Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Review of Reinke, Newton on the Christian Life

by

Reinke, Tony. Newton on the Christian Life. Theologians on the Christian Life. Edited by Stephen J. Nichols and Justin Taylor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.

John Newton provided a wealth of spiritual counsel in his numerous letters. One disadvantage of receiving Newton’s counsel in this form is that the various topics he covers are scattered through numerous letters. Tony Reinke addresses this challenge by presenting Newton’s counsel topically. Reinke has carefully read Newtons letters and gives readers a rich entrance into his thought about the Christian life.

Reinke summarizes Newton’s teaching thus:

John Newton’s vision for the Christian life centers on the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ. Awakened to Christ by the new birth, and united to Christ by faith, the Christian passes through various stages of maturity in this life as he/she beholds and delights in Christ’s glory in Scripture. All along the pilgrimage of the Christian life—through the darkest personal trials,. And despite indwelling sin and various character flaws—Christ’s glory is beheld and treasured, resulting in tastes of eternal joy, in growing security, and in progressive victory over the self, the world, and the devil—a victory manifested in self-emptying and other-loving obedience, and ultimately in a life aimed to please God alone (30).

The book unpacks this summary by presenting John Newton’s teaching on each point. Read worshipfully, this book really does increase one’s longing to love Christ and live for him.

What is Worship

by

True worship  involves reverential human acts of submission and homage before the divine Sovereign in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accord with his will.

Daniel I. Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Baker, 2014), 23.

Gathered worship is offering up to God the united, spiritual responses of which he alone is worthy.

Mark Minnick, 7 September 2014

On the Need for a Christian View of Government and Politics

by

For many Christians, faith is fundamentally private and consists of their attending church, praying and being honest in their dealings with others. If Christianity touches on politics, it does so only obliquely by making the individual politician more virtuous as a person. This is not to be taken lightly, of course, and we can be grateful if more of our political leaders are upright people. But it does not address politics as politics, and it has no real implications for public policy. We shall at this point leave this approach behind, since I am persuaded that it represents a defective understanding of the faith and its all-encompassing claims.

Koyzis, Political Visions & Illusions: A Survey & Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies, Kindle loc 2307.

Christians and Identity Politics

by

The Public Discourse has a worthwhile article explaining the similarities between Donald Trump’s campaign and identity politics on the left:

Trump is a champion of identity politics, which in case we should forget, was invented by the left. He advances without apology or qualification the interests and values of his supporters. As a group, they possess the identity of people put-upon by their opponents. It may not be correct to say they are all one ethnic group, although many are indeed white; but it is true that Trump’s “tribe,” regardless of its demography, identifies with him as one of their own because of his unique political style. Like members of the politically correct left, Trump and his supporters see themselves as immune from criticism not because of the strength of their arguments, but because of the distinctive characteristics of “who they are.” They are defined by their grievances. Although their identity politics exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the left, they do make a claim to victimhood, the same as “black lives matter” activists do to assert their immunity from criticism.

There’s a warning for Christians in the Trump campaign. For many 2015 felt like the year the United States shifted from being a nation in which a Christian heritage garnered some respect to one in which holding to orthodox Christian ethics is bigoted beyond argument.

In this context Christians may also be tempted to view themselves as victims. They may be tempted to play identity politics to “get our country back.” This is a dangerous path to travel because it puts Christians in a frame  of mind contrary to that Jesus expects of his followers in such situations.

Jesus said (Matt. 5:11-12):

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

It is hard to play identity politics as the victim and truly rejoice in being slandered for Jesus’s sake. Jesus’s own example forbids this course of action (1 Pet. 2:21-23):

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

The way the Christian respond to reviling needs to demonstrate that his real trust is in God, who will render justice in the end, and not in our own verbal or political skills.

None of this means that Christians ought to be politically unengaged or that they fail to make use of the liberties they have under the law. The apostle Paul in Acts appealed to his Roman citizenship when needed. It does mean, however, that Christians engage in politics in a distinctively Christian manner, a manner informed by the two great commandments.

Christians press for laws that conform to God’s law not to take their country back, as if it is theirs and not their non-Christian neighbor’s, but because they love God and that neighbor. First, Christians love God, and they should desire for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Second, Christians should love their neighbors, and they know that laws which violate God’s laws will ultimately harm their neighbors.

If Christians engage in the public square with love rather than with the bitterness of a victim claiming rights they will truly stand out as distinct on the American political landscape. And whether they achieve their political goals or not, they will bring glory to God for being like Christ.

Why Our Mediator Must Be God and Man – Part 2

by

He declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips, when he says, “I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God,” (John 20:17). In this way, we have a sure inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance (Rom. 8:17). Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.2.

On Why Our Mediator Must Be God and Man

by

It deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them, with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way, that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.1.

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.

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.

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.