Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Dumbrell on the Covenants

by

Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants. Nashville: Nelson, 1984.

This is a study of the Old Testament covenants, notable for its defense of a creation covenant. The writing style is a bit obscure, but there is a great deal of valuable information in this volume. I’ve marked references to particular pages throughout my notebooks. This does not necessarily mean I agree with Dumbrell. I affirm an Adamic covenant, but I do not find his argumentation for it to be the most compelling. Nonetheless, this remains an important study of the biblical covenants.

John Newton’s Meditations on Entering the Ministry

by

Rouse, Marylynn, ed. Ministry On My Mind: John Newton on Entering Pastoral Ministry. Stratford-upon-Avon, UK: John Newton Project, 2010.

Before entering the ministry John Newton wrote “miscellaneous thoughts” about the ministry and his calling into the ministry. These thoughts are reflections on Scripture texts related to the ministry or to making momentous decisions. Newton also records his resolutions regarding entering into the ministry and plans to prepare his heart for such an endeavor. This is a work to warm one’s heart toward God and to inspire seriousness of purpose in undertaking the work of the ministry.

Theological Foundations for Common Grace

by

There are at least three theological foundations for common grace.

First, for it to be grace, it must be founded on the atoning work of Christ. McCune comments:

There is no one verse that anchors common grace in the atonement of Christ. However, theologically this is necessarily so. Any mitigation of the effects of sin is due ultimately to the cross work of Christ. There is no other basis on which God could deal with sin in grace or mercy. Common grace is grace—non-redemptive grace—and is a mitigation of the full effects of sin.

Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:297.

A confirmation of this is found in the fact that the Noahic Covenant, a common grace covenant, is based on a burnt offering, which Leviticus 1:4 identifies as a sacrifice that makes atonement.

Second, common grace is founded on the reality of God’s sovereignty over all creation. The good things that happen to people, the growth of food, etc. are not merely natural occurances. They are gifts from God. As Kuyper notes,

 If God is sovereign, then his Lordship must remain over all life and cannot be closed up within church walls or Christian circles. The extra-Christian world has not been given over to satan or to fallen humanity or to chance.

Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 166.

Third, common grace is rooted in the reality that God built his law into creation. Living in the world contrary to God’s law always has consequences. As humans reckon with those consequences, sin is retrained to a degree. Al Wolters comments on this reality:

The structure of all the creational givens persists despite their directional perversion. That structure, anchored in God’s faithfulness, sets a limit on the corruption and bondage wrought by evil. . . . Ignoring the law of creation is impossible. The law is like a spring that can be pressed down or pushed out of sight only with great effort and that continues to make its presence felt even when repressed for a long time. The ‘structure’ of a thing is the law that is in force for it, and not amount of repression or perversion will ever succeed in nullifying its presence and effect.

Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained, 2nd ed. 60, 62.

Biblical Support for Common Grace

by

The concept of common grace can be inferred from a number of Scripture texts.

At the end of Genesis 3, God pronounces judgment on the serpent, Eve, and Adam for their sin. The judgment for Adam and Eve was a curse that affected the blessing of Genesis 1:26-28. Yet the curse did not remove the blessing entirely. A great deal of that blessing remains for all human, svaed or lost. In addition, the penalty of death was not enacted on the outer man immediately. Instead it was delayed by many years.

This same pattern is seen in the Noahic Covenant. Precisely because man is sinful from his infancy (Gen. 8:20), God institutes a covenant that binds him to not destroy earth with a Flood ever again and to preserve regular days and seasons until the end. Apart from the covenant, God would have been just to send one Flood after another upon sinful humanity. This the Noahic covenant is gracious. Since it is made with all of creation, it is also common.

God waited to bring the judgment of the Flood upon the earth to give sinners time to repent (1 Peter 3:20), and after the Flood God deferred judgment on sinners, also giving them a chance to repent (Acts 17:30).

Isaiah 28:23-29 teaches that by God’s common grace both the saved and lost can develop the intellectual and practical skills to succeed at their vocations. God enables people to understand the world as he created in it and to succeed in living in it.

Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:44-45 that the Father shows love toward his enemies (grace) by giving sunshine and rain to both the righteous and the unrighteous alike (common).

Paul also points to the rains and the provision of food as the goodness of God shown to pagan people (Acts 14:17). In addition Paul indicates that this goodness was a witness to God himself (suppressed according to Romans 1).

What is Common Grace? Another Definition

by

This manifestation of grace consisted in restraining, blocking, or redirecting the consequences that would otherwise have resulted from sin. It intercepts the natural outworking of the poison of sin and either diverts and alters it or opposes and destroys it. For that reason we must distinguish two dimensions in the manifestations of grace: 1. a saving grace, which in the end abolishes sin and completely undoes its consequences; and 2. a temporal restraining grace, which holds back and blocks the effect of sin. The former, that is saving grace, is in the nature of the case special and restricted to God’s elect. The second, common grace, is extended to the whole of our human life.

Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 168.

Daniel Strange Reviews Kuyper’s Church as Institute and Organism Distinction

by

Daniel Strange, “Rooted and Grounded? The Legitimacy of Abraham Kuyper’s Distinction between Church as Institute and Church as Organism, and Its Usefulness in Constructing an Evangelical Public Theology,” Themelios 40, no. 3 (2015): 430-445.

In this article Strange conducts a helpful survey of Kuyper’s church as institution / church as organism distinction. Strange notes that this distinction is used by many in discussions of public theology, but Kuyper’s precise understanding is often not in view. After surveying Kuyper, Strange raises a number of concerns. First, he notes that Kuyper moves from metaphors in Ephesians that are organic and institutional to a model of the church as institutional and organic. Exegetically, he finds this move untenable. Second, Strange seems hesitant to identify as church anything that is not gathered. He seems to understand the universal church as gathered in some sense in heaven. Third, he’s concerned that Kuyper privileged the organic church over the institutional church, especially in his later writings. Interestingly, he brings in Van Til’s critique of Kuyper’s view of common grace at this point in which Van Til thinks Kuyper too influenced by Plato and Kant in an emphasis on “abstract universals” (the organic church being more of an abstract universal than the institutional church), Nonetheless, Strange is willing to accept distinctions such as “church as church, and church as Christians” (Carson), “the public ministry of the church and the church as people scattered in their various vocations” (Horton), or “church ‘gathered’ and church ‘going’” (Strange’s own proposal).

This is a helpful survey and critique. Though not convinced of the second point of the critique, I find Strange’s other concerns to be compelling. Nonetheless, I still wonder if the organic/institution language may still retain value.

What is Common Grace?

by

Common grace is an operation of the Holy Spirit, based on the atonement of Christ and God’s merciful and benevolent attitude toward all, by which He immediately or through secondary causation restrains the effects of sin and enables the positive accomplishment and performance of civic righteousness and good among all people.

McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:297.

Grace is basically God’s condescending, unmerited favor. Common grace is favor shown to all men in common. God was under no constraint or compulsion of necessity to show this favor. He could justly have left the world to the full, unrestrained and unmitigated effects of sin. That God arrested the progress of these just desirets is all of grace.

McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:300.

Van Til on Deduction and Doctrine

by

It follows that the creeds of the church do not constitute deductive systems derived from the master concept of God. They are rather statements containing, so far as possible, all the various facets of truth about God and his relation to the world. There is coherence in these creeds, but it is not the coherence of deduction. The famous doctrine of the two natures of Christ as set forth in the Chalcedon creed exhibits the fact that the church was unwilling to submit the apparently contradictory materials of Scripture to the requirements of a deductive system.

Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., 206.

Do We Love, Fear, and Trust God?

by

“Consider this, that the root of hypocrisy and of atheism is in our nature, whereby naturally we do these three things: we love, fear, and trust in men more than in God, and therefore do make men the judges of our actions. First, for love, are we not grieved when we ourselves or our friends are dishonored, and on the contrary, when we ourselves or our friends are praised, are we not glad and rejoice? But when God is dishonored, who is grieved? Or whose heart does leap for joy when God is glorified? Which argues plainly that our affection of love is more inclined towards ourselves and to our friends than unto God. Second, for fear; are not most men more afraid when they offend a mortal man like themselves than when they offend the ever-living God? Third, for trust and confidence in time of affliction, most men are more comforted if some friend promises them help than they are by all the promises of God Himself in His Word. But men will say that they love and fear and trust in God above all. This indeed is the ordinary profession of ignorant people, but the truth is that by nature we refuse God to be our Judge and our Approver, and appeal unto men; and therefore we must labor to see and feel and to bewail this hypocrisy, and to be endued with the contrary grace whereby we may simply and sincerely seek to be approved of God in all our actions.”

William Perkins, The Works of William Perkins (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2014), 1:398.

August 2015 Reading

by

Wilson, Penelope. Hieroglyphics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

OUP’s Very Short Introduction series provides excellent introductions to a wide variety of topics. They beautifully made and are a handy size for carrying around. The few entries that I’ve read have all been excellent. This introduction won’t teach you how to read hieroglyphs, But it does provide some basic discussion of script and grammar. It also discusses the history of the development of hieroglyphs, their use alongside everyday scripts, the role they played religion and art. The story of how hieroglyphs first began to be deciphered and the present state of the discipline are also summarized.

Maier, Paul L. Eusebius: The Church History. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.

Eusebius is the first Christian to write a church history. Paul Maier provides an excellent translation. Footnotes indicate points at which later scholarship believes Eusebius to have been inaccurate. At the end of each book within the Church History Maier has added his own commentary, which may provide more background information about the era of Eusebius’s discussion. Sometimes the commentary provides some evaluation of Eusebius’s history and the state of scholar discussion. My edition is a hardback with glossy pages and full-color photographs of significant places and artifacts related to the history.

Brauns, Chris. Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

The thesis of Chris Brauns’s work on forgiveness is: “God expects believers to forgive others in the way that he forgives them” (44). That thesis may seem fairly basic until one begins to probe how God forgives believers. Brauns defines God’s forgiveness as: “A commitment by the one true God to pardon graciously those who repent and believe so that they are reconciled to him, although this commitment does not eliminate all consequences” (51). Note that God’s forgiveness is freely and graciously offered, yet conditional upon repentance and belief. Note also that when God offers forgiveness, he is committed to pardon and to reconcile with the sinner. But Brausn draws a distinction between punishment and discipline. Thus forgiveness does not mean that no consequences follow for sin (Brauns points to the consequences David faced for his sin with Bathsheba even after he repented and was forgiven).

Given this, Brauns defines human forgiveness as: “A commitment by the offended to pardon graciously the repentant from moral liability and to be reconciled to that person, although not all consequences are necessarily eliminated” (55). The very NT word that Paul often uses for forgiveness indicates that forgiveness is offered graciously. “Christians should always have a disposition of grace towards those who offend them” (55). Yet, the Christian cannot actually forgive, that is pardon and reconcile with, an offender apart from that person’s repentance. The offer of forgiveness needs to present, but the actual forgiveness is conditional. On the other side, if the person is repentant, Brauns teaches that forgiveness is more than a promise to let things pass. It is a commitment to reconciliation.

Brauns contrasts this understanding of forgiveness with what he calls “therapeutic forgiveness.” Therapeutic forgiveness is an effort to free oneself from bitterness. There are no conditions placed on the offender, and it can be done within the mind of the offended individual. There is no reconciliation required. Brauns lists a number of objections to therapeutic forgiveness. The most significant, apart from the fact that it does not align with the biblical model, are that it fails to reckon with the seriousness of evil and that it fails to force Christians to deal with their own sin.

Brauns’s understanding of forgiveness raises a number of important questions. Forgiveness is more difficult under the biblical model than under the therapeutic model. It cannot be done merely within one’s own mind. It involves interaction and reconciliation between two people. So what if a person is not willing to forgive? Matthew 18 provides the answer to this question. First, Jesus teaches that there should be no limit to the forgiveness offered. Second Jesus teaches that no matter how bad the offense is against us—and Brauns does not minimize the awful sinful ways that some people have been treated—God has suffered the far greater offenses. As God forgives, so must we forgive. Finally, Brauns notes the severe warnings given to those who will not forgive in Matthew 6:14-15; 7:1-2; 18:34-35. “Those unwilling or unable to forgive should fear for their salvation” (123).

On the other hand, if forgiveness is only rendered when a person repents, how should the Christian respond when a person will not repent. Brauns turns to Romans 12::17-21 to answer this question. He discerns three principles in this passage: “Principle #1: Resolve Not to Take Revenge” (130; Rom. 12:17a, 19, 21). “Principle #2: Proactively Show Love” (134; Rom. 12:17b-18, 20). “Principle #3: Don’t Forgive the Unrepentant, but Leave Room for the Wrath of God” (143; Rom. 12:19). When a Christian does this Brauns says he should not “be overcome by hatred.” Instead the Christian must warn the offender that he places himself in the path of God’s judgment. “There is a way to lovingly remind people that God’s judgment is certain (Hebrews 9:27)” (144).

Those who have been grievously sinned against often struggle with bitterness. Brauns also provides biblical counsel in this matter. First, “Wait for God’s justice, and trust his providence” (155; Ps. 73:4-9, 17-27; Prov 24:19-20; Rom. 8:28). Second, “Listen to wise people” (160; Prov. 19:20). Third, “Pursue God’s blessing for yourself and those close to you” (161; Ps. 73:15; Heb. 12:15-17)/ Fourth, “Call bitterness what it is. . . . It may seem like stating the obvious to say that bitterness is sin. But it needs to be said” (162).

Closely connected to bitterness is the mind that often goes back to think about the wrong. Brauns provides counsel on how to not dwell on past wrongs. First, “Burn into your mind what the Bible teaches about forgiveness” (171). Here Brauns summarizes the basic teaching of the book as the primary way to stop thinking about the wrong you have suffered:

“The most basic forgiveness principle is that Christians should forgive others as God forgave them. (See Matthew 6:12; 7:2; Ephesians 4:32.)”

“Christians should have an attitude or disposition of grace toward all people even as God offers forgiveness to all who receive it. God does not forgive all people, but he does offer grace and forgiveness to all. (See John 1:12; 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.)”

“Therefore, Christians must be willing to forgive all who ask for forgiveness. (See Luke 17:3-4.) Remember: whatever anyone has done to offend you will always pale in comparison to what you have done to offend God.”

“Christians can conquer bitterness by trusting in the justice and providence of God. God is just. Vengeance belongs to him. He will repay. God providentially works all things together for good for those who know him. This includes the // acts of people who intend to harm us. You are not ultimately a victim (See Romans 12:19; 8:28; Genesis 45:5-7.)

“Never excuse bitterness or an unwillingness to forgive. Those unable or unwilling to forgive should question their salvation. Read this sentence aloud: ‘Saying ‘I cannot or will not forgive’ is another way of saying ‘I am thinking about going to hell.’ (See Matthew 6:14-15; 18:21-35.)” (171-72)

Second, “Take a look at Christ in his Word . . . stop scrutinizing your own situation” (172; Heb. 12:1-3; Ps. 77; 121:1-2). Third, “Pray, pray, pray” (173; Phil. 4:2-7). Third, “Say and do the right things” (174). Brauns’s point is that apart from seeking counsel or prayer, “talking about a wrong done to you will make it far more difficult to stop thinking about the matter.” Fourth, “Participate in the God-given means of grace” (174). By this Brauns means fellowship with the people of God, haring the ministry of the Word, worshipping with God’s people, studying the Bible, and praying.

Finally, Brauns looks at Acts 15:36-41 as a case study in what to do when good Christians don’t agree.

This is a careful yet highly accessible book on an unescapable topic. Since every Christian will be faced with the need to forgive and be forgiven, this is a book that is easy to recommend to every Christian.

Haykin, Michael A. G. Rediscovering the Church Fathers. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.

Michael Haykin provides a helpful non-technical introduction to the church fathers. After a chapter discussing why evangelicals should be interested in the fathers, Haykin discusses Ignatius, The Letter to Diognetus, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil of Caesarea, and Patrick. He concludes with an autobiographical chapter about his interest in the church fathers (which could profitably be read before the other chapters). The book also includes two appendices. The first is a guide to more reading both in secondary sources and in the best patristic writings to begin reading for one’s self. The second appendix is a more academic evaluation of Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100-600. It is well worth reading, though it is probably of most interest to those for whom the rest of the book is too basic of an introduction. Nonetheless, for someone who knows little about the early church and who desires an evangelical introduction, this book is a good place to start.

Whitney, Donald S. Family Worship: In the Bible, in History, and in Your Home. Shepherdsville, KY: Center for Biblical Spiritually, 2006.

This brief booklet will take very little time to read. But it has the potential of profoundly shaping a family’s walk with God. This is a book that every family should read and consider together.

Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord’s Prayer, The Beatitudes. Translated by Hilda C. Graef. Ancient Christian Writers. Edited by Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe. New York: Paulist, 1954.

When I was younger I wondered why certain parts of the Bible were highlighted by Christians historically. Why choose these particular portions of Scripture and not others to include in Bible textbooks or to write a book about. I now realize that there are certain passages which draw a great deal of basic truth into a brief space. The Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes are two such passages. Gregory of Nyssa betrays the strengths and weaknesses of patristic preaching. Here you will find profound insights that had not occurred to you before, but it will come mixed with some dross.

Edwards, Jonathan. Ethical Writings. Edited by Paul Ramsey. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Volume 8. Edited by John E. Smith. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. [Read sections of the editor’s introduction, “Love the Sum of All Virtue,” “Heaven Is a World of Love,” Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue, “Unpublished Letter on Assurance and Participation in the Divine Nature.”]

“The Nature of True Virtue” is one of the two great dissertations written at the end of Edwards’s life and published posthumously. Edwards argues forcefully that there is no true virtue without love toward God, and aspects This is surely right, and aspects of this argument are forcefully argued. On the other hand, the argument that greater amounts of love are due to those with greater degrees of being and that God is thus most deserving as Being in general seems to run into difficulties. Though I do not think Edwards intended a pantheistic meaning to Being in general at all, such phrasing lends to that misunderstanding. In addition, our moral obligations in Scripture do not seem to be tied to being.