FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From his sermon "Safety, Fullness, and Sweet Refreshment in Christ":

Christ is a refuge in all trouble; there is a foundation for rational support and peace in him, whatever threatens us. He whose heart is fixed, trusting in Christ, need not be afraid of any evil tidings. "As the mountains are round about Jerusalem," so Christ is round about them that fear him.

ON THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD AND THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE COLLAPSE

After the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, John Piper responded as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church. Bethlehem is located only a mile away from where the bridge fell. Pastor John interpreted the bridge collapse according to a Calvinist doctrine of God. Here's an excerpt:

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.

We prayed during our family devotions. Talitha (11 years old) and Noel and I prayed earnestly for the families affected by the calamity and for the others in our city. Talitha prayed “Please don’t let anyone blame God for this but give thanks that they were saved.” When I sat on her bed and tucked her in and blessed her and sang over her a few minutes ago, I said, “You know, Talitha, that was a good prayer, because when people ‘blame’ God for something, they are angry with him, and they are saying that he has done something wrong. That’s what “blame” means: accuse somebody of wrongdoing. But you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.”

This Tuesday Roger Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor College offered an interpretation of that same event from the perspective of an Arminian doctrine of God. Here's an excerpt:

In this world, because of our ignorance and sinfulness, really bad things sometimes happen and people do really evil and wicked things. Not because God secretly plans and prods them, but because God has said to fallen, sinful people, "OK, not my will then, but thine be done -- for now."

And God says, "Pray because sometimes I can intervene to stop innocent suffering when people pray; that's one of my self-limitations. I don't want to do it all myself; I want your involvement and partnership in making this a better world."

It's a different picture of God than most conservative Christians grew up with, but it's the only one (so far as I can tell) that relieves God of responsibility for sin and evil and disaster and calamity.

The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you've come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.

I admit I wholeheartedly embrace and relish the Calvinistic doctrine of God. I find it difficult to imagine life apart from it. I also find the interpretation of evil offered by it personally satisfying. But when I delve deeply into this issue (which I am all for by the way), I encounter difficulties that seem to be insurmountable for fallen human understanding. Those are the places, in the hard work of loving God with all my mind, that I fall to my knees in awe and offer up sacrifices of praise to my infinitely beautiful God.

As the two excerpts above demonstrate, the contrast between the views is striking. There are basically two ways of interpreting the evil in this world with respect to the doctrine of God. Fundamentally, we must either admit a limitation in God (i.e. the autonomy of his moral creatures) or a limitation in ourselves (i.e. extreme difficulty in reconciling a paradox in God's revelation). Notwithstanding what I view as the clear testimony of Holy Scripture, I am much more comfortable with the latter. The English Puritan Stephen Charnock has put it rather wisely:

But what if the foreknowledge of God, and the liberty of the will, cannot be fully reconciled by man? Shall we therefore deny the perfection in God to support a liberty in ourselves? Shall we rather fasten ignorance upon God, and accuse him of blindness to maintain our liberty?

The Arminian says: Rather than blaming God for evil, let's blame him for ignorance instead.

The Calvinist says: Rather than blaming God for ignorance, let's blame ourselves for ignorance instead.

(HT: JT)

PLEASE PRAY

An Assistant Pastor at PCPC, Patrick Lafferty, found out this past Monday that his unborn daughter has severe, life-threatening complications. He has begun a blog with more details called exit strategy. Please take a moment to pray for the Lafferty's.

THOMAS BOSTON'S PASTORAL HEART

I am currently reading Thomas Boston's Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. I remember my seminary professor Dr. John Hannah saying in class that he considered Boston's book one of the best works on biblical anthropology ever written. Jonathan Edwards called him "a truly great divine." I am a couple chapters in now, and I must say, Boston is superb.

Thomas Boston (1676-1732) was a Puritan pastor-theologian who labored for most of his ministry among God's flock in Ettrick, a secluded rural parish in Selkirkshire, Scotland along the headwaters of the Etrrick River. By the time Boston began serving there the people had been without a minister for five years. During that time the spiritual condition of the town had diminished significantly. Boston inherited a nominally Christian flock and had to contend with the pervading clouds of religious apathy for many years before the light finally began to break through. George Morrison writes (the comments in brackets are mine):

For a long time it looked as if nothing could be done. Work and prayer seemed to be well-nigh powerless. Amid that sea of hills, as Ettrick has been called, Boston had taken arms against a sea of troubles, and nothing but deep conviction that his call had been of God could have upheld him through his earlier ministry. The little flock at Simprin [where he had previously labored] had been ignorant, but, at least, they had received with meekness the engrafted word. Ettrick was very liberal to its poor, and very hospitable to the passing stranger; but it was full of pride, and self-assurance, and conceit [much like our communities today I think]--the frequent offspring of an isolated life . . . A four years' vacancy [of a parish minister] had wrought its natural effects. Men had grown careless. They had lost the art of decent attention during service. They gossiped and chaffered so noisily in the churchyard in time of sermon, that one of the elders had to be told off to keep order there. Worse, too, than any inattention was the so lax morality. The vice of swearing was widespread. And one has but to turn the pages the old Session Records to be ashamed at the prevalent uncleanness. No wonder Boston was made to go with a bowed-down back. No wonder that after eight years of it he said to his wife, 'My heart is alienated from this place.' At times he was filled with the longing to be gone. And it is characteristic of his large and loyal heart, that nothing so speedily subdued that longing as the thought of the sad plight of Ettrick if he went.


But in the long-run, faith and prayer and study will tell. And as they had told in Simprin they were to tell in Ettrick too. It is not every minister who grows and deepens amid unsympathetic people. It is not every father who abounds in thankfulness when called to meet the bitterest sorrows of the home. Boston did both. And the artless story of his study and his preaching and his daily wrestling with God, surrounded and shadowed as he was, is one of the noblest records that was ever penned. Slowly and surely his influence grew. Gird as they would, men felt the thrust and power of his preaching, and knew the Holy Ghost was in it. One of his action sermons had been published, and word began to steal into the valley that it was making a deep impression in Edinburgh. Strange faces became common in the church. Then came the inevitable calls. And Ettrick grew convinced at last--and the conviction had taken ten years to ripen--that in losing Boston they would lose an incomparable minister. It is touching to note the outbreakings of a rough affection, and to find a congregational fast appointed by the Session, when in 1716 Boston came under call to Closeburn. It is touching, too, and something more, when we remember what the past had been, to mark how Boston, in Presbytery and Synod and Assembly, battled against the call, and how at last he won. It was the turning-point in the parish life. Henceforth he was to minister with new authority, and to be the instrument of far larger blessing.

INFANT BAPTISM

Justin Taylor posted linked to a couple of outstanding articles yesterday on the topic of infant baptism:

Dennis Johnson, Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed

R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism

(HT: JT)

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From A Sweet Flame: Piety in the Letters of Jonathan Edwards, edited and introduced by Michael A. G. Haykin:

Just before his death, those at his bedside, supposing he was unconscious, were lamenting what his death would mean to the college and to the church, when they were surprised by what proved to be his last words:

Trust in God, and ye need not fear.

KISS OF THE KING

I've been planning all week to preach at a homeless shelter here in Dallas called the Union Gospel Mission. The opportunity presented itself through a friend and current DTS student who was supposed to preach this Wednesday and Thursday. I agreed to take the Wednesday night slot and immediately put it on my calendar . . . . . FOR THURSDAY! So, you can imagine how surprised I was to sit down at my desk this morning, boot up the computer, and read an email from the UGM coordintator asking where I was last night. You know that sinking feeling that you get when you really screw up? I had a big plate of that for breakfast this morning. Not too tasty. I don't recommend it.

Anyway, the sermon I prepared to preach is entitled "Kiss of the King."

Here it is:

KISS OF THE KING
M. Jay Bennett
PCPC Pastoral Intern
August 23, 2007

Thesis: God’s justice is not opposed to God’s love; it is an expression of it.

2 Samuel 14:28-15:6.

So Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem, without coming into the king’s presence. Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king, but Joab would not come to him. And he sent a second time, but Joab would not come. Then he said to his servants, “See, Joab’s field is next to mine, and he has barley there; go and set it on fire.” So Absalom’s servants set the field on fire. Then Joab arose and went to Absalom at his house and said to him, “Why have your servants set my field on fire?” Absalom answered Joab, “Behold, I sent word to you, ‘Come here, that I may send you to the king to ask, “Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me to be there still.” Now therefore let me go into the presence of the king, and if there is guilt in me, let him put me to death.’” Then Joab went to the king and told him, and he summoned Absalom. So he came to the king and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom.

After this Absalom got himself a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him. And Absalom used to rise early and stand beside the way of the gate. And when any man had a dispute to come before the king for judgment, Absalom would call to him and say, “From what city are you?” And when he said, “Your servant is of such and such a tribe in Israel,” Absalom would say to him, “See, your claims are good and right, but there is no man designated by the king to hear you.” Then Absalom would say, “Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice.” And whenever a man came near to pay homage to him, he would put out his hand and take hold of him and kiss him. Thus Absalom did to all of Israel who came to the king for judgment. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

Recently I read about a teacher who was preparing an ordination exam for ministerial candidates. After writing the exam he decided to give it a test run before administering it to candidates. So he sent it to a group of seasoned ministers ordained in his presbytery. One of the true/false questions read: “The only way God ever clears the guilty is through the atonement of Jesus Christ.” What do you think? Is that true or false? “The only way God ever clears the guilty is through the atonement of Jesus Christ.” Well, after grading the exams, the teacher found that every single minister marked that question true. But it is actually false. Scripture says that God is a God who “will by no means clear the guilty.” Did you catch that? There are no means by which God will clear the guilty. While the atonement offered in Christ’s blood was something, it was not a means of clearing our guilt.

God loves his guilty children. He has shown his love for us by securing our redemption through the atonement of Jesus Christ. But he is also absolutely just. He will by no means clear our guilt.

As we look at our text for today I would like to ask and answer this question: How does God’s justice relate to God’s love?

Or to put it another way: Why was it necessary for Christ to die for sinners? Why couldn’t God just overlook our sin and forgive us? Why is it incorrect to speak of the work of Christ as a means by which God clears the guilty? If God does not save sinners by clearing their guilt how does he save them?

2 Samuel is the story of David’s enthronement and rule over Israel as their chosen king. Early on, in chapters 1-10, Israel is doing quite well. 2 Sam. 8:15b reads: "[David] administered justice and equity to all his people.” Enemies are being defeated. Israel is becoming a powerful, peaceful, and plentiful nation. But a dark thunder cell rumbles on the horizon. Although David is commended in 1 Sam. 13:14 as being "a man after [God's] own heart," he was, like us all, a man with a sinful heart. His failure was imminent. The same law that he was charged to uphold and administer as king, which was truly a gift of grace from God to his covenant people--that same law--would serve to condemn him. Thus the drastic nature of humanity's problem is revealed with crystal clarity and jarring force. Not even a man after God's own heart could rule over God's people in complete faithfulness. What was needed was a man with God’s own heart.

The story of David’s failure is recorded in 2 Samuel 11. There we read that in the spring of the year when kings go out to battle, David stays behind and from his palace roof spies a woman bathing. Her name is Bathsheba. David lusts after her and decides to take her even though she is married. Caught in a proverbial web of deception, he eventually has her husband, Uriah the Hittite, murdered. God judges David saying: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house” (2 Sam 12:10a). Soon after, we read a sequence of events that fulfill that prophetic judgment. That sequence includes two basic sub-plots in chapter 13 that lead up to our text for today. Those stories have to do primarily with three of David’s children—Amnon (David’s eldest son and heir to the throne), Tamar (David’s daughter and Amnon’s half-sister), and Absalom (David’s second oldest son, Tamar’s brother, and Amnon’s half-brother). Follow me if you will as we look very briefly at each of these stories in sequence as they lead us up to our text for today.

The first story is recorded in 2 Sam. 13:1-21. There we read of Amnon’s sin against his half-sister Tamar. Tamar is beautiful. Reminiscent of David's sin with Bathsheba, we read that Amnon lusts after his half-sister and concocts a plan to take her for himself. He pretends to be sick and asks the king for her to be brought to his quarters to prepare him some cakes. The trap is set. The beautiful Tamar, the daughter of David, is sent by David to Amnon’s quarters unaware. Amnon commands everyone to leave the room. He is alone with his sister. She kneads the bread. She prepares the cakes. Then Amnon asks her to come to his bedside so that so that he might eat from her hand. As a loyal sister, Tamar does as her brother says. Then, as she approaches, he grabs her. The cakes crumble to the floor as Amnon whispers, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” Tamar resists but Amnon will not relent. He proceeds to rape her. Tamar is devastated and soon David discovers Amnon’s offense.

One cannot help but wonder if David is reminded of his own sin and the trauma Bathsheba must have experienced in his sin against her. Let's not misunderstand, the text never suggests that David raped Bathsheba. But what he did was just as sinful and ultimately just as traumatic. Just as David had taken what was not his, a daughter of Israel, in disloyalty to God; so also Amnon had taken what was not his, a daughter of David, in disloyalty to the king. Faced with the sin of his son, David is reminded of his own sin.

But one question is of utmost importance at this point: Will the king rule justly? The law is clear. We read in Lev. 18:11, 29: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister . . . for everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.” The law requires that Amnon be cut off from among God’s people. But, while David is very angry, he does nothing to uphold the law.

This brings us to our second story. It is recorded in 2 Sam. 13:23-39. There we read of Absalom’s sin against Amnon. Absalom, son of David and brother of Tamar, is furious that Amnon has raped his sister. 2 Sam. 13:22b reads: "Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar." A couple years go by. Then Absalom makes his move to avenge his sister’s rape by deceiving the king and manipulating circumstances to catch his brother weak and exposed. Late one night he instructs his servants to wait until Amnon has had a few drinks and strike him down. They do just that. Absalom has his brother murdered. Soon David receives word that his eldest son, heir to the throne, is dead. David is very angry and grieves the loss of his son as Absalom flees into exile.

Again, one cannot help but wonder if David is not reminded of his sin in murdering Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite. Just as he had exploited the loyalty of his army and manipulated circumstances in order to place Uriah in a situation in which he was weak and exposed so that he might be struck down; so also Absalom exploited the loyalty of his servants and manipulated circumstances to catch his brother weak and exposed in order to strike him down. Again, David is faced with a reminder of his own sin in the sin of his son.

Years pass by. Eventually, as we read in 2 Sam. 14:1-33, Absalom is brought back to Jerusalem. David allows him to stay in the city but refuses to grant him an audience. Absalom grows weary of his father’s inaction and forcefully arranges an appearance before him. He exclaims, “Now therefore let me go into the presence of the king, and if there is any guilt in me, let him put me to death.” This brings us to our text for today. Absalom enters the palace and bows down before the king. Will the king rule justly? The law requires that he be put to death for killing his brother Amnon (Gen. 9:5-6). But David kisses Absalom and dismisses him instead. He basically clears his guilt.

What was it that Absalom was looking for in the king? At first glance we might think he was seeking some sort of amnesty. But interestingly, it appears as though Absalom was seeking justice. He wanted to see his father do what was right. He wanted the king to sentence him to be executed.

Read with me in chapter 15:1-4: "After this Absalom got himself a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him. And Absalom used to rise early and stand beside the way of the gate. And when any man had a dispute to come before the king for judgment, Absalom would call to him and say, 'From what city are you?' And when he said, 'Your servant is of such and such a tribe in Israel,' Absalom would say to him, 'See, your claims are good and right, but there is no man designated by the king to hear you.' Then Absalom would say, 'Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice.'” Absalom rebels against the king because he desires justice. It was the king's lack of justice with respect to Amnon's sin that led to Absalom's disillusionment in the first place. The overlooking of an offense, the clearing of the guilty is itself an offense that incurs guilt. Absalom cannot live with the idea that the king would rule in injustice. He grows to despise his father. Unable to accept the king's kiss as an expression of love to him, he determines to make things right, to justify himself own his own terms. He will love Israel as it should be loved! He will extend a kiss of his own! Verses 5-6 say: "And whenever a man came near to pay homage to him, he would put out his hand and take hold of him and kiss him. Thus Absalom did to all of Israel who came to the king for judgment. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel."

But let’s step back from the text and think about David’s situation for just a moment. As king, it is his responsibility to rule justly over his people in order to maintain peace. The just rule of the king is an expression of his love for his people. That means that when his sons Amnon and Absalom commit offenses they must be punished accordingly. Here is the problem: In order to love his sons, he must banish one and put the other to death, but he doesn’t want to do that because he loves them. David is caught in a conundrum. Will the king rule justly? Well, we have seen that he did not. He broke the law by clearing their guilt, thus perpetuating the tragedy of the original offense. Ironically, it is his love for his sons when divorced from justice that becomes their undoing. The kiss he gives to Absalom proves to be a kiss of death. The great king was simply powerless to justify him.

In the same way the Scriptures tell us that the triune God rules over his creation as a sovereign King. He loves his children, but he will not clear their guilt. God will not perpetuate our sin by overlooking it. He will not violate his impeccable character. Why not? Well, when God redeems sinners what does he redeem them unto? He redeems them unto himself. The gift of redemption is the gift of God’s holy presence among his people. Remember the promise God gave to the Patriarchs: “I will be your God and you will be my people.” Remember the last words from the prophecy of Ezekiel: "And the name of the city from that time on shall be, 'The Lord is there'" (Ezk. 48:35b). Remember the prophecy he delivered through John: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God'" (Rev. 21:1-3). The glory of redemption, the glory of heaven is NOT that we get stuff! It’s that we get God! God is our treasure! That is the Gospel.

Would it be love for God to impugn his character in our redemption? Would it be love for God to give himself over to injustice, to give himself over to sin, in order to give himself to us? Would it be love for God to simply overlook our sin and show us mercy because we say we’re sorry? No! Not at all!

For God to violate his just character by simply clearing the guilt of his children would ultimately be to subject them to the tyranny of injustice, which is the opposite of love. God will not become Satan to save his people. That is good news indeed! The Gospel is not a gospel of cheap grace, but an infinitely valuable grace—the grace of redemption procured by the very blood of Christ.

And so we return to our initial question: How does God’s justice relate to God’s love?

Answer: God’s justice is not opposed to God’s love; it is an expression of it.

The great Dutch Calvinist Herman Bavinck says it this way:

God’s righteousness, though not identical with his goodness, mercy, faithfulness, or truth, is even much less opposed to it. In fact it is precisely the attribute of God that gave Christ as an expiation, so that God could forgive sins out of out of grace while preserving justice. Hence there is no such thing as a conflict between God’s justice and his love. In our sinful state it may appear to us that way, but in God all attributes are one and fully consistent with one another. . . . The miracle of the gospel consists in that God manifests his righteousness apart from the law in a way that enables him to remain righteous and in virtue of (not in spite of) that righteousness justifies those who believe in Jesus and who in themselves, judged according to the law, are ungodly (Rom. 4:5). And that has now been made possible by God’s putting Christ forward as an expiation, by faith, in his blood. . . . God’s righteousness shines out most brilliantly in that in the gospel, apart from the law, he righteously forgives [sinners]. It is not opposed to grace but in a sense includes it (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 369-70).

It was necessary for Christ to die for us so that God might extend his love to us in mercy without impugning his holy character. It was necessary for Christ to die so that God might be both just and justifier without contradicting himself.


David had immense power. He was the king. But though he was king, he was powerless to save his sons from their offense. He could not be both just and justifier for his sons whom he loved.

But where David failed Christ prevailed.

What was needed was . . .

Not a crown of gold, but a crown of thorns.

Not a beautiful raiment, but a bloody nakedness.

Not hands adorned with jewelry, but hands scarred by nails.

Not a palace filled with friends in the heart of the city, but a cross between two thieves outside the city wall.

Not a lowly shepherd boy to ascend to a god-like status; but the glorious Son of God to condescend and take the form of a servant, a shepherd for the flock of God.

Not a king to kiss us and clear our guilt; but a King willing to be kissed by his betrayer and suffer the penalty for our guilt.

Just like Absalom, you and I are guilty of sin. We are guilty of high treason against the God of the universe. We have rebelled against his authority all the while working to justifying ourselves.

And one day you and I will appear before the judgment seat of King Jesus. You will enter into his presence and bow yourself on your face to the ground in fear and trembling before the King of the universe. How will the King rule in your case? He will not fail as David did and clear the guilty! He will either send you away to receive the punishment due to your sin, an eternity in Hell, or he will receive you and kiss you saying, “I have taken the punishment that you deserved, I have died in your place, enter into the fullness of my holy presence forever.” That kiss will be a kiss of life indeed!

King Jesus has saved his people by suffering the penalty of sin in our place, and he has clothed the faithful with the very righteousness of God. Now he reigns from on high as both Lion and Lamb, both King and Redeemer. Trust him. Trust the Christ who has procured redemption for his people with his own blood. He is the only hope for sinners like you and me. Embrace him and rejoice in his holy presence forever.

There will be no Absaloms standing outside the gates of the New Jerusalem crying out: “Oh that I were judge in the land!” No, there will only be those who have been kissed by the King with the kiss of life singing together: “Hallelujah, our loving King is both just and justifier that we might have peace with God forever! Amen.”

QUOTES ON EDWARDS FROM DR. JOHN HANNAH

DTS student David Gundersen has recently posted extensive quotes from Dr. John Hannah's course on Jonathan Edwards. They are excellent. I took the course a couple years ago. I encourage you to check them out.

(HT: George Deines)

THEOLOGY QUIZ

Do you really know your theology?



Who was the third man to walk on water?



The first man to walk on water was Jesus Christ.



The second man to walk on water was the Apostle Peter.



Then there was this man named Jose . . . .



(HT: Rev. Rob Allen)

CAN GOD CREATE A ROCK SO HEAVY HE CANNOT LIFT IT?

Recently a teacher asked me this question. Actually, he asked it on two different occasions in two different ways.

On the first occasion he asked the classic: "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"

On the second occasion he asked: "Can God give up his immutability or his eternality?"

The question fundamentally boils down to this: Can God redefine himself? Or Can God become what he is not? Or Can God cease to be what he is?

After thinking through the question this last week, I think there are at least two ways to go about answering it. (1) from the perspective of freedom and (2) from the perspective of being.

(1) From the perspective of freedom:

The question is fundamentally motivated by the idea of freedom. The question behind the question is: "Is God free?" The conundrum comes from the seeming contradiction inherent to the question. There are only two possible answers: Yes or No ("Maybe" is a non-answer). If one answers yes, then God is free to create the rock, but his freedom is limited immediately following its creation, since he can't lift the rock. But if one answers no, then God is not free to do something, namely, create the rock in question. Either way one is left limiting the freedom of God.

But behind the question is this fundamental assumption that freedom of choice is somehow regulated by the number of available options. For instance, what is supposed is that if one has an infinite number of options from which to choose, then he would be absolutely or ultimately free. Take away an option and freedom is limited. But is that true? Not at all.

Freedom of choice is not defined by the number of available options from which one might choose. That only speaks to possibility not ability. Freedom of choice is the ability to to choose what one wants (i.e. the will) from his available options however expansive or limited. Therefore, whether the option is available to God or not is of no concern. All that matters with regard to freedom of divine choice is that, given the available options, God can choose whatever he wants. God can do as he wills. Therefore, a better way to phrase the original question is: "Will God cease to be what he is?" Answer: "No." God is free to do what he wants, but according to the reasonable witness of Scripture, God never desires to be what he is not.

If pressed, however, with the first question from possibility, "Can God cease to be what he is?", according to the above reasoning, I would have to answer: "Yes. God can do whatever he wills. However, he never will will to be anything other than what he is."

(2) From the perspective of being:

A second answer might be formulated to answer the question: "Can God cease to be what he is?" from the perspective of divine being. The question might be rephrased as "Can God become?", since in order for God to cease to be what he is, he must become what he is not. And if we think of becoming as being defined by the passage of time (I can't imagine any other way to conceive it), and God is eternal, then we would have to say that God cannot become. He is pure being.

Therefore, if the question "Can God cease to be what he is?" is fundamentally understood as "Can God become?", then, according to the above reasoning, I would have to answer: "No. God cannot become. He is."

I'M A BAPTISTERIAN???

Ever heard someone say: "I'm a Baptisterian"? I have, and I always think to myself: "Wha?" In my mind the statement translates: "I'm happy to be ignorant in important ecclesiological issues, because the Lord's body, his church for whom he died, is not important enough for me to spend my valuable time considering." As a Presbyterian/Covenantalist I am happy to rejoice with Baptist brothers and sisters in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, especially with those who understand the importance of the church. But it saddens me when either Persbys or Baptists trivialize important ecclesiological distinctives.

Justin Taylor has posted a thanks to Ligon Duncan for his post of the basics of covenant baptism at Reformation 21. In a spirit of unity, which I applaud, he refers to a discussion between Baptist (SBC) Mark Dever and Presbyterian (PCA) David Coffin in which they offered 17 points of agreement between baptists and covenantalists on baptism. The first point of agreement is this:

1. No one disagrees with professor baptism (except Quakers).

But is that true? Is it true that baptists and covenantalists affirm professor baptism in the same sense?

The only sense in which I can imagine it is true is that both baptize professors. But the trouble is neither agrees with what the baptism of a professor means, which is, I think, the heart of the issue.

For instance, baptists baptize professors only. Covenantalists baptize professors and there children. Therefore, if a baptized child later professes the faith, becoming a professor, they are not then baptized again, because their baptism as a child is viewed as valid. However, if that person who had been baptized as a child wants to become a member of a baptist church, he would be required to be baptized as a professor. In that way, baptists and covenantalists define professor baptism differently.

Furthermore, covenantalists affirm that the baptism of every professor and their children is a valid baptism. Baptists do not affirm this. Baptists believe that only the truly regenerate can receive a valid baptism. If one professes faith, yet is unregenerate, and that person is baptized, then their baptism is not regarded as valid. Therefore, if that person at a later time "realizes" that he was not really regenerate when first baptized, he must be baptized again for a valid baptism to occur. Covenantalists only baptize once. Regeneration is not required as a prerequisite (If it were how could we ever presume to baptize anyone this side of glory?). In that way baptists and covenantalists define professor baptism differently.

I don't believe that either Dever or Coffin mean to trivialize this important ecclesiological issue. Their second point clearly reads:

2. This is a subject of great import.

However, while I appreciate the desire to find common ground, the first point of "agreement" is only true if one allows the term professor baptism to be defined differently by each side of the debate. In other words, it is not a point shared in common. Baptists and covenantalists may both baptize professors, but if they don't mean the same thing by it, then claiming commonality on this point is not very helpful.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From "The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous," text: Rev. 18:20, "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her":

Then [after the saint is glorified], there will be no remaining difficulties about the justice of God, about the absolute decrees of God, or any thing pertaining to the dispensations of God towards men. But divine justice in the destruction of the wicked will then appear as light without darkness, and will shine as the sun without clouds, and on this account they will sing joyful songs of praise to God, as we see the saints and angels do, when God pours the vials of his wrath upon antichrist; Rev. 15:5-7. They sing joyfully to God on this account, that true and righteous are his judgments; Rev. 19:1-6. Their seeing God so strictly just will make them value his love the more. Mercy and grace are more valuable on this account. The more they shall see of the justice of God, the more will they prize and rejoice in his love.

BAPTISM REVISITED (NOT REDONE)

With Baptist pastor/theologians Wayne Grudem and John Piper discussing the significance of baptism as it relates to church membership last week (which baptist pastor/theologian and friend Gunny Hartman of Providence Church has discussed insightfully at his blog Semper Reformanda), questions about the covenantal understanding of baptism have arisen. Today Ligon Duncan, PCA pastor/theologian, has posted a helpful summary of the basics of covenantal baptism at Reformation 21. Here is his thumbnail sketch of the position:

1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).

2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.

3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example.

DALLAS PASTOR RECEIVED A SPECIAL REVELATION FROM GOD: QUICK! WRITE IT DOWN AND PUT IT IN YOUR BIBLE

Sam Hodges of The Dallas Morning News published an article this Monday on the new Pastor of FBC Dallas, Robert Jeffress. Hodges writes:

After the vote, he told the congregation about an experience he said he'd never shared with anyone, including his wife, Amy. He said that one night as a Baylor University student, he was walking down the street and had a direct communication from God.

"God said to me, 'One day you will be the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas.' ... Whatever happens, I know I am in the center of God's will."

(HT: George "Horhay" Deines)

MY FIVE FAVORITE BOOKS (For Now)

 (Recently, my friend Jared Nelson posted a question at the unofficial DTS Aumni/Student blog Preach the Word. The question was "What are some of the most important books you've ever read?" Here's my answer:

My five favorite books (for now) in order are . . .

(1) Two Dissertations (in Ethical Writings, vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards) by Jonathan Edwards. I was introduced to the first dissertation, "End for Which God Created the World," through John Piper's book God's Passion for His Glory. I read the second dissertation "The Nature of True Virtue" in a seminary class on Edwards taught by Dr. John D. Hannah.

Insights:

From The End: God's ultimate end in creation and all he does is himself, which is the true basis of human happiness. (For more reflection on this thesis see this series of posts and these posts). From True Virtue: True virtue has love for the divine being, viewed in itself alone, as its fundamental motivation. (For more reflection on this thesis see this post)

(2) Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards.

Insight: There is no such thing as a causeless effect. Every decision made by moral beings is motivated by attraction to pleasure and aversion to pain. (For more reflection on this thesis see this post). True freedom is not the ability to choose between a multiplicity of options—that is tyranny; true freedom is the consistency of a prevailing inclination to choose the right option. (For further reflection on this thesis see this post)

(3) Religious Affections, Jonathan Edwards (I hate to appear to be a one-beat drummer, but it is what it is).

Insight: True religion includes both light (understanding of God) and heat (affections for God). What fundamentally separates true religion from false religion is love and joy in God, which assumes an understanding of God. (For more reflection on this thesis see these posts)

(4) Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin.

Insights: There are three fundamental questions religion seeks to answer: Who is God? Who is man? How do God and man relate to one another? All three questions are answered in the person and work of the God-man mediator Jesus Christ. The normal Christian life can be summarized by one word: repentance. The worship of God is the purpose for which man was created; therefore sin is fundamentally idolatry.

(5) The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, John Owen.

Insight: There is no middle ground for those committed to biblical and reasonable consistency with regard to the application of the benefits of Christ's atonement. Christ either died to secure nothing for sinners (e.g. Pelagianism), he died to secure the possibility of the salvation of sinners (e.g. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Arminianism), or he died to actually secure the salvation of sinners (e.g. Calvinism). If the latter, then we are left with two options: universalism or particular redemption (i.e. the gospel). (For more reflection on this thesis see these posts)

CT COVER STORY: WHAT DID PAUL REALLY MEAN?

With John Piper's soon to be published book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, and the cover story for the next issue of Christianity Today, What Did Paul Really Say?, it looks as though NPP ideas have officially entered the mainstream of the contemporary American evangelical conversation. Here's the intro:

Pick up any recent Bible commentary or theology textbook, and you will read about something called the "new perspective on Paul." Seminaries have buzzed for decades about how they might apply to Paul the new light shed on Judaism. Some advocates of the new perspective conclude that the Reformers have led Protestants to misunderstand the all-important doctrine of justification.

As a result, the new perspective has stirred more than a little controversy. Ligon Duncan, former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), said new perspective theology "undercuts the certainty of believers regarding the substance of the gospel message." In June, the PCA General Assembly said advocates of the new perspective should report themselves to presbytery courts, because their teaching does not accord with the Westminster Standards.

Leading new perspective theologian N. T. Wright has repeatedly responded to his critics. Talking in 2004 with James D. G. Dunn, who named the new perspective, Wright faulted his critics for producing websites that "are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith."

So is this merely a squabble among Reformed theologians? Certainly not—some new perspective scholars also teach that Martin Luther's preoccupation with the Roman Catholic Church has led all Protestants astray. Do we now need to reframe our preaching and teaching to be truly biblical? British scholar Simon Gathercole takes on that question in this article.—CT Editors

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Ethical Writings vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards ed. Paul Ramsey, "Heaven is a World of Love," 396-97:

By living a life of love, you will be in the way to heaven. As heaven is a world of love, so the way to heaven is the way of love. This will best prepare you for heaven, and make you meet for an inheritance with the saints in that land of light and love. And if ever you arrive at heaven, faith and love must be the wings which must carry you there.

If you haven't had the privilege of reading this sermon I encourage you to. It is a masterpiece of both form and content. You may access it here at A Puritan's Mind.

A CONVERSATION ON PAULINE THEOLOGY

Over the past few weeks I have been engaged in a conversation on the New Perspective on Paul with Mike Whitenton at his blog Exegetical Spiral. Mike is a ThM (New Testament Studies) student at DTS. I think our conversation has been interesting and substantial. Mike is a sharp student and it has been good to dialogue with him. We have discussed issues at length in the comment strings here, here, and here with more to come.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From The Salvation of Souls, ed. Bailey and Willis, "Ministers to Preach Not Their Own Wisdom but the Wisdom of God":

God does not need to be told by his messengers what message is fit to deliver.

Sometimes beauty comes wrapped in simplicity!

BUILDING BRIDGES

The Building Bridges Conference on Southern Baptists and Calvinism has just been announced by LifeWay. It looks like a good conference with great speakers. It's good to see Founders Ministries partnering with SEBTS on this. However, it is a bit telling when the denomination's publishing house misspells the word Calvinsim. :-)

(HT: TA)

THE BRIDGE FELL

This evening the bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. At the time, around 6:00 pm, the eight-lane interstate highway was loaded with rush hour traffic. Cars driving across plummeted 60 feet to the river below. According to the New York Times at least seven people were killed and more than sixty were injured. The bridge stood just a few miles from Bethlehem Baptist Church. Pastor John Piper has written an excellent reflection on this tragic event.

PAUL HELM'S ANALYSIS #5- "ARE REVEALED TRUTHS TIMELESS?"

Paul Helm has written and posted another wonderful analysis over at his blog Helm's Deep. The post is entitled Analysis 5- Are Revealed Truths Timeless? Helm analyzes and evaluates the assumptions behind the current tendency among some theologians to move away from (or totally deny?) Berkhofian systematics on the pretext of the innate deficiency of propositional truth claims. He opens with these paragraphs:

I have not tried to count the number of times when I have read that Berkhofian systematic theology, and the idea of propositional revelation that underlies it, expresses the Christian faith as ‘timeless truth’, or as ‘timelessly true’, or even as ‘eternally true’. Those who say such things clearly regard timeless truth as a bad thing, something to be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of adopting a narrative or theodramatic or speech-act approach to revelation and theology. (I suspect that this charge, like others I have mentioned elsewhere, in connection with Charles Hodge, is passed from hand to hand rather unreflectively. Is it a case of 'proposition-denial', I wonder? I may be mistaken. We may then get to the bottom of things, though I am not hopeful.)

For it is hard to fathom what those with this distaste for the timelessness of truth really object to. I have yet to find critic who will state – timelessly or otherwise, clearly or fuzzily – what the problem is: why revealed truths are timeless, and what’s so bad about that. So in the interests of furthering communication among those interested in systematic theological method I shall now attempt to try to work out what the timelessness charge is all about.