with Christ bibliography, which I just recently updated.

Yesterday Andy Naselli highlighted six resources by D. A. Carson on assurance of salvation. It reminded me of Carson’s article “Reflections on Christian Assurance,” which is one of my favorites on the subject. Carson skillfully holds together what many tear asunder. If you haven’t read it, I’d strongly encourage you to. The balance he strikes is exemplary. I can’t speak to whether some of his other treatments are better, but this one is superb.

He originally presented “Reflections on Christian Assurance” as a paper at Tyndale House in June, 1990 as the Annual Biblical Theology Lecture. Two year later it was published in Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 1–29. In 2000 it was republished as “Reflections on Assurance,” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 247–76.

Here’s the outline of his article:

I. Introduction

II. Some Contemporary Tendencies

A. Not only is there a tendency to stress the diverse emphases in many biblical texts, there are even more diverse interpretations of them.

B. A major reexamination of relevant Reformation arguments is currently underway.

C. In America, the basis of Christian assurance has erupted as the distinguishing banner of a small but vociferous segment of evangelicalism.

D. Apart from these movements, there is a tendency to say very little about Christian assurance in most of our churches.

III. Biblical and Theological Reflections

A. The New Testament writers admit no qualitative, absolute disjunction between genuine believers who display obedience to Jesus in their lives, and genuine believers who do not.

B. Several NT writers recognize the existence of spurious or transitory faith, and this recognition must be factored into any responsible doctrine of Christian assurance.

C. The biblical writers either presuppose or explicitly teach what might be called “compatibilism,” and this has an important, and neglected, bearing on the subject of Christian assurance.

D. The biblical writers do not deal with only one sort of doubt, and therefore they do not mete out only one kind of assurance.

IV. Some Conclusions

He concludes his article with these six points:

1. If we appreciate the undergirding mystery that stands behind the Christian assurance, we will let the various complementary biblical statements stand in their naked power and function without endless reductionism.
2. Close observation of the functions of the various biblical statements in their immediate and canonical contexts will do much to safeguard our theology against dangerous reductionism and pastoral malpractice. Zane Hodges is happy to speak of Christians ceasing to name the name of Christ and denying the faith completely, even though (he insists) God keeps such people “saved,” i.e., in the faith. From a pastoral point of view, what is one to say to these unbelieving believers, these Christ-denying Christians? If the way the Scriptures function in such cases is borne in mind, both our theology and our counsel will grow in maturity and biblical balance.
3. The sort of approach that makes absolute, epistemologically tight, Christian assurance the sine qua non of theological systems and proceeds to engage in a massive re-reading of the rest of Scripture, re-readings that are too clever by half, in order to justify this a priori, are ill-conceived. Indeed, granted the proper location of the underlying tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, they are as methodologically ill-conceived as, say, J. A. T. Robinson’s attempt to develop a Christology grounded exclusively in Jesus’ humanity, that humanity serving as a grid that filters out complementary evidence.
4. Because every part of Christian doctrine is tied, one way or another, to every other part, doubtless a case can be made for beginning with the doctrine of assurance. It is odd, however, that a few contemporary studies have made personal assurance, or some peculiar understanding of it, the touchstone for the entire structure of Christian theology. The result has been truly astonishing distortions. On balance, this is a strange place to begin and end the study of theology. One might have begun with God, with Christ, with redemption, with revelation.
5. It is important to insist that the view of perseverance and assurance outlined in this paper does not make perseverance the basis of assurance—as if to say that no one is entitled to any form of assurance until ultimate perseverance has been demonstrated. I have not argued that perseverance is the basis for assurance; rather, I have argued that failure to persevere serves to undermine assurance. The basis of assurance is Christ and his work and its entailments.
6. In short, the biblical writers offer believers all the assurance they could ever want, grounding such assurance in the character of God, the nature of the new covenant, the finality of election, the love of God, and much more beside. But they never allow such assurance to become a sop for spiritual indifference; indeed, the same vision is what drives them to insist that the God who has called them to his new covenant works powerfully in them to conform them to the likeness of his Son, to the fruitfulness the Spirit empowers us to produce. This becomes both an incentive to press on to the mark of the upward call in Christ Jesus, and an implicit challenge to those who cry “Lord, Lord” but do not do what he commands.

You can read the whole article courtesy of TGC.

For more from Carson on the subject of assurance, see the list in Andy Naselli’s post “Don Carson on Assurance of Salvation.”

Professor and blogger Rod Decker posted on his blog this weekend about his cancer. It appears to be more widespread, more aggressive, and more serious than they originally thought. He’s begun treatment to control and reduce the cancer, and he’d appreciate your prayers—as we all would if we were in his shoes.

As I read his post, I was reminded of how often I hear about a friend’s or acquaintance’s getting or dying from cancer—especially with how connected the internet has made us all. I was also reminded that the chances are good that it will touch me or my family at some point.

While it’s not appropriate to worry about a “frowning providence” that God might have in store for us, it is good to equip ourselves with biblical thinking about sickness and death (Ec 7:2). To that end I’d encourage you to read Rod’s post, especially the third paragraph.

We will appreciate your prayers for both Linda and me as God lays us on your heart. I have no doubt that God is able to heal me supernaturally should he see fit, but I do not presume to have any claim for such healing. Many of God’s children die from cancer every day and I am no better than they in that regard. Should God see fit to spare me at any point in the process, either through medical intervention or supernaturally, I shall be grateful and know that my work here was not yet finished. If, on the other hand, you should hear in the years ahead that God has seen fit in his sovereign providence to take me home, then you will know that what he gave me to do here was finished. But please don’t presume to order flowers for my funeral yet! :) I am not at death’s door. I may be worse before I am better if my current treatment is effective. (The doctor tells me that could be a good sign!) As they say, sometimes the treatment can be worse (at least in the short term) than the disease! Of course the reverse would be true in due time with no treatment.

John Piper’s “Don’t Waste Your Cancer” is also worth a regular read. If you haven’t read it—or read it recently—I’d encourage you to do so.

See also these related posts:

• “The Grace of Cancer”
  
• “The Story of Zac Smith”
• “Calvin on God’s Permissive Will”

Image courtesy of the Faithlife Study Bible

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

This is often interpreted as a call to sinless perfection, something that Christians cannot attain prior to glorification. As such it’s used as a hermeneutical key to understanding the Sermon on the Mount as a whole. In this view, Jesus is not laying out the way of life for his followers. Instead, he is setting the bar so far out of their reach that they must turn to him for mercy and find acceptance in his righteousness.

I fully embrace the theological conclusions of this position: Christians cannot live sinlessly in this life and can only be accepted by God on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Jesus. However, I don’t think this text teaches that.

There are three reasons for understanding this verse as something that every Christian should and can obey.

First, the word perfect (τέλειος) often has a different meaning than we commonly have in mind when we talk about perfection in theological contexts. It means mature or complete (e.g., 1 Cor 2:6, Phil 3:15, Heb 5:14). It doesn’t necessarily mean without sin.

Second, the context makes it clear what Jesus meant by this call to perfection.

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus is discussing our responsibility to love not only our neighbors, but also our enemies and those who do us harm. The reason is that God is kind to all his creatures. Loving only your neighbors or those who love us back is incomplete love. Instead, our love should be complete, just like the Father’s love is complete. Jesus’ main point here is that we are to treat others with the same kind or quality of love as God does, not that we quantitatively do so to the same degree of sinless perfection.

Finally, the parallel passage in Luke 6:26 reads, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Here’s the full context:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

This parallel passage makes the same point as Matthew’s Gospel. The concluding statement sheds light on the meaning of Matthew 5:48. What Matthew is getting at by taking about being perfect is equivalent to what Luke means when he talks of being merciful. To be like our Father, we need to be merciful and love with a mature, complete kind of love that doesn’t restrict itself to those who love us back.

Herman Ridderbos articulates this point well in When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology, 30–31 (Jordan Station, ON: Paideia, 1982):

[A]s for Matthew 5:48, Jesus does not, in any universal sense, demand of man moral equality with God. The word “perfect” as used here denotes quite a different meaning. It concerns the “perfectness,” the consistency of love. Man is bound not only to love his neighbor but also his enemies. It is in this sense that the heavenly Father, too, is perfect. “For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). There is no room in His love for half measures. Hence perfect love is also demanded from His children, not partial, not only towards friends, but enemies as well. Hence also Luke can add in the corresponding passage in his Gospel: “Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). “Even as” means “equally perfect,” “equally consistent.” Therefore, it is not possible to appeal to this to contend the positive tenor of the law in the Sermon on the Mount. It belongs to the essential quality, I might well say to the logic of the Kingdom of the Heavens, that a disciple of Jesus does not content himself with love merely towards his fellows. There is no question of straining the moral demands ad absurdum.

In The Coming of the Kingdom, ed. Raymond O. Zorn, trans. H. de Jongste, 246n86 (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), he makes the same point more concisely:

[I]n [Matthew] 5:48 teleioi must be taken in a formal sense, viz., as perfect, consistent, not giving up when only half finished. For the subject here is love which must not be restricted to those alone who are of the same mind. This is why in Luke 6:36 this meaning can be rendered by the words, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is also merciful.”

See also “What Is the Righteousness Required to Enter the Kingdom?”

If you have an iPad and kids or grandkids (or plan to one day), you’ll definitely want to download the iPad app God’s Love: A Bible Storybook, which is free until Monday morning.

Here’s the description:

Explore God’s love from the creation of the world to the ascension of Christ. Featuring 120 story pages and three hours of spoken audio, this storybook app can help parents and Bible teachers alike share God’s majesty with children.

Here’s the book’s intro:

Before Creation, God’s heart overflowed with love for the other members of the Trinity. Then as God spoke the universe into existence, His love exploded into a kaleidoscope of shapes, sounds, smells, and tastes. Yet above all this beauty, we find the fullest and brightest expression of God’s love in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. As you explore God’s majestic love, we pray that this storybook will encourage your family to develop a new awe for Him.

We purchased the iPad app for $9.99 last summer and then the print book [Amazon] for Christmas, and we’ve really enjoyed both with our daughter.

In addition to the app and hardback, you can also download the MP3 files and a PDF guide for parents for free.

My one quibble with the iPad app is that if you’re listening to the audio and your child decides to flip to another story, you’ll have to restart the audio from the beginning.

To learn more about the book, see Andy Naselli’s interview with author Champ Thornton. See also my list of recommended iPad apps.

HT: Tim Challies