trinity-november-december-2003

WHAT? ❘ WHY? ❘ WHEN?

MODERN REFORMATION TRINITY: GOD IN THREE PERSONS

VOLUME

12, NUMBER6 , NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2003, $5.00

C N

O

V

E

M

O B

E

R

/

D

N E

C

E

M

B

T E

R

2

0

E 0

3

|

N V

O

L

U

M

T E

1

2

S N

U

M

B

E

R

6

TRINITY: GOD IN THREE PERSONS

13 “God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity”: Scriptural Confession or Human Invention?

Is the doctrine of the Trinity an invention of over zealous philosophers and theologians, or is it the substance of God’s own revelation about himself? The author argues that it is the overzealous philosophers and theologians who are, in fact, attempting to undermine Scripture’s clear teaching of the Trinity in order to reflect modern sensibilities.

by Michael Horton Plus: Trinitarian Heresies Timeline

22 The Trinity from Canon to Creed The history of the early church reveals that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was often imperiled by aggressive heresies that sometimes seemed determined to sweep the infant church into self-destruction. The author recounts the story of the faithful Christian leaders who upheld Scripture’s own teaching in the face of overwhelming odds.

by Korey D. Maas

29 The Indispensability of the Trinity Is the doctrine of the Trinity essential for our salvation? The authors argue that it is and show how the work of the different Persons of the Trinity reveals the glorious richness of our faith.

by Mark R. Talbot and R. Scott Clark

34 Trinity and Christian Life: Why Believe the Trinity Today?

Do you wonder if the doctrine of the Trinity has any relevance to your daily Christian life? If so, the author wants to encourage you to recover a full-orbed understanding of the Trinity. Such an understanding will revitalize your worship and equip you for evangelizing friends and neighbors.

by Andrew Trotter COVER PHOTO BY PHOTODISC

In This Issue page 2 | Letters page 3 | Ex Auditu page 5 Preaching from the Choir page 8 | Speaking of page 9 | Between the Times page 10 | Resource Center page 24 We Confess page 39 | Free Space page 40 | Reviews page 44 | On My Mind page 48 N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1

I

N

|

T

H

I

S

|

I

S

S

U

E

MODERN REFORMATION Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton

Not Just Any Old God

W

hich God do you believe in? In the Western world, such a question may have seemed unnecessary ten or twenty years ago. Today, however, pluralism dominates even supposedly Christian nations. In some areas of

the country, you are just as likely to live next door to a Buddhist or a Muslim than to a Christian. How should this new reality shape the way that we talk about God? As Lutheran theologian Korey D. Maas reveals in his article, the history of the early church—a community that also found itself ministering in a pluralistic society—teaches us that we have to be very clear about the God we believe in. It does no good merely to profess belief in “God.” Everyone believes in God, as they define him, her, or it. The question is which God? How we answer that question will determine how we think about the God that we worship. Most of us would begin by explaining his attributes: love, justice, omnipresence, and so forth. Or we might talk about his works: creation, flood, exodus, and more. The goal of this issue is to help you talk about God as he reveals himself in Scripture: as unity and Trinity, one God in three persons.

Does Scripture use Trinitarian language to talk about God? Reformed theologian and editor-in-chief Michael Horton explores the biblical evidence for the Trinity in his article.

It may seem to some of us, however, that the doctrine of the Trinity—albeit scriptural—is not very necessary for either our worship or our evangelism. The articles by executive editor Mark Talbot and Reformed theologian R. Scott Clark, and Presbyterian theologian

Next Issue: January/February Decision Making and the Will of God: Are you in God's perfect will? How can you know? What will happen if you step out of it? The answers to these questions are easier than the many books in your local bookstore would seem to suggest.

2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Andrew Trotter explain both the necessity and the contemporary relevance of the Trinity in an increasingly confused and pluralistic society.

How should one illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity? Our cover image this month reflects a departure from our usual photos and illustrations. Rather than using a picture of Christ at his Baptism (which would offend our Reformed readers who understand the second commandment to forbid such pictures) or a symbol of the Trinity (like the interlocking triangle or St. Patrick’s shamrock), we chose to use a black slate representing the incomprehensibility—apart from divine revelation—of this most mysterious and necessary doctrine.

On modernreformation.org this month we have an additional article by Lutheran theologian Korey D. Maas on the reformers and the doctrine of the Trinity. Make sure you also work through the study questions for Michael Horton and Andrew Trotter’s articles. Several classic Modern Reformation articles on the Trinity will be posted as well.

Look for our special preview of topics and issues we’ll be exploring next year. A subscription to Modern Reformation is a perfect gift for the pastor, mechanic, seminarian, barber, Bible study leader, homemaker, Sunday school teacher, or dentist in your life.

If someone you know is curious about God, this world, and their life in it, we suggest you give them a gift subscription to Modern Reformation.

Executive Editor Mark R. Talbot Managing Editor Eric Landry Alliance Council Gerald Bray ❘ D. A. Carson Mark Dever ❘ J. Ligon Duncan, III W. Robert Godfrey ❘ John D. Hannah Michael Horton ❘ Rosemary Jensen Ken Jones ❘ John Nunes J. A. O. Preus ❘ Rod Rosenbladt Philip Ryken ❘ R. C. Sproul ❘ Mark R. Talbot Gene E. Veith ❘ Paul F. M. Zahl Department Editors Brian Lee, Ex Auditu Benjamin Sasse, Between the Times D. G. Hart, Reviews Staff ❘ Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Staff Writer Diana S. Frazier, Contributing Editor Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Celeste McGhee, Proofreader Contributing Scholars Charles P. Arand ❘ S. M. Baugh Jonathan Chao ❘ William M. Cwirla Marva J. Dawn ❘ Don Eberly Timothy George ❘ Douglas S. Groothuis Allen C. Guelzo ❘ Carl F. H. Henry Lee Irons ❘ Arthur A. Just Robert Kolb ❘ Donald Matzat Timothy M. Monsma ❘ John W. Montgomery John Muether ❘ Kenneth A. Myers Tom J. Nettles ❘ Leonard R. Payton Lawrence R. Rast ❘ Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie ❘ David P. Scaer Rachel S. Stahle ❘ David VanDrunen Cornelis Van Dam ❘ David F. Wells Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals © 2003 All rights reserved. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God’s Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life.

For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 546-3696 ModRef@AllianceNet.org www.modernreformation.org ISSN-1076-7169

Eric Landry Managing Editor

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION

US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR $22 1 YR $15 1 YR $25 1 YR $40 1 YR $45

2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $75 2 YR $85

L

E

T

T

E

R

S

What a well-thought, balanced, and fair presentation you made in your last issue on Postmodernism (July/August 2003). In addition to providing thoughtful and scholarly analyses, you gave some hands-on ideas for communicating the truth of Christ in the midst of pluralism. Bravo! I was completely surprised that you would even tackle this important topic, and I am genuinely impressed with your handling of it.

Postmodernism—in Christian circles—seems to be a topic that we either embrace or reject; then we define one another by our response. I was so encouraged and challenged. Thank you!

Rev. John Bethard First Presbyterian Church Hereford, TX

little sheep food in the discussions of postmodernism, no matter the respective strengths of the authors. Perhaps a return to more “meaty” topics is a genuine and timely consideration. The comments of the late Greg L. Bahnsen provide a fitting capstone: “It should come as no surprise that, in a world where all things have been created

by Christ (Col. 1:16) and are carried along by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3) and where all knowledge is therefore deposited in Him who is The Truth (Col. 2:3; John 14:6) and who must be Lord over all thinking (2 Cor. 10:5), neutrality is nothing short of immorality.“ Back to the basics in the future.

Russ Reynolds Diamond Bar, CA

Always eager to devour Modern Reformation, I was surprised and disturbed that I struggled so with the July/August 2003 issue (“Reaching Out in Our Time”). At first I blamed brothers Carson, Horton, et al., but concluded that they probably were not the problem in light of their impeccable track record of pithy relevance. Then I turned inward and began a brief trip questioning my own pietism.

Finally the light went on as I remembered Proverbs 1:9 and realized that the problem was the topic itself. Since “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the holy is understanding,” it is logically impossible to expect an issue focusing on an “ism” that is fearless to be anything but hollow and boring to the flock. Since sheep are sanctified by truth (John 17:17), and since “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17), there was

This is a quick note to thank all of the contributors to the July/August 2003 issue of Modern Reformation. What an encouragement I got as I read through each article! No “the sky is falling, the sky is falling!” as is sometimes the case in modern Evangelicalism. This issue laid out the problems of postmodernism, but also the hope of the gospel to penetrate the veil that covers the eyes of unbelievers in such a time as this. This magazine deserves to be kept and read and reread as we seek to not grow discouraged, but to continue on in the service of the Lord while not growing weary, because in due time we will reap a harvest. Thanks so much!

Nancy Wilson Via the Internet

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

I have been a subscriber to Modern Reformation for many years and have truly enjoyed every issue. I would like for you to know that I was surprised in the last issue (July/August 2003) when the interview articles went on for one page and at the end stated “read the remainder of the interview at our website.” I still enjoy reading print. I work at a computer all day and the eye fatigue is a bit much by the end of the day. I would rather have one less article in the magazine than find this situation again in the future. I do thank you, though, for the wonderful magazine that you publish.

Charles Gallagher Via the Internet

I don’t understand why, as Christians, we continue to “eat” our own. William Willimon’s article, “Peculiar Truth: Postmodern Preaching” (July/August 2003), is a case in point as he attacks the “Four Spiritual Laws” (an evangelistic tool of Campus Crusade for Christ) as symptomatic of postmodernity‘s corrupting influence on our epistemologies. Even more tragic is his association of this effective evangelistic tool (which is all it ever was intended to be) with the truly unbiblical ideas advanced by the Jesus Seminar. In an otherwise fine article on postmodern preaching, my issue with Willimon is that he isn’t the first of Modern Reformation’s authors to disparage the ministries of people like Dr. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade to advance their arguments. Frankly, if it were not for the obedience of a Campus Crusade staff worker back in 1962 to take Jesus’ words in Acts 1:8 more seriously than most of us do, I and probably many others like me, wouldn’t be among the faithful readers of Modern Reformation today.

Whether we believe it or not, the Four Laws booklet is not cute marketing, but indeed an accurate presentation based on Scripture. Maybe the five points of Calvinism make for better soteriology, but for me, that kind of doctrinal understanding follows regeneration. Like Anselm and Augustine would say, “faith leads to understanding”—not the other way around.

Bruce Bunner Weston, CT

In response to D. A. Carson’s “The Dangers and Delights of Postmodernism” (July/August 2003), I was surprised that Dr. Carson did not draw a more intimate connection between modernism and the origins of Protestantism. René Descartes’s “I think therefore I am” is woven from the same fabric as Martin Luther’s “Because Martin Luther says it is so”

4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

in his “me and the Bible against the church” protest.

Both stances, even if done in the name of evangelism for a more personal relationship with God, have resulted in an autonomy (self-law) that is eroding and fragmenting into individualistic “Christianity” and relativism.

The coming generation is now distrusting of a “me generation” that offers worship as a buffet and revelation as an individual interpretation of Scripture and the Spirit. As Dr. Carson points out, some of the good elements of “postmodernism” are actually premodern and pre-Reformation. Few Christian traditions (with the exception of Eastern Orthodoxy) have maintained or cultivated the stable, ancient, pre-Reformation liturgical orthodox practices of early Christianity. Ironically, it is exactly this “out-of-step-with-the-world” worship and spirituality that has made Eastern Orthodox Christianity one of the fastest growing Christian movements in the United States that attracts a postmodern culture.

Mark Mosely Wichita, KS

Join the Conversation!

Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1716 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.735.5133 fax ModRef@AllianceNet.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters.

Transforming Truth Correction The last sentence of Dr. William Edgar's article, "Transforming Truth: Apologetics in a Postmodern World" (from "Reaching Out in Our Time," July/August 2003), should have read, "Divine revelation is not a cruel and cold metanarrative…."

The editors regret deleting the important qualifier, "not," in the printed publication.

E E

|

X X

A

M

P

L

E

S

A O

F

C

U H

R

I

S

T

D -

C

E

N

I T

E

R

E

T D

S

E

R

U M

O

N

S

Mark 2:1–12

A Picture of Forgiveness

T

he epiphanies of Jesus are those moments where he enlightens—through Word

around Jesus and seek him out, having been drawn by or deed—those around him as to who he is, whence he has come, and why. In the good news of lepers cleansed and demons cast this seventh Sunday of Epiphany we get another insight into the mission purpose out, sins forgiven and lives restored. And in their midst, of our Lord. I pray that as I preach about the life Jesus is at home, teaching. and ministry of Jesus, you will have your own Mark makes no mention of epiphany, seeing yourself on the receiving side of what Jesus says because it is From God’s goodness in today’s reading. not the point of recording CHARLES MALLIE Our gospel reading picks up on the heels of the this event. Rather, he draws zealous leper from last week who, though told to our attention to the miracle hold his tongue, did exactly the opposite. Because that happens in the midst of of this, the people came to Jesus from everywhere Jesus’ teaching, and in Pastor and he could no longer openly enter any city, particular, what happens in St. Paul’s staying instead out in the remote areas. Finally, Jesus the midst of the miracle.

Lutheran Church Laguna Beach, CA Three times the forgiveness of returns home to Capernaum and has a few days sins is mentioned in the peace, but then the Word of his presence gets out. recounting of this miracle.

A crowd gathers to hear Jesus, including some of the skeptical Scribes. The house is literally It is a packed house. Inside, Jesus is standing in bursting, with not even enough room to get the front of the room with the people spread out through the door. They have been drawn by the before him all the way out the door. As Jesus Word, spoken to them in their places of work, at teaches, the people are held captive to the Word. home, on the streets, or in the marketplace. There in the flesh, the Living Word of God speaks Wherever it was in their lives that these people first to the people. Outside, four of the men bring a encountered him, they did so either by someone fifth, a paralytic, to see Jesus, but there is no way to speaking the Word to them verbally, or they get in. The door is blocked by bodies spilling out encountered Jesus in the flesh, himself the Living into the way, and they can’t seem to find a clear Word of God. Whoever you are, wherever you path into the house. Even if they could squeeze in come from, you also have this one thing in through the front door, they would never be able common: the Word of the Lord has come to you. to take their paralytic friend with them on his You have heard his voice and his Spirit draws you pallet. In a moment of desperation, one of the four to this place to hear the teachings of Jesus. catches a glimpse of something in the corner of his Jesus’ teaching is one of authority, backed up by eye. Stairs! He sees stairs. “Quick, to the roof,” he miraculous signs. The people have never heard says to the others. about anything like what Jesus is doing, and so Inside, Jesus is teaching, and a few bits of the they are coming out to see if it is true. They gather roof start to fall from the ceiling. Our Lord’s eyes

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

turn toward the ceiling and what does he see, but the roof being “unroofed” before his very eyes.

What are these men doing? Can’t they see Jesus is in the middle of preaching? But they have other things on their minds. They know that Jesus is doling out forgiveness, just giving it away, and that’s exactly why they’ve brought their friend to see him.

I do not know what Jesus’ reaction was when he saw the roof being pulled apart by those four determined men, but I imagine he smiled. I think it pleases our Lord when we look forward to seeing him. I believe the Maker of heaven and earth likes it when we make time for him; the Father of infinite goodness is gladdened when we reach out in faith for his grace. Seeing their faith, Jesus is pleased.

Their faith includes that of the paralytic. These four men are the community of the faithful, helping their friend in need and bringing him to the One who can cure his deepest need and give him salvation from sin.

Forgiveness Seeing their faith, Jesus says to them, “My son your sins are forgiven.” This is the great dismissal of sins so often spoken about in the Scriptures: “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins” (Isa. 43:25). “Who pardons all your iniquities; Who heals all your diseases; Who redeems your life from the pit…. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities…. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions ake a good long look at the paralytic, my friends. See what you bring to God, from us” (Ps. 103:3, 10, 12).

Forgiveness, release, that he receives you. There is no effort on your part. Nothing you can do but remission. Sins sent away by the Savior. listen, and let the creative, redemptive Word of God have its way with you.

To the crowd, to those four men, to the paralytic, to us, these words are like believe. You were carried through the crowds of honey to our tongue. They are the words we long life to the house of the Lord. May we be to hear. The Word of forgiveness, the absolution, encouraged to bring people, our friends, into the the voice of the Father telling us it is going to be all house of the Lord, that they might see Jesus. If you right. It is why we get out of bed in the morning have been a Christian all your life, God be praised. and come to church. Because no matter how bad But if you have not, think back to that time when it gets out there, when you walk through those doors someone first brought you to church, or spoke to you know you’ll hear those precious words of you about Jesus. absolution: “I, by virtue of my office as a called and Then, take a look at that man on the pallet. ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace That paralytic let down through the roof is you and of God to all of you, and in the stead and by the me, my friends. Before knowing Christ we were command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all bound in the sickness of our sin, our palsied limbs your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son unable to reach out to God or others. Crippled and of the Holy Ghost” (Lutheran Liturgy). and cut off, we were helpless, hapless, and You can count on the words of Jesus saying to hopeless. Take a good look, fellow Christians— you, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”

A Picture of Salvation Here, as these men dig through the roof and let down their friend, we are presented a picture of salvation. Everyone comes to Jesus at the hands of, or by the mouth of, another. Perhaps you were carried as a little child into the presence of God by your parents. Or maybe someone came to you as an adult, speaking the Word of God, bringing you to church. Either way, you were brought to Jesus, delivered to him by those faithful enough to

T

this is what we bring to our own salvation. This is our offering to a holy God. This body of death, sinful from birth, is all you have to bring him. Your devotion, your sincerity, your purity . . . all sinful.

Like an elegant silk handkerchief dropped in the mud, soaking wet dirt penetrates every fiber of our being. The only hope is a deep, powerful washing.

This is what we are: sin enfleshed, flesh in sin.

Yet God meets you where you are. You are brought to him in holy baptism. Here the Spirit of God once again hovers over the water, joined to his Word. Here the Word, joined to the water, is placed upon you in the strong name of the Trinity.

All this takes place in the house where Jesus still preaches to the crowds, forgiving sins.

Take a good long look at the paralytic, my friends. See what you bring to God, that he receives you. There is no effort on your part.

Nothing you can do but listen, and let the creative, redemptive Word of God have its way with you.

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

The Scribes But the Scribes sitting in judgment burned with contempt and hatred. Their objection echoed in their hard hearts. Why does this man speak that way?

He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone? Who does he think he is? This man, why, he’s claiming to be God! Only God can forgive sins. In this, of course, the Scribes were correct. Only the power of God can set right creation-gone-wrong in sin. Only the Lord can loosen the bonds which bind, and set us free. Only the Redeemer can release us from the prison of our own iniquities.

What is the source of the Scribes’ objections?

Pride, rejection, and hatred. These were prideful men, religious pros who knew how everything should go. No one was able to convince them of anything different, not even the Lord himself.

Such pros will tell you everything about how your religious life should look. How you should act and speak. How much you should give and how often. They had elevated themselves to the place where they could no longer receive instruction.

They could not see past themselves to the reality that was before their very eyes. So they rejected Jesus, his teachings, his forgiveness. They closed themselves off to what God was offering through Christ and their rejection ripened into full-blown hatred. These men, even in the face of all the evidence, have their minds made up and they thought they had a clear case against Jesus—“he is blaspheming.” They never once even considered the possibility that he was God, even though from their youth they had been taught to look for the Messiah.

Sometimes we cannot see what is right before our eyes. But Jesus saw their thoughts. They reasoned in their hearts; he knew in his Spirit. The two statements go hand in hand: they reasoned; he knew. With stunning directness, Jesus confronted them with their own thoughts, saying to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your pallet and walk’?”

Which is easier? The forgiveness of sins is by its very nature invisible and unverifiable, and in that sense is the easier merely to say, “Take up your pallet and walk” is verifiable. “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”

is for your benefit that Jesus does this, as a testimony, “So you may know.” It is offered as proof. Note that Jesus does not get into a debate about who he is, he simply gives visible, tangible proof. He does it publicly, before the crowds.

This show of divine authority verified that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins.

Who is this that forgives sins? It is Jesus, the sent Son of the Father. He is the One sent to announce to the world that the kingdom of God has drawn near, that the forgiveness of sins is now, today, here.

Our Lord still forgives sins. He still does it by those the Father sends. He sends them through the Son, “In the stead and by the command of Jesus.” By his authority, he announces that reality to you, through that called servant, whoever he may be. Because of the shed blood of the Son, you have peace with God. Your sins are forgiven.

Where do you see yourself? Are you sitting quietly, reasoning in your heart? Taking issue with this or that, thinking you know better? Or do you realize that all of us, collectively and individually, are like the paralytic. We are completely at the mercy of God, the God who came to save you from your sins. He is the God who meets you where you are, here in the bread and wine, in the water, in the word of absolution. He is the God who meets you to forgive your sins, in the name of Jesus, Amen.

The Reverend Charles Mallie (M.Div., Concordia Theological Seminary) is pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) in Laguna Beach, California.

Where Do You See Yourself?

There have been a lot of bad sermons on this question, so I want you to understand clearly. The one act, healing, verifies the other act, forgiving. It

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

P R E A C H I N G | F R O M | T H E | C H O I R P E R S P E C T I V E S

O N

M U S I C

I N

T H E

C H U R C H

Meaning and “The Music Itself”

R

ecent “worship wars” over nearly every aspect of the church service have often

interpretation, such conceptual diversity within the produced more confusion than consensus. This has prompted several authors to local church—not to mention between denominations, time refocus the debate around the concept of worship itself. Although they provide a periods, or cultures—begs the questions: Does music have theological foundation for approaching music, they inherent meaning? Do particular sounds naturally have not, for the most part, shown us how to evaluate come with ready-made associations? actual musical sounds. The reason for this has mostly The testimony of music history, even church to do with the relatively little direct guidance that music history, would seem to say no, that instead it is Scripture gives on music, much less on elements of we who link sonorous material and values. In the past music such as rhythm, melody, timbre, or harmony. decade or so, many musicologists have come to see But in order to discuss worship music effectively we musical meaning as something like linguistic must look at our own assumptions about the nature meaning. Just as most words have conventional of music itself. Just as we asked, What is worship?, so relationships to the things they represent, so do we must seek to answer, What is music? musical details. And just as particular words make Although this column cannot begin to answer sense only in the context of their home language, so such a large question, I do want to offer some ideas musical meaning is contingent upon setting, not a on how we might begin thinking about “the music “universal language.” For example, a major chord or itself.” We must start by examining our own key can signify an almost endless number of emotions opinions and preferences about different types of or attitudes: triumph, reason, anger, stability, and music. Those who consider themselves tone deaf instability, to name a few. Likewise, for many, the are actually quite perceptive when it comes to sound of the heavy metal guitar has come to suggest sound; after all, we constantly interpret sounds power, angst, and virtuosity, even though it does not around us every day as having extremely nuanced naturally stand for these things. Therefore, when we meanings (just think, for example, of the seemingly evaluate “the music itself,” we must remember that its infinite ways of saying “I love you” and how tone of connotations are based on custom and tradition, voice changes connotation). Most of us have very which can change depending on circumstance. acute senses of how certain kinds of music make us For some, music’s contingency implies that we feel, even if we cannot articulate our feelings into can never understand music of other times, peoples, technical language, and many of us feel strongly or places. Admittedly, we will always lose some about certain styles, musicians, and songs. things in translation, but we can learn much by The problem comes when our notion of what assessing music in its social context and inspecting music means conflicts with that of someone else in the our preexisting perspectives. Remembering that church. What is respectful and encouraging to one we—as individuals, a local church, or a society— worshiper might be offensive, confusing, or even participate in assigning music’s values opens the boring to the next. For instance, the church organ, door for meaningful dialogue across musical once considered a modern distraction by Puritan differences within the church. leaders in colonial Boston, is now regarded as anything but novel, instead suggesting Olivia Carter Mather is a Ph.D. candidate in musicology at contemplation, reverence, and high culture. the University of California, Los Angeles. She is coeditor of Considering the silence of Scripture on musical ECHO (www.echo.ucla.edu).

8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Speaking of...

W e have one God,

but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.

— Bishop T.D. Jakes, radio interview with Living By the Word, August 1998

A

s a ministry, we believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible does not use the word “trinity,” and our feeling is that the word “trinity” implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship. … Therefore, we feel that we grieve Jesus when we do not watch our words and their meaning—especially a word not found in either the Old or New Testament, writings that span centuries of God’s inspired word.

If God had wanted us to refer to Himself, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the “trinity,” He would not have left this word completely out of the Bible.

— Gwen Shamblin, “Statement of Faith,” www.wdworkshop.com

…B

rother Joseph B. Nobles once told a Methodist priest, after hearing him describe his god, that the god they worshiped was the “Mormon’s” Devil—a being without a body, whereas our God has a body, parts and passions.

— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse, 5:331

I

believe that in this divine Godhead there are three separate and distinct persons—each having his own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit…. Many people conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same. Actually they are not…. The word “one” in this passage means one in unity…. You can think of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as three different persons exactly as you would think of any three other people—their oneness pertaining strictly to their being one in purpose, design, and desire.”

— Jimmy Swaggert, Questions and Answers, 199-200

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

B

“I Give It Only a ‘2’ for Substance, … But It’s Easy to Dance To” he fact that Americans “shop” for their churches is no revelation. And thus no one should be surprised by the success of The Unauthorized Guide to Choosing a Church (Baker/Brazos, 2003), a new tome by self-help guru Carmen Renee Berry. Before turning her attention to the body of Christ, Berry distinguished herself as an expert on more mundane bodies, authoring a dozen widely circulated poptherapeutic works, including Coming Home to Your Body: 365 Simple Ways to Nourish Yourself Inside and Out; Are You Having Fun Yet? How to Bring the Art of Play Into Your Recovery; and Girlfriends Get Together: Food, Frolic, and Fun Times.

Confessional Christians are understandably suspicious of such brazenly consumerist looks at the church. But the reality is that, in a fallen world, believers do not spontaneously agree on matters of doctrine and worship. The consequent denominational division and competition are surely lesser evils than having everyone united in one lowestcommon-denominator church where the gospel is not preached. Similarly, an unregulated religious market, with the unseemliness of every entrepreneur and selfproclaimed prophet being allowed to start his own “church,” is still vastly preferable to having the state define orthodoxy.

T

1 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

E

T

W

E

E

In light of American religious diversity, there is actually a great deal of utility in having an “idiots’ guide to church shopping,” a readable overview of all of the denominational histories, liturgies, and confessions out there—all of which Berry briefly offers. The basic problem with The Unauthorized Guide—and with the glimpse into contemporary evangelical church shopping it offers—is the pervasive assumption that because we choose our churches, we can choose them based on any criteria we want: Do I like a big or small environment? Is the pastor entertaining? Which programs and generational ministries have I decided I require? Does traditional or contemporary music feel more “worshipful” to me?

Am I “comfortable” with women in leadership?

Berry’s readers could be forgiven for overlooking the possibility that God might have a view on some of these questions, that there may be some matters of theological right and wrong, instead of merely infinite considerations of taste and preference. And what if other differences— over the nature of God, the way of salvation, and the meaning of the Sacraments— are actually more important than the seemingly paramount choices of stadiumseating/small group intimacy, organ/guitar, business suit/ Hawaiian shirt, deep dish/ thin crust?

Beneath the obsession with marginalia is the

N

|

T

H

unconsidered assumption that “church” is just another this-worldly community that people create on our own.

The belief of our spiritual forefathers and foremothers that the assembly of the faithful each Lord’s Day is an actual meeting between God and his people—at which God himself is the host who calls us to hear him speak and to respond with confession and praise—is not explicitly rejected so much as it is never even considered. As Berry writes in one of the major call-quotes in her introduction, “Doing church is simply getting together with one or more other people to share the journey of faith.”

The relativistic starting point on most creedal matters—elsewhere she outlines her view that “systematic theology” is inherently oxymoronic, for we should learn to embrace the supposed contradictions of faith—necessarily leads to a decision-making process where personal preferences about congregational size, musical style, and programmatic offerings become supreme.

In a recent promotional event, Berry explained what she sees as her major contribution: “I think the most interesting thing I have discovered after writing the book is that people will find a larger church that they may or may not agree with, but where they can find a small group to relate to. Looking back, that’s what I did. I didn’t really care that much about the larger church that I went to, and I wasn’t that into the theology or maintaining the larger church. But I was involved in a small outreach ministry to young people, and that’s where I found my community.”

E

|

T

I

M

“People Don’t Like to Be Preached At” iven the success of American evangelicals in attracting crowds, it is little surprise that the idea of the church marketing itself to any felt need is finding an increasingly warm reception among church leaders abroad as well.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, where the portion of the public attending services weekly is less than a quarter that of the US percentage, a group of leading evangelicals has retained two distinguished advertising agencies to help fill the pews.

Both agencies, Link ICA and Khameleon, recommended focusing on the sense of community that most people feel they are missing. One of the resulting campaigns is “Get a life—Go to church,” suggesting that even good jobs, cars, and houses will not be fulfilling without a broader community. According to Guy Lupton, managing director at Khameleon, it was important to deemphasize the typical messages of the church and religion. “We don’t think people like to be preached at, and we didn’t want traditional images like a picture of Jesus or a cross.”

G

Sketching a Different Church-Shopping Question hough The Unauthorized Guide spends little time on it, possibly the key divide within American worship services today concerns the importance of the preached Word.

Historically the sermon was either the center of the service or one of two high points along with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. But today, the preeminence of the

T

E

S

proclaimed Word is being challenged by many other elements and outside factors.

Believers who are in the process of moving to a new church would be well advised to consider the follow-ing threats to the centrality of preaching: • Architectural changes deemphasizing the pulpit to focus greater attention on the “stage” where musicians perform.

• The expanding programmatic demands of a church leaving the pastor with little

time for sermon preparation.

A recent study reveals that the average Protestant pastor now spends only one-third of his work time on sermon preparation and related study.

And an increasing number of mega-church pastors are apparently employing interns and other associates to “ghostwrite” their sermons.

• The proliferation of drama and liturgical dance, besides having no biblical warrant, appears to be enabled by borrowing service time

primarily from the sermon.

• The “multi-site movement” — where one congregation plants additional satellite congregations but keeps them as subsidiaries of the mother congregation, rather than particularizing the plants—is one of the fastestgrowing trends in Evangelicalism (now practiced by over 1,000 churches). In many multi-site congregations, the sermon is videocast from the mother church to the plants, frequently

creating a cult of personality around the man who preaches rather than the content that is preached.

Perhaps more importantly, many individual plants (also called “video cafes” in the multi-site movement) are explicitly built around a certain musical ethos, giving the impression that the first ring of Christian identity is not the creed we confess universally but the music we prefer idiosyncratically.

There is not a simple oneto-one correlation between church health and sermon length, but exceedingly short and shallow sermons are surely a sign of theological sickness. So after sorting through basic theological questions—Is this church Trinitarian?

What does it teach about justification? How do I line up with its teaching on the Sacraments?—one of the first questions a prudent church shopper should ask of a prospective congregation concerns sermon length.

A recent macro-study reveals that the median American Catholic homily is only ten minutes long and the average mainline sermon is only fifteen. Historically black congregations and selfdefined “conservative Protestant” congregations, by contrast, have average sermons of nearly thirty minutes.

While not a sufficient criteria, asking whether a service devotes enough time to the preaching of the law and the gospel is surely a better first question than one of The Unauthorized Guide’s inquiries about whether a congregation is large enough to have all of the programs I think I need.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

T R I N I T Y | God in Three Persons

“God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity”: Scriptural Confession or Human Invention? ver the centuries, the church has always wisely reminded us that theology, at its most fundamental level, is praise. Theology is not chiefly a matter of theory and, we hope, never a matter of speculation. We are everywhere reminded by the great ancient and medieval doctors and especially by the reformers that our minds are, in Calvin’s words, “idol factories” that never cease to rush headlong into mysteries and to probe beyond what Scripture allows. Nowhere is this more dangerous than with the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Perhaps then it is particularly fitting for us to cast our belief in the Trinity simply into the form of a prayer, as Augustine did in his famous Confessions: “Proceed in thy confession, say to the Lord thy God, O my faith, Holy, Holy, Holy, O Lord my God, in Thy Name have we been baptized, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in Thy Name do we baptize, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

Yet such a simple affirmation of this great Christian mystery is probably inadequate, for there is always resistance to the doctrine of the Trinity, even in supposedly Christian circles. In this issue of Modern Reformation Korey D. Maas chronicles some of this resistance in his article on the struggles that the early church went through to get this doctrine right. This resistance—as well as the church’s struggle to overcome it—continues down to our day. In the last century or so, it has most

O

B Y M I C H A E L H O RT O N N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

often taken the form of the accusation that belief in the Trinity is just one more sign of “the acute Hellenization of the church.” These words of Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930), the most articulate representative of old-style Protestant liberalism, maintain that historic Christian doctrines like the Trinity represent the corruption by Greek paganism of the simple “Jesus movement” that began in Palestine.

Harnack claimed to find the beginning of this transition from the human “Jesus” to the divine “Christ” even in the New Testament itself. Yet he thought that this “Hellenization” of the church reached its apex when some of its great Councils asserted the dogma of the Trinity, beginning in A.D. 325. This, he realized, marked Christianity’s final, radical break with Jewish monotheism.

Harnack’s heavy-handed thesis has continued to be wielded by Protestant liberals from Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) through today’s “Jesus Seminar.” Its basic thrust has also been repeated in popular, secondhand forms by apologists for Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other non-Christian religions. But is Harnack’s thesis really new? Not when you think of the Socinians, the antitrinitarian sect founded in the sixteenth century who, like the Arians of old, insisted that

the dogma of the Trinity is simply not biblical. Yet it is true that the Bible itself never uses the word “Trinity.” So how can we simultaneously claim that our beliefs are based on Scripture and affirm the Trinity not only as true but as centrally true for genuine Christian faith?

I will answer this question by briefly examining three biblical motifs: namely, God as One; God as Three; and, finally, God as One in Three.

God as One othing is more fundamental to the faith of those gathered under the covenant protection of Yahweh than the well-known confession in the Shema:

N

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD, is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. (Deut. 6:4–7)

Trinitarian Her 100 A.D.

200 A.D. 190 A.D.

Dynamic Monarchianism—Theodotus, a learned leather merchant from Byzantium, brought to Rome the teaching that Christ was a mere man who was endowed with the Spirit at his baptism. Very similar to the later christological heresy of adoptionism, this view resulted in Theodotus’ excommunication by Pope Victor.

Modalism—Noetus of Smyrna was condemned by his elders for vigorously maintaining the view that it was the One God, the Father, who had suffered and sustained all of Christ’s human experiences, giving this heresy the alternate name of patripassionism (i.e., “Father suffers”). Sabellius refined this view in the third century (and hence it is also known as Sabellianism). He spoke of the Godhead as three operations—or “modes”—of the One God. In other words, God wears three “masks” in acting out the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit.

1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

250 A.D.

Arianism—Seeking to defend the uniqueness of the one, indivisible, and eternal God, Arius (ca. A.D. 250–ca. 336) denied that the Son is a co-eternal divine person, insisting that he was a creature, even if the “firstborn of creation.” While affirming a threefold “Holy Triad,” Arius denied that the three persons share the same divine essence, insisting that they were entirely distinct beings. In 325, the Council of Nicea expressly condemned Arius and affirmed that the Son and the Father were of the same substance (in Greek, homoousion).

Older critical scholarship argued that Israel moved from crude polytheism to monotheism, but the emerging consensus is that such monotheism was all along the bedrock of Israel’s faith.

Moses wrote the Pentateuch—that is, the first five books of our Bible—as a running polemic against the idols of the nations. Obviously, he was not present at creation or on a first-name basis with Noah. He received from God a revelation of those earlier times in the context of his own experience of Yahweh’s liberation of Israel from Egypt and Yahweh’s formation of them into one people whose only king was Yahweh himself and whose only constitution was Yahweh’s covenant with them. While Israel’s neighbors had a pantheon of deities—gods of different seasons, gods of war and peace, of vegetation and the elements, of money and sex, each managing his or her corner of the universe—Israel was distinguished by its confession of one God who was creator and therefore Lord over heaven and earth. Israel’s God, Yahweh, was the Sovereign God of nature and history, as well as redemption; and he had no junior apprentices.

So important is Israel’s confession of the one true God that it opens the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai: “You shall

have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3). Even representations of Yahweh are strictly forbidden (see Exod. 20:4), since they will inevitably lead Israel astray. God commands Israel to watch herself very carefully because it is, after all, not much of a stretch from worshiping God however we like to worshiping another god altogether (see Deut.

4:15–19)—the god of our own projected needs, wants, desires, and acceptable limits. The prophets—and especially Isaiah—are relentless in their denunciations of “other gods”; and idolatry is the chief indictment for Israel’s violation of the covenant, just as it is the chief commandment.

To confess that God is “one” is, among other things, to confess that he is not made up of different parts and conflicting attributes. Many adopt monotheism in theory, but in practice end up making God a bundle of gods—as when one group worships God’s sovereignty and another group his love or when some venerate his wrath and others his mercy and so on. To confess that God is one is not only to say that there are no other gods or divine principles; it is also to affirm that God is at one and the same time all that he is described to be.

He never sacrifices one of his attributes to another.

He is, at every moment, one and the same God. In

resies Timeline 300 A.D.

400 A.D. 325 A.D.

Eusebianism—The followers of Eusebius of Nicomedia (ca. 260–ca.

339), also known as semi-Arians or homoiousians, were early opponents of the Nicene Creed of 325. The latter word more accurately identifies them as those who rejected the Nicene statement that the Father and the Son were of the same substance (homo-ousios), holding instead that they were of “like substance” (homoi-ousios). The diversity of this group reflects the confusion of the period between the councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), which Jerome famously described as the time when “the whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.” In fact, many Eusebian homoiousians were as strenuously opposed to Arianism as the homoousians and cannot therefore accurately be described as semi-Arian. It was the conversion of this large middle group to the homoousian view that resulted in the final settlement of the trinitarian debates at the Council of Constantinople.

381 A.D.

Pneumatomachism— Prior to the Constantinople council of 381, the divinity of the Spirit was not clearly defined and was indeed explicitly denied by the pneumatomachians, or “Spirit-fighters.” Also called Macedonianism after a bishop of Constantinople who may or may not have held the view, its clearest proponent was Eustathius of Sebaste.

In reaffirming the Nicene Creed, the Council of Constantinople clarified the full deity of the Spirit, insisting that both the Son and the Spirit were consubstantial—or of the same substance—with the Father.

by BRIAN LEE [ C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 1 6 ]

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

theology, this aspect of God’s oneness is called his “simplicity.”

God as Three: Old Testament Foreshadowings heological treatises down through the ages find a number of proof texts for the Trinity in the Old Testament. These texts usually fall into two categories: passages that include references to God in the plural and passages where deity is ascribed to several individual persons. Instances of the first kind include, most notably, the divine resolve in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our own image,” and Isaiah 6:3, where praise is ascribed to God with the threefold “Holy, Holy, Holy.”

Examples of the second kind include texts referring to different persons who are each assigned divine status, such as Psalm 45:6–7, which says:

T

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.

The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.

Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.

By inspiration, the writer of Hebrews applies this passage to Christ (see Heb. 1:8–9), thus confirming the case. Related to this second kind of proof texts are the “Christophanies”—that is, the

appearances of the preincarnate Son in the Old Testament.

Yet we should be cautious about these attempts to prove the Trinity from the Old Testament. First, no matter how often it has been cited, it seems unlikely that Genesis 1:26 is the Bible’s earliest witness to the Trinity. For instance, some have argued that the “us” in this verse refers to a “plural of majesty,” like Queen Victoria’s famous “We”— referring just to herself—“are not amused.” (It has, however, been shown that such a “royal we” convention, as well-known as it is in Western monarchies, has no parallels in the literature of the ancient Near East.) Others, following Meredith Kline, see in this verse a reference to Yahweh in glorious assembly with his heavenly hosts.

Yahweh the King is then calling upon his angels to witness his creative work. In any case, no matter how we take this “us,” it is highly improbable that it implies any developed understanding of the Trinity. For the Bible did not fall from heaven. It is not a catalogue of eternal truths timelessly revealed to sacred penmen who were mere instruments of inscription. Revelation follows redemption—the history of redemption—and therefore occurs in specific contexts for specific reasons with specific intentions and effects. Everything is not revealed at once. In fact, given the human penchant for idolatry, it is easy to imagine that explicit references to the Trinity in Israel’s history might have led to polytheism. It was not until Christ came “in the fullness of time” and the Holy Spirit

1700 A.D.

1600 A.D. 1638 A.D. Socinianism—The turmoil of the Protestant Reformation was the seedbed for many antitrinitarian movements, prominent among whom were the Socinians. These followers of the Italian Laelius Socinus (d. 1562) and his nephew Faustus (d. 1604) grew strong in Poland and were dispersed across Europe when outlawed in 1638.

Like Paul of Samosata and Sabellius, Socinians denied the preexistence of Jesus as the Son of God, although they affirmed that he was a perfect, deified man who was appointed mediator and who was to be adored.

1 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

1700 A.D. Unitarianism—This general term for antitrinitarianism also refers more particularly to organized movements descending from sixteenth-century Socinians. An influential early figure was the English Socinian John Biddle (d. 1662), but it wasn’t until the eighteenth century that Unitarian congregations organized in England and North America. Modern Unitarianism is rationalistic and strongly noncreedal and states more strongly than Socinianism that Christ was merely human. Many modern Unitarians are atheists.

was sent as his witness and emissary that distinct, concrete, personal identities could emerge in a way that would not encourage idol worship.

With respect to the Old Testament Christophanies (a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ), biblical scholars fall out on different sides, but these, it seems, have greater weight. One of the most striking is found in Genesis 18 and 19. In anticipation of judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, “The Lord appeared to [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.

He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him” (Gen. 18:1–2).

The more generic “lord” (adonai) could have been used here (as it is in verse 3), but Abraham recognizes this lord as “the LORD”—as Yahweh. (Whenever all of the letters in “LORD” are capitalized, the Hebrew word is “Yahweh,” God’s personal name.) The three visitors ask where Sarah is, and Abraham replies, “She is in the tent” (v. 9). Then the Lord—that is, Yahweh—says, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son” (v. 10). On overhearing this, Sarah laughs, and then the Lord asks Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh …. Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (vv. 12–14). These utterances by “the Lord” are similar to ones uttered by Yahweh in other covenantal conversations in preceding chapters; and so we are clearly meant to identify this speaker as none other than Yahweh himself rather than some mere emissary from him. It is not the angels accompanying Yahweh who speak on his behalf here but Yahweh himself.

This becomes clear as we read on in the text: “Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom” and, as Abraham attends them on their way, “The Lord said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do . . . ?’”

So the Lord said to Abraham, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me” (vv. 16–17, 20–21).

Now here come some crucial distinctions in our narrative: “So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD” (v. 22). Abraham now famously bargains with God for the lives of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah. By the time he finishes, God has agreed that he will not destroy Sodom if only ten righteous people are found in it. Then, we are told, “the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham” (v. 33). Finally, at the beginning of chapter 19, we are told, “The two angels came to Sodom in the evening” (v. 1). The story then turns on violence and intrigue until finally judgment is executed. But what is crucial right now for us is this: “three men” came to Abraham at the oaks of Mamre; two of them have now been identified as angels and the third as “the LORD.” It is the angels who go to Sodom, while Abraham and the Lord bargain, and then the Lord departs finally to execute his judgment from heaven (19:23–29). Here, then, it appears we may have a Christophany.

1800 A.D.

1900 A.D. 1827 & 1872 A.D.

Mormonism—The Mormon concept of God is sub-Christian in many ways, but with regard to the Trinity it is simplest to note that Mormonism is tritheistic, confessing a Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate beings. These beings, however, are not equally eternal nor are they immutable as in Christianity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses—Begun by Charles Taze Russell in 1872, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (or Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) is a revival of Arianism, holding that there is only one divine being, Jehovah.

Jesus Christ is not divine but is the incarnation of the firstborn of creation, the Archangel Michael, and thus clearly inferior to Jehovah. The Holy Spirit is not a divine person but is rather an impersonal force of Jehovah.

2003 A.D.

Oneness Pentecostals—Elements within the modern Pentecostal movement have rejected trinitarian teaching for something akin to modalism or Sabellianism. Characteristic of these elements is a nontrinitarian baptismal formula, “in Jesus’ name” alone. These antitrinitarian tendencies continue in the word-faith theology of some televangelists, notably on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Benny Hinn, for one, has suggested that Jesus was a mere man anointed by the Spirit of God (dynamic monarchianism) and that the Holy Spirit has a bodily form.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

Weightier still are the Old Testament passages where the coming Servant of the Lord is identified with the Lord himself. There are many examples, especially in the Psalms and the Prophets. Take, for instance, the messianic references where Yahweh identifies his anointed One with himself, as in Psalm 2. In the light of how the author of Hebrews interprets verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45, it is not inappropriate to interpret that psalm as the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Bible do—namely, as a poem celebrating the marriage of the Messiah with the church, his royal bride. There the Lord’s anointed is described as “fairer than the sons of men” (v. 2, NAS) and accorded the divine title of “O Mighty One” (v. 3, NAS). Moreover, his royal bride is told, “Because He is your Lord, bow down to”—that is, worship—“Him” (v. 11, NAS). In fact, wherever this messianic King appears, Yahweh the heavenly King identifies him with himself. For the Jews, it would be inconceivable to identify their heavenly King with a merely human figure, since Yahweh is the only suzerain—that is, the only absolute sovereign—of the covenant. Yet the psalmist declares:

Indeed, late in Isaiah Yahweh is represented as being so disappointed that there was “no man” to save his people that “His own arm brought salvation … and His righteousness upheld Him” (Isa. 59:16, nas). Of this divine warrior it is promised, “a Redeemer will come to Zion” (v. 20). Here Isaiah anticipates Athanasius’s argument that our redeemer could be no less than God himself, even while being fully human. Similarly, we read in Micah that the Messiah, Israel’s ruler and savior, who will be born in Bethlehem, is he whose “goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity” (Mic. 5:2, NAS).

This messianic figure is also called “the angel of [God’s] presence” (Isa. 63:9). In one of Zechariah’s visions, the high priest Joshua is standing before “the angel of the Lord, and Satan [is] standing at his right hand to accuse him…. Now Joshua,” Zechariah tells us, “was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments.” The angel orders those garments removed. He then tells Joshua, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments” (see Zech. 3:1–4). By ordering the removal of Joshua’s sins and promising to clothe him with righteousness, the By ordering the removal of Joshua's sins and promising to clothe him with angel of the Lord—that is, the Messiah—does what only God can do. righteousness, the angel of the Lord--that is, the Messiah--does what only True, in the Old Testament, in some cases, God can do. some created things—the ark of the covenant or the tem“The LORD said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, ple, for example, are in some sense identified with until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. God. Yet when this happens, it is precisely because 110:1). In fact, this declaration climaxes the great these artifacts do in fact bear God’s name and God’s litany of Old Testament passages that the writer of presence. Similarly, God’s Word is divine preciseHebrews quotes in his opening paean to Jesus ly because it is spoken by God. It is altogether different, however, to identify a living being with Christ (see Heb. 1:13).

The Messiah’s deity becomes even clearer in the God. For the Jews, this would have been especialProphets. For instance, Isaiah prophesies, “For to us ly problematic given the Old Testament’s pervasive a child is born, to us a son is given; and the govern- criticism of other gods—or even of the identificament shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall tion of God with mere signs (see 2 Kings 18:4 on be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Moses’ bronze snake). And yet we find Old Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). Jeremiah Testament passages where God is both a speaker makes the identification even more explicit: and someone to whom he speaks as well as passages where two persons in the same revelation “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, event are both identified as God. “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; Other passages in the Hebrew Bible imply the And He will reign as king and act wisely distinct personality of the Holy Spirit and show And do justice and righteousness in the land.

God identifying his Spirit with himself (see, e.g., In His days Judah will be saved, Isa. 63:10; 48:16; Neh. 9:20). The Spirit’s personAnd Israel will dwell securely; ality and divine presence is conveyed with great And this is His name by which He will be called, narrative force in his creative brooding over the ‘The LORD our Righteousness’” waters at the beginning of creation (see Gen. 1:2 (Jer. 23:5–6, NAS). with Deut. 32:10–11), in his “new creation” leading

1 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

FYI

of the Israelites through the Christophany: Christophany: a preincarnate appearance of God waters of baptism in the Red Sea (see Isa. 63:11–14; Hag. the Son, often called the "Angel of the Lord" in Old Testament 2:4–5), and in his filling of the temple in the land of texts, such as Gen. 16:7-14, Gen. 22:11-18, Josh. 5:13-15, and Canaan (see Exod. 40:34–35; 1 Kings 8:10–11; 2 Chron. Judg. 13:9-22, among others.

5:13–14). God is spirit, so for him to give his Spirit to his people in situations like that has been given to Christians in Christ Jesus these can hardly be regarded as analogous to a from before the beginning of time has now been human being giving his or her spirit to someone. revealed through his having appeared in time in Like the Servant of the Lord, the Spirit of the Lord human flesh (see 2 Tim. 1:9–10; John 1:14). We now know truths about God’s glorious work of salis a distinct person who is also Yahweh.

In fact, it is largely through biblical narrative vation that Israel’s Old Testament prophets never that we are able to identify three divine persons knew, glorious things that even angels have longed (see Isa. 48:16, where the “me” sent by the Lord to see (see 1 Pet. 1:10–12).

New Testament evidence for the Trinity is God is the Servant of the Lord). It is especially in their actions that we recognize plurality within the either direct or indirect. The direct evidence turns Godhead. Even apart from an explicitly christo- on the fact that Jesus was Jewish and thus appeared logical reading of the Old Testament, some among a people who knew full well that only account must be made for these Old Testament Yahweh should be worshiped and served (see Luke narratives where, sometimes even in the same pas- 4:5–8; cf. Deut. 6:13–15). In this context, he reitsage, we find reference to three persons acting as erated Israel’s confession of the one true God by three divine persons. Long before the Gospels nar- labeling the Shema “the great and first commandrate a speaking Father, descending Dove, and bap- ment” on which, he said, (along with the comtized Son we are faced with the same divine actors mandment to love our neighbors as ourselves) in Old Testament scenes. (Of course, these Old “depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt.

Testament passages demand exegesis supporting 22:38–39). Yet, nevertheless, both before and after the claim that God is one—and yet not one in the his resurrection, he accepted the worship of his dismathematical sense of being a unity that excludes ciples (see Matt. 14:33; 28:9, 17; John 9:38; cf. Acts 10:25–26) and then, shortly before his ascension, all plurality within it.)

Probably the most compelling Old Testament commanded them to “Go … and make disciples of arguments for the Trinity are those where the all nations, baptizing them in the name of the actions of the Father, the Son/Servant/ Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (2 Word/Wisdom, and the Spirit are narrated as God’s Corinthians 1:21–22). This trinitarian formula is actions, the very actions of Yahweh. Thus, it is not also found in the Epistles, as in Paul’s benediction just through the Son and the Spirit that God exer- in 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord cises his prerogatives; the Son and the Spirit carry Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship out divine actions, and are worshiped as divine for of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (see also 1 Cor. doing so. These passages, when they are read in 12:3–6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20–21).

Yet even this direct evidence points to a more the light of the New Testament passages that refer back to them, come as close as any Old Testament fundamental New Testament fact that builds on the revelation can be expected to do toward establish- Old Testament’s foreshadowings: the fact, namely, ing the divinity of the Son as Servant (see, e.g., Isa. that the Father is clearly identified as God (see 40:1–5, 9–11 with Matt. 3:1–3, 11, 13–17), Word John 6:27; Gal. 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:17; Jude 1) as is the (see, e.g., Ps. 33:6 with John 1:1–3, 14 and Heb. Son (see John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:2–3), and Wisdom (see, e.g., Prov. 8:22–31 with 1:1) and the Holy Spirit (see Acts 5:3–4; 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 1:24, 30), as well as the divinity of the Spirit 2:10–11; John 3:5–7 with 1 John 3:9). In fact, at (see, e.g., Ps. 104:30 [cf. Job 33:4] with 2 Cor. 3:6; Jesus’ baptism this is actually portrayed in an event: while Jesus is being baptized, the Spirit descends in Ezek. 36:27 with John 3:5–8). the form of a dove and the Father pronounces his God as Three: New Testament Proofs benediction (see Matt. 3:16–17). ew Testament evidence for the doctrine of In discussions with Mormon friends (and the Trinity is on an entirely different level Protestant liberals!), I have not gone first to proof than Old Testament evidence, because it texts for the Trinity in order to make the case. The is only in this New Testament era that the grace best exegetical arguments for the Trinity are actu-

N

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

ally the passages that simply narrate the earliest Christians’ belief in the deity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. It seems, moreover, that this is how the doctrine of the Trinity first emerged in the church’s understanding. In other words, the Trinity was not first of all a doctrine. Neither the apostles nor any post-apostolic church leaders called a special meeting to invent a doctrine of the Trinity. Before anyone had provided a clearly formulated account or doctrine of the Trinity, it was the practice of the church to praise God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But how could good Jewish people do that? They knew that it was only by calling on the name of the Lord—Yahweh—that they could be saved (see Ps. 116; 124; Joel 2:32; Mic. 4:5); and yet Jewish Christians like Peter and Paul urged their hearers to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Acts 2:14–41; 9:27–28; Rom. 10:9–13). “Jesus,” Paul rhapsodizes, is “the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9–11).

This tension between Jewish monotheism and praise of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God called— and still calls—for reflection. But, just as we discovered in the Old Testament witness, the best way to discern the identity of the Son and the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father is by giving due attention to the New Testament narrative.

Then a narrative identity emerges for the Son and the Spirit where it cannot be said that “Son” and “Spirit” are merely alternative names for the Father or where they are merely the Father’s representatives. Slow, thoughtful reading of passages like 2 Corinthians 1:22–23, 2 Corinthians 3:3, and Galatians 4:6 should help to corroborate this.

So although there are no biblical passages that use the technical term “Trinity,” it is only the doctrine of the Trinity that does justice to the obvious teaching of Scripture that God is one and three.

Jesus’ disciples had been thoroughly catechized in Jewish monotheism, but they realized that God had done something in their midst—and that the God who had done it was none other than the one with whom they had gone fishing, taken naps, and exchanged childhood stories. He was also the one whom they had seen perform miracles and whom they had heard claim full equality with the Father.

They had seen him transfigured, crucified, raised, and ascended. If this man was not also God, then he was not a very good man and the religious leaders had sized him up correctly as a blasphemer. But this evaluation of him was obviously incorrect. It was reflection on such facts—and not some

2 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Hellenization of some simple Jesus movement— that gave rise to the church’s confession of God as Trinity.

Jesus’ disciple John knew what he was doing, then, when he patterned the prologue to his Gospel on the prologue to the Bible itself: “In the beginning was the Word”—not a Word—“and the Word”—a distinct person—“was with God, and the Word was God”—one in essence with God. “He was in the beginning with God”—and therefore was not created but eternally generated by the Father. “All things were made through him”—in other words, he was not himself a creature—“and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life”—the origin of creaturely existence—“and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1–4).

God as One in Three ebates over the Trinity have been inextricably connected with debates over Christology—that is, with debates concerning the proper answer to the question, Who is Jesus? If Jesus is God, then God’s “oneness” has to be redefined. It can no longer be defined as a simple monotheism; and so Christians cannot be said to worship the same deity as Jewish and Muslim monotheists any more than they can be said to be polytheists or pantheists. For us, any God other than the one who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit as the triune God is an idol. The “one God” correctly identified by a careful reading of Israel’s Old Testament witness is the same God of the New Testament witness, but the fullness of the New Testament revelation has now made it impossible to embrace Yahweh in unitarian terms. Christianity is not a type of generic monotheism. Trinitarian monotheism is sui generis, its own genus.

The early church father Irenaeus spoke of the Son and the Spirit as God’s “two hands,” whereas Arius spoke of the Son as the first creature through whom God created the rest of the creatures and Sabellius thought of the Father, Son, and Spirit as merely three “masks” or “modes” of God’s unitary being.

With Irenaeus, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Tertullian, and Augustine, the church challenged these heresies and recognized that whereas there is only one God, there are three persons in the Godhead; hence, the doctrine, “one in essence, three in person.” In our day, contemporary forms of Arianism and Sabellianism still challenge the church. In fact, modern Arians such as Harnack and, more recently, Bishop John Shelby Spong, are alive and well, collecting salaries in churches that officially accept the ecumenical creeds. Some of them even hold high ecclesiasti-

D

FYI

cal offices where they gave Hellenization: the charge (most often associated with German an oath to teach and defend the Trinity. Contemporary theologian Adolf von Harnack) that the early church abandoned Sabellianism is also apparent in, for example, the feminist its identity as a simple "Jesus movement" as it was corrupted by liturgies and hymns that replace prayer and praise to Greek paganism. This charge is usually followed by a denial of central Christians doctrines, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the forensic nature of salvation. within the Godhead with such “inoffensive” euphemisms as Creator, Gift, ought to play the philosopher soberly and with and Giver conceived of as distinct roles or modes great moderation…. Let us then willingly leave to of one person or force. Indeed, even we, as historic God the knowledge of himself.” ■ Christians, sometimes err by trying to go beyond the simplicity of the formula “one in essence, three in person” to comprehend the mysterious Trinity in Michael Horton (Ph.D., Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and the theoretical terms or by the use of analogies that we University of Coventry) is professor of apologetics and theolthink will make it more understandable and hence ogy at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, less mysterious. But each analogy has its short- California), and chairs the Council of the Alliance of comings and—as with the analogies of a shamrock, Confessing Evangelicals. a triangle, water as ice, liquid, and steam, among In this article, Michael Horton has quoted from others—those shortcomings usually tend toward modalism with its denial of the distinct divine per- Alan Torrance, Nicene Christianity, edited by Christopher Seitz, 58. Also, Augustine, Confessions, sons.

The catholic—that is, universal or historic— XIII.xii.13; and Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.21.

Christian faith is actually far less indebted to Greek philosophy than its Arian and Sabellian rivals.

They impose a philosophical concept of “oneness” Copies of this article are available for purchase by as a kind of mathematical simplicity—a unity that calling (215) 546-3696 or by ordering online at excludes all plurality within it—on the Christian www.modernreformation.org.

God. But the Christian God really exists; he is not a mere concept. As Alan Torrance has wisely Looking for small group resources? Log on now reminded us, to www.modernreformation.org for study questions related to this article.

What becomes unambiguously clear from the debates over the homoousion [the Greek word for each of the persons in the Godhead being of the “same essence”], … is that, far from being Hellenizers of the gospel, Athanasius and the Council of Nicea set out to affirm its content precisely over and against Hellenistic disjunctions between the divine and the contingent, between the eternal and the spatiotemporal, between mind and body, and between the intelligible and the sensible realms.

@

MR RECOMMENDS…

In other words, those who developed and defended the church’s historic doctrine of the Trinity were striving to be more biblical than their opponents, not less.

And so it is perhaps unsurprising that the best thinking about the Trinity is still cast in the form of biblical prayer and praise. Let us, consequently, take Calvin’s caution to heart: “Here, indeed, if anywhere in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

T R I N I T Y | God in Three Persons

The Trinity from T

houghtful new candidates for church membership might wonder about it. Skeptical undergraduates are fond of mentioning it. And to the smartly dressed folks who ring your doorbell with complimentary copies of Watchtower and Awake!, it is something of a mantra: “The word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible.” And indeed it is not. How, then, did the word ever come to be

part of the church’s common vocabulary, since the church takes Scripture as the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine?

This question itself contains a partial answer.

Scripture alone is the source of Christian doctrine; it is not the only source of Christian vocabulary. The real question is not whether a particular arrangement of seven specific letters can be found between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21. The real question is whether Scripture reveals that the reality signified by these letters exists, no matter what name we attach to it. This was clearly understood

by Christians in the early church, and it has been reiterated by theologians ever since. One of them, B. B. Warfield, has put the crucial issue like this: “[T]he definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.”

The Earliest Christians and the Trinity he earliest Christian communities confessed a belief in the triune God before the term “Trinity” came into use. Indeed, they could hardly have done less. Each of them had entered the church according to the biblical mandate of Christ himself, by being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see Matt.

28:19). They also heard and repeated this trinitarian formula in the daily and weekly liturgy. As can-

T

2 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

dles were lighted for worship, the congregation sang together, “We praise Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” And they were dismissed from worship with St. Paul’s benediction to the Corinthians: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).

“Sure,” the man waving the Watchtower might protest, “but just because they mentioned Father, Son, and Spirit together doesn’t mean they actually believed each to be God himself.” Well, actually, that is exactly what they believed. In the same liturgies, for example, they sang hymns to “the suffering God” and the “God who is born.” Even the uninitiated immediately recognized the unmistakable implications of such phrases. This is why, early in the second century, a Roman governor named Pliny (A.D. 61[or 62]–ca. 113) expressed his hostility toward Christianity to the Emperor Trajan by observing that, when Christians gathered for worship, they sang “a hymn to Christ as though to God.” What sounded dubious to the pagan Pliny—the equation of the man Jesus with God himself—was not considered at all strange by those steeped in the liturgy of the church and the Scriptures upon which it was built. The apostolic fathers often spoke of Christ by referring to him as “our God” and “God incarnate.” They encouraged one another to “think of Jesus Christ as of God.” The fact that the church’s first major heresy was

by KOREY D. MAAS

Canon to Creed Docetism—the belief that Jesus was not a man at all, but only God—is a significant indication of just how often and how boldly Jesus’ divinity was confessed. Nor did these early Christians neglect the Holy Spirit. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. A.D. 35–ca.

110) reminded the church at Ephesus that Christ was conceived “by Mary and the Holy Spirit” and then clarified his point by noting that Jesus was born “of Mary and of God.” Being a minority religion whose adherents often met secretly for fear of persecution, early Christianity was eyed suspiciously by nearly everyone, but to monotheistic Jews and polytheistic Greeks and Romans this belief of Christians was viewed as particularly odd. With Christianity’s rapid growth and spread, it came more and more to be seen as a potentially dangerous oddity that undermined the religion of Jews and GrecoRomans alike. Jews accused Christians of denying the plain evidence of Deuteronomy 6:4—“the Lord is one.” Greeks and Romans, scandalized by Christians’ refusal to worship more than one god, denounced them as atheists. Both, quite understandably, were baffled by the realization that this new sect actually was claiming what seemed to be quite extraordinarily contradictory: God is one, but God is also three.

Second-Century Defense n the face of both ridicule and persecution, second-century Christians were forced to mount an intellectual defense. Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100–ca. 165), the most energetic of the secondcentury apologists, entered the battle on both fronts. He handily refuted the Roman charge of

I

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

R

E

S

O

U

R

C

In Print & On Tape November/December Book Recommendations & Alliance Archives BOOKS The Doctrine of God Gerald Bray A modern classic, this book integrates Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern thought on the doctrine of God. Bray is a member of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

B-BRAY-3, $19.00 The Trinity St. Augustine One of the first, sustained treatments of the doctrine of the Trinity, Augustine’s work is still referred to by scholars and students from every Christian tradition.

B-AUG-6, $29.95 Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity Gregory Boyd Boyd, formerly Oneness Pentecostal himself, gives an insider’s look into one of the fastest growing segments of Pentecostalism around the world.

B-BOG-1, $16.99 The Splendor of the Three-in-One God R. Scott Clark Can you be a Christian without the doctrine of the Trinity?

Clark’s booklet explores both the necessity and the mystery of this important doctrine.

AR080533, $1.50, OR 10 OR MORE COPIES FOR $1.00 EACH

TAPES WDPS—What Did Paul Say? Sure, it’s important to ask, “What would Jesus do” in any given situation, but there was much more to the Incarnation than Jesus as a moral example. In this groundbreaking four-part series, the hosts of the White Horse Inn examine Paul’s words explaining why Jesus did what he did, not just what he did. Juxtaposed against the often legalistic “WWJD” phenomenon embedded in the church’s mentality today, the hosts compare and contrast the Apostle Paul’s teachings with other teachings in Scripture, and deal with the alleged discrepancies between what Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and James said and what Paul said.

WDPS-S, 2 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $13.00

2 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

The Doctrine of God Christians are faced in every age with the very practical question of whether they will believe in this particular God who reveals himself in history through a particular man named Jesus of Nazareth, or whether they will seek God in the idols of their culture, imagination, or in their good works. Join the White Horse Inn panel as they wrestle with the doctrine of God in this six-part series. This second cassette in the series is “How Can I Understand the Trinity.” These programs boldly define and defend God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures, history, and in the person of Jesus Christ as the Creator and Sustainer of all that is and ever will be.

C-DOG-S, 3 TAPES IN AN ALBUM,$18.00 The Trinity HE “The word Trinity is not in the Bible. But even BIBLE though the word is not in Scripture, the STUDY Trinitarian idea is there, and it is most imporHOUR tant. It is vital because there can be no real blessing either upon ourselves or our work if we neglect any one of the persons of the Godhead.” So says James Montgomery Boice, and in this tape series, you’ll learn more from Dr. Boice on the inter-workings of all three members of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

C-TRIN, 3 TAPES IN AN ALBUM, $18.00

T

To order, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or, use our secure e-commerce catalog at www.AllianceNet.org. For phone orders call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only).

E

C

E

N

T

E

R

Christmas CDs

Christmas Impromptu Paul Jones Now Available! The Alliance brings you a wonderful, new recording of your favorite Christmas carols available in time for the holiday season. They are performed

by Dr. Paul Jones, Music Director of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, PA. Selections among the twenty-track, hour-long CD include “Angels from the Realms of Glory,” “O Come, All Ye Faithful,” “Go, Tell It on the Mountain,” and “Silent Night” among others.

Experience the quiet joy of Christmas with this expressive piano music. Makes a terrific gift for family and friends near and far!

D-CI, $17.00

Your King Has Come Various Artists On this critically acclaimed Christmas album, artists such as Derek Webb (formerly of Caedmon’s Call), Jill Phillips, Andrew Osenga and more express the hope and longing of the Incarnation. Beautiful acoustic arrangements of traditional hymns like “O Come All Ye Faithful” and “What Child Is This” come together with new songs to illustrate the beauty and power of Jesus’ birth. Listen online at www.yourkinghascome.com.

D-YKHC, $17.00 “[Your King Has Come is] very much focused on Christ…beautifully illustrates the wonder of that night 2,000 years ago.”—ChristianityToday.com “…hands-down the best, most creative…Christmas album [of the year].”—CCM Magazine

Subscribe to Modern Reformation Magazine Six times a year, Modern Reformation will sharpen and challenge you.

Why not subscribe today?

U.S. One year $22 (MR1YR) Two years $40 (MR2YR) U.S. Student One year $15 (MRS1YR) Two years not available Canada One year $25 (MR1YR) Two years $45 (MR2YR) Europe One year $40 (MR1YR) Two years $75 (MR2YR) Other One year $45 (MR1YR) Two years $85 (MR2YR) To subscribe, complete and mail the order form in the envelope provided. Or call 215-546-3696 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET (credit card orders only). All subscriptions must be paid in U.S. currency. Subscriptions begin within six weeks of ordering.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

atheism by matter of factly pointing out that, far from recognizing no god at all, the church recognizes the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God. In addressing the Jewish appeal to Deuteronomy, Justin confirmed the Christian belief in one God; but, he pointed out, the Old Testament itself reveals that there is more to God’s unity than at first meets the eye. Appealing to verses including Genesis 1:26, where God said, “Let us make man in our image,” he argued that the Godhead must consist of a plurality.

But perhaps Justin’s most significant contribution to the debate was emphasizing the term “Logos.” Literally meaning “word,” Logos was a Greek term familiar both to Jews and to philosophically minded Greeks and Romans, who equated it with reason and especially with the divine reason active in the world’s creation.

Making much of his opponents’ willingness to recognize the divine status of the Logos, Justin laid special stress on the New Testament confession of Christ: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (John 1:1). His contemporaries Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 130–ca.

200) and Theophilus (fl. ca. A.D. 180) followed suit, and upped the ante with Psalm 33:6—“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” God’s Spirit (in Hebrew, the same word as “breath”) as well as his Word, or Logos, was active in creation. In this context of divine creation, Theophilus became the first to speak of God as “the triad.”

Some have complained that these second-century apologists, by choosing to highlight a term that carried philosophical baggage, irreversibly mired the doctrine of the Trinity in the realm of philosophical speculation rather than keeping it grounded in Scripture. Justin no doubt fixed on the term because it made biblical claims more readily understandable for those with philosophical leanings, but it would be entirely unfair to accuse him of swapping Scripture for philosophy. In any case, it is clearly evident that orthodox trinitarian doctrine did not become mired in philosophy when attention is turned to Tertullian (ca. A.D. 155[or 160]–after 220), a theologian writing shortly after the time of Justin.

Tertullian was the first to refer to God as a “trinitas.” He was at the same time a most emphatic and outspoken opponent of any commingling of philosophy and theology. This led him famously to ask: “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem, or the academy with the church?” And he had good reason to fear pagan philosophy’s encroachment on Christian theology—not through the influence of the apologists but through certain sec-

2 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

ond-century heretical reactions to orthodox theology. Overly enamored with the logic of mathematics and the philosophy of Aristotle (384 B.C.–322 B.C.), some claimed that confession of a “triad” could only be a confession of three separate gods. Tertullian dismissed this claim by turning again to the Gospel of John: “If the Word was with God, and was God, what follows? Would one allege that he mentions two gods? I shall not assert two gods, but one, and two persons.” Distinct persons but one substance was his conclusion; and if philosophers or mathematicians could not grasp it, its truth remained unaffected.

Third- and Fourth-Century Developments ertullian’s fear of philosophical speculation was soon borne out by developments that followed on the meditations of Origen (ca.

A.D. 185–ca. 254), one of the early church’s most prominent—and most slippery—theologians. In the early third century Origen was head of the catechetical school in the city of Alexandria, a city deeply immersed in Platonic philosophy. Like Justin, Origen faced the task of presenting Christianity to an audience that thought philosophically. He went beyond Justin, however, in his attempt to make the faith amenable to such thinkers. Although he did not hesitate to confess the Trinity, he made some lamentable concessions in attempting to explain it. Platonic philosophy conceived of a hierarchy of greater and lesser divine beings, and so Origen spoke of the Trinity hierarchically, saying that while the Father was the God, the Son was merely God—at times he even went so far as to refer to him as “a secondary God.” Origen was too careful a theologian to separate the persons of the Trinity or to deny the divinity of any. But not all of his followers were so conscientious and some pressed his less guarded statements to extreme conclusions.

Origen’s tendency to subordinate the Spirit to the Son and the Son to the Father reached its logical conclusion in the next century, with an Alexandrian presbyter named Arius (ca. A.D. 250–336). Whereas Origen had sometimes named Christ to be God in a lesser sense than the Father, Arius refused to acknowledge the designation at all.

God, he asserted, was only an honorific title granted to Jesus: “Even if he is called God, he is not truly God.” Tertullian’s foes had privileged mathematics and Origen had leaned on philosophy, but Arius’ presuppositions were largely biological: Jesus is the Son of God; to be a son is to be born; moreover, nature makes plain that sons are born only after their fathers; therefore, “There was when he [the Son] was not.” But if the Son is not eternal,

T

FYI

Arius concluded, then he Apostolic Fathers: The theologians and pastors of the time periis not God; he is not the Creator but merely a creaod immediately after the death of the apostles whose writings ture. (Already in the previous century, Novation, have survived to this day. They include Clement of Rome, the first theologian to write a treatise specifically Ignatius, Herman, Polycarp, and Papias, among others. on the Trinity, had anticipated this dubious argu- Apologists: Bishop of Alexandria, a major city on Egypt's Mediterranean coast. His refusal ment and answered it.

Indisputably, he said, the to compromise with the predominant Arianism of his day led to deposition and exile. He Father has always existed; but one cannot be a father died eight years before Nicene orthodoxy was reestablished by the Council of without a son. Therefore, the Son, too, must always Constantinople (381). have existed.)

Arius recognized that his opinion was uncom- not to be found in Scripture. Prompted by confortably novel. Even the earliest Christians had, cerns similar to those that led others to fear a philoafter all, sung hymns to Christ, prayed to Christ, sophical intrusion into theology, even some orthoand worshiped him. Arius proposed to get around dox bishops cried foul. With the support of the these problematic facts simply by encouraging the emperor and his theological advisors, however, the church to continue its worship of Jesus without rec- clause was hesitantly allowed to stand as the best ognizing him as God. This, his bishop pointed possible summary of the biblical data.

But if the terminology of Nicea’s creed signaled out, was a sheer absurdity that combined the worst of two worlds: Jewish rejection of Christ’s divinity the triumph of orthodoxy, it was only a brief victoand pagan worship of nondeities. Arius was ry. Only twenty-five years later Constantius, promptly excommunicated and sent into exile. But Emperor Constantine’s son and a decided Arian he had no intention of going quietly. He attempt- sympathizer, became sole ruler of the Roman ed to rally support for his cause, and both church Empire. Under his protection and guided by his and empire were thrown into violent disarray as dictum—“I do not want words used that are not in riots broke out in major cities. Before long, the Scripture”—Arius’ followers were allowed to concontroversy came to the attention of the Emperor vene a succession of local church councils that Constantine (A.D. 306–337). Having been recent- stripped the Nicene Creed of its defining vocabuly converted to Christianity, and having even more lary. These stealthy and subversive maneuvers led recently unified his empire, he was loathe to watch Jerome (ca. A.D. 347–419 [or 420]), an early theit torn apart by heresy and schism. At his instiga- ologian always quick with a blunt witticism, to tion, then, the first ecumenical council of the observe wryly that one day, entirely by surprise, church was called. “the world groaned and marveled to find itself In June 325, nearly three hundred bishops gath- Arian.” ered in the city of Nicea. Arguments were heard, compromises suggested, and finally—perhaps Athanasius Contra Mundum unsurprisingly—an appeal was made to the liturgy. (“Athanasius Against the World”) A baptismal creed was brought forward as a possiut a brilliant young African named ble point of agreement and with some modification Athanasius (ca. A.D. 293–373) was not about it became the first draft of what is now known as to watch the Nicene formula be hijacked by the Nicene Creed. Over against Arius’ assertion Arians, the emperor, or even (in Jerome’s words) that the Son had been created and therefore was the world. Athanasius, who was present at Nicea not God, the council confessed Jesus to be “true in 325, had been elevated to the position of bishop God of true God, begotten not made.” The next of Alexandria in 328, and thus inherited the mantle clause, however, proved contentious. Christ, it of the man who had first called Arius to account. read, was “of one substance with the Father.” None He defended the Nicene council’s conclusions by but Arius and his followers doubted the substantial explaining that, because the Arians had been conunity of the Godhead; the problem was how exact- sistently evasive about the definition of biblical ly to describe it. The phrase “of one substance with words, the bishops present were forced to reach the Father” introduced a term—homoousios, “of one outside Scripture for suitably precise terms. He substance”—that, like the word “Trinity” itself, was went on to emphasize that what really mattered

B

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

was not the particular vocabulary used but the meaning underlying any vocabulary. His arguments won him many enemies—he was chased from Alexandria five times and spent more than twenty years in exile—but they eventually proved irrefutable.

Athanasius—unlike his opponents who started from mathematics, philosophy, or biology— argued first and foremostly from the doctrine of salvation, the central tenet of Christian faith. This, he insisted, was the fundamental issue. God alone saves; no demigod, no superman, and certainly no ordinary Jewish carpenter could accomplish the salvation of an utterly corrupt and sinful human race. And yet the plain texts of the New Testament and the church’s liturgy proclaimed Christ the Savior. How could this be? Because, as Jesus himself proclaimed, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). For this reason and no other, Athanasius explained, the faithful offer Jesus their hymns, praise, and prayers. He—as God with the Father—has saved.

Even in this brief survey it appears that, at least from the time of Arius onward, the dispute concerning the Trinity centered on the persons of Father and Son, neglecting the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, the creed of 325 addressed the subject only by confessing that “we believe in the Holy Spirit.”

Amphilochius of Iconium attempted to explain this apparent lacuna by saying that “since the question of the Holy Spirit was not being discussed at the time, they did not go into it at any greater length.”

This is undoubtedly true. But to concede that the Nicene bishops did not deal with it at length is not to say that the question was being ignored. Even as Athanasius was presenting his defense of God the Son, others were doing the same for God the Spirit; and, significantly, they did so by arguing on the same basis. Again the doctrine of salvation came to the fore. Basil of Caesarea (ca. A.D. 329–379—also known as Basil the Great) defended the Spirit’s full deity by noting Christ’s mandate to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit.

This baptism was, in the words of Titus, a “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). And, as the Apostle Peter proclaimed, it “now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). But, Basil emphasized again, only God himself can save. To reject the Spirit’s deity, he concluded, is to reject salvation by rejecting the means by which it is achieved.

As it would time and again in many later ecclesiastical controversies, the clear biblical witness to the central doctrine of salvation proved decisive.

In 381, the ecumenical council of Constantinople rejected all Arian substitutions and reaffirmed

2 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

Nicea’s creed; additionally, the Holy Spirit’s status was clarified with the explicitly worded recognition that he is “the Lord and giver of life . . . who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.” The logic of philosophy, biology, and mathematics could not stand against the authority of divine revelation: No triune God at work, no salvation for sinners.

This conclusion was spelled out finally and most fully in the last of the ecumenical creeds. Named in honor of the man who had so persistently and persuasively proclaimed the substance of its confession, the Athanasian Creed opens unambiguously: “Whoever shall be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. . . . And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.” Thus the word “Trinity” finally entered the official and universally recognized doctrinal statements of the Christian church, not because it is a term found in Scripture but because it describes the God found in Scripture. Even more decisively, it describes the God who there finds us. The very same God who was born in human flesh to redeem us has in our baptism placed his own divine name upon us: “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” ■

Korey D. Maas (S.T.M., Concordia Seminary) is a D.Phil. candidate at St. Cross College, University of Oxford. He is the author of Law and Gospel (Concordia Publishing House, 2003).

In this article, Korey D. Maas has quoted from B. B. Warfield, which can be found in the essay “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” in B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968), p. 22.

Copies of this article are available for purchase by calling (215) 546-3696 or by ordering online at www.modernreformation.org.

T R I N I T Y | God in Three Persons

The Indispensability of the Trinity ecause of their use in baptism, our Lord’s words at the very end of Matthew’s Gospel are among the most familiar in the New Testament.

Meeting with his remaining eleven disciples, the resurrected Jesus told them:

B

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age [Matt.

28:18-20; our emphasis].

Less familiar to many of us is the Apostle Paul’s benediction at the end of his second letter to the Corinthians, where he prays, “The grace of the Lord

Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).

As our other articles note, these passages are crucial for understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. Today, few Christian doctrines are as misunderstood or ignored as this one. Most of us have heard Sunday school teachers attempt to explain how God can be three-in-one. For instance, most of us have heard someone say, “The three members of the Trinity are like the three forms in which we find H2O: ice, water, and steam.” Yet when we really think through such illustrations, they seldom help and often they make matters worse. In despair, and perhaps encouraged by the fact that the Bible never mentions the Trinity as such, Christians can be tempted to ignore this doctrine. If we would be Christians, however, we must resist this temptation, for the doctrine of the Trinity is indispensable to the

by M A R K R . TA L B O T a n d R . S C O T T C L A R K N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Matthew’s final words emphasize just how indispensable trinitarian faith is, since baptism is the Christian initiatory rite, marking an individual’s inclusion in God’s new covenant people. In baptism, God puts his name on his children. So our Lord’s command that believers be baptized into the threefold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tells us a lot about our God. As John Murray has observed, the fact that this is one name “indicates that all three persons [of the Trinity] conjointly claim our devotion in the distinguishing relations each person sustains to us in the economy of salvation.”

course, the New Testament writers echo repeatedly the theme of God’s unity (see Mark 12:29; Rom. 3:30; James 2:19, etc.).

Yet equally basic to the biblical understanding of God is the teaching that the God who is one is personal. To say that God is personal means that he is not a mere force but an active agent who hears us and relates to us (see Deut. 26:7-9; Ps. 34:17). He is a God who knows himself and us (see Jer. 29:11; Exod. 3:7). Because God is personal, he not only acts but he speaks. He spoke all reality into existence (see Gen. 1:3); he spoke with Moses “face to face” (Exod. 33:11); and he still speaks (see Heb. 1:2-3; 12:24-25).

God’s personality emerges In the economy of salvation the grace that Christians receive is especially linked to immediately in Scripture at Genesis 1:26. The use of the the work of Jesus Christ, while the love that commissioned that work is especially first person plural in this verse—“Let us make man in associated with God the Father, and the fellowship we now enjoy with God and our image, after our likeness”—does not prove the doctrine of the Trinity, but it other Christians is especially tied to the Holy Spirit's life in our hearts. at least represents God as interacting personally with Furthermore, the benediction found at the end of someone. Furthermore, when in Genesis 11 Second Corinthians invokes a threefold blessing for Scripture records humanity’s attempt to build a ziggrace and love and fellowship, with each blessing gurat and climb up to God, it is not merely the explicitly linked to one person of the Trinity. In other human beings who are recorded as saying, “Come, words, in the economy of salvation the grace that let us build ourselves a city and a tower … and let us Christians receive is especially linked to the work of make a name for ourselves” (v. 4). In response, God Jesus Christ, while the love that commissioned that says, “Come, let us go down and there confuse their work is especially associated with God the Father, and language” (v. 7). In both of these verses, the plural the fellowship we now enjoy with God and other language is most naturally read as referring to mulChristians is especially tied to the Holy Spirit’s life in tiple persons. So at the very least it represents God our hearts. Thus each person of the Trinity has a par- interacting personally with someone and it may represent personal distinctions within God himself. ticular place in our “great salvation” (Heb. 2:1-4).

The Old Testament contains even stronger indicaThese passages help us to begin to realize why we need to understand and embrace the doctrine of tions that God is not only personal but multi-personthe Trinity, for understanding and embracing it is al, with the different persons having distinctive roles essential for seeing and celebrating the glorious in creation and redemption. For instance, the Holy richness of our faith. Here we shall focus on the Spirit’s distinctive nurturing role is hinted at in roles that Father, Son, and Spirit play in our salva- Genesis’ first verses. Genesis 1:1 declares that God— tion, which only allows us to begin plumbing the in the Hebrew, Elohim—created the heavens and the earth. Yet in the second verse another agent is introdepths of these riches. duced, also with creative power: “The earth was withThe Persons and Work of the Trinity out form and void, and darkness was over the face of God’s Personality in the Old Testament the deep. And the Spirit of God”—the ruach of s Michael Horton’s article makes clear, the Elohim, in the Hebrew; that is, Elohim’s spirit or wind most basic biblical declaration about God or breath—“was hovering over the face of the waters.” is that he is “one.” The God who delivered This introduction of God’s “Spirit” is not just vivid his covenant people out of Egyptian bondage is not imagery, nor is God’s “Spirit” merely a synonym for like the many Canaanite gods. His oneness implies “God,” because this verse elaborates how Elohim was that he is without beginning (see Ps. 90:2) and does creating—namely, by his Spirit “hovering” or “broodnot change (see Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). He simply ing” over the face of the waters (cf. Deut. 32:6, 10-11 is (see Exod. 3:14). These things cannot be said of which pictures God as creating and nurturing his the many gods of the pagan nations. And, of covenant people by “fluttering over”—the Hebrew

A

3 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

FYI

word is the same as “hovering Trinitarian Relationships: theologians distinguish between the over” in Gen. 1:2—them like an eagle with its young). economic and ontological relations among the three Persons of Some passages in the Pentateuch use the word the Trinity. "Economic" refers to the Persons' unique roles in the “spirit” as a psychological expression (see Exod. 6:9; work of redemption. "Ontological" refers to their logical order of relationship: the Father, the Deut. 2:30). So a passage like Exodus 31:3 could have begotten Son, and the proceeding Spirit. said that God had filled Bezalel with his—that is, God’s—spirit. But it does the order of Melchizedek (see v. 4 and Gen. 14:17not. Instead, it says, “I”—that is, the Lord, mean- 20). Originally, this psalm may have been coming Yahweh—“have filled him with the Spirit of posed to celebrate King David’s capture of Jerusalem God,” thus discriminating between himself and the and his subsequent accession to the Jebusite throne Spirit, and thus suggesting that this Spirit is a dis- (see 2 Sam. 5:6-9). In any case, as Old Testament tinct divine person who at the same time possesses commentator Leslie Allen notes, the “great assurall of Yahweh Elohim’s wisdom and authority and ances of [this] psalm fell deep into the well of time till they finally plunged into the waters of [New power (see also Num. 24:1-13).

Again, when Abraham is about to sacrifice his Testament] revelation,” when our Lord and the aposonly son in Genesis 22, the “angel of the LORD” tolic writers used them to argue that David’s greater intervenes to issue a stay of execution for Isaac. But Son had appeared, who is indeed the second divine since it is God who is testing Abraham (see v. 1), person of the holy Trinity (see Mark 12:35-37; 14:62 only God can stop the testing. The fact that the with Dan. 7:3; Acts 2:34-35; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:1-13; angel says that he knows Abraham fears God 5:6, 10; 6:17-7:28). because Abraham has not withheld his son “from me”—that is, from the angel of the LORD—con- God’s Tri-Personal Work According to the New Testament firms that the angel is a divine person rather than a s the New Testament’s use of Psalm 110 creature. Indeed, the text makes the angel’s identimakes clear, what was implicit throughout the ty even more explicit in verses 16 and 17, when the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic epochs of angel calls out to Abraham from heaven for a sec- redemptive history becomes explicit in the Scriptures ond time, saying, “By myself I have sworn, declares of the new covenant. As the accomplishment of the LORD, because you have done this and have not redemption through Christ’s earthly work drew near withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless and then was historically fulfilled, God—through the you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the words of his Son and the inspiration of his Spirit to stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the Christ’s apostles—revealed each divine person’s role seashore.” As Horton shows in his article, this in the economy of salvation more clearly. angel of the LORD appears in several other biblical Here the passages from Matthew and Second accounts, where he is consistently portrayed as a Corinthians are central. When our Lord comdivine speaker and actor who is recognized as such mands us, through commanding the apostles, to (see, e.g., Exod. 3; Judg. 6:11-24). “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Yet perhaps one passage, more than any other in name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy the Hebrew Scriptures, reveals God in eternal, inter- Spirit” and teaching them to observe all that he has personal communion with himself. Psalm 110 gives commanded, this certainly includes teaching them us a glimpse of two divine persons—Yahweh (“the the full truth about the Trinity.

Lord”), the God of creation and covenant, and Adon This includes teaching them not only that there (“my Lord,” that is, master)—in personal interrela- are three distinct persons in the Godhead, but also tion. “Adon” in the Old Testament often refers to what part each person plays in our salvation, as earthly masters but it is also used to refer to God Paul’s benediction suggests. The grammatical conhimself, in combination with or as a synonym for struction of that benediction in its original Greek Yahweh (see Exod. 23:17; Deut. 10:17; and Josh. links each of its blessings—grace, love, and fellow3:11). In this coronation drama, Yahweh invites ship—to a particular person of the Godhead by Adon to take the heavenly throne with him, “Sit at what is known as a “genitive of source.” Thus Paul my right hand.” Yahweh assures Prince Adon that is saying that the grace of God comes to us espehe will conquer Prince Adon’s enemies and extend cially from Jesus Christ, the love of God particularhis kingdom (see vv. 1-2, 5-6). He also swears an ly from God the Father, and the fellowship—or oath to his Prince that he will be a priest forever after communion—that we now experience with God

A

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

and other Christians especially from the Holy Spirit. But what exactly does that mean? And how should it affect Christian thought and worship?

It means that each member of the Godhead, even though each is fully God and equally to be worshiped, deserves particular recognition and praise for some particular aspect of our salvation. So when Paul links the blessing of God’s grace particularly to our Lord Jesus Christ, he is thinking about how Messiah Jesus, because he is both God (see John 1:1, 18; Rom. 9:5; 2 Pet. 1:1) and man (see Acts 2:22; Rom. 5:15, 17; 1 Cor. 15:21), could and did serve as the one mediator between God and human beings (see 1 Tim. 2:5). As God incarnate, he alone of the three members of the Godhead could and did meet the requirements of God’s righteous law for us as the second or “last Adam” (see 1 Cor. 15:45-49 with Rom. 5:12-19), quenching God’s wrath against us by paying the penalty for our sin by dying in our place (see Rom. 3:25-26; 1 John 2:2), and then being raised by God as both Lord and Christ to save all who believe (see Acts 2:22-36; 16:31; 1 Tim. 1:16). Through faith in what he has done, we can receive the forgiveness of our sins and the gift of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:38), which is the great blessing of the new covenant (see Ezek. 36:24-27 with Jer. 31:31-34, Gal. 3:1-14, and Heb. 7:11-13).

appearing in history to accomplish the work of salvation (see John 3:16; Rom. 8:28-29). God the Father plans, purposes, and commands (see Luke 4:43; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:9-10; 3:9-12); God the Son obeys (see John 6:38; 14:31; 15:10; Heb. 10:5-10).

God the Father wills to save human beings through their faith in his Son (see John 6:40).

Thus God the Father’s love is the ultimate source of the grace that God the Son brings. In this sense, God’s love precedes Christ’s grace. Yet it is by Christ’s death that we are reconciled with the Father (see Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-21), which is probably why, in delineating the three chief blessings of our salvation, Paul inverts the natural order between the Trinity’s first two persons, mentioning Christ and his work first.

Finally, Paul attributes the fellowship that we now experience with God and other Christians especially to God the Holy Spirit, who has been sent by the Father and the Son (see John 14:26 and 15:26 with 16:7) to apply the grace won by Christ to the hearts of those whom the Father loves and has chosen to believe (see 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Acts 13:48). The Holy Spirit accomplishes this by regenerating (see John 3:5-8), leading and sanctifying (see Rom. 8:13-16; 1 Pet. 1:2), interceding for (see Rom. 8:26-27), and empowering God’s elect to do God’s work (see Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; Heb. 2:4).

Sometimes Christians assume that our salvation comes almost exclusively from Indeed, given that the indwelling of God in his peoJesus, as if a loving Son had to plead with his angry Father on our behalf. But this ple in the person of his Holy Spirit is the great blessing of would imply a division of wills in the Godhead, which is profoundly unscriptural. the new covenant that has been inaugurated with Christ’s blood, it is not too Likewise, when Paul links the blessing of love par- much to say, with Charles Hodge, that the “primaticularly to God—meaning God the Father, since ry object of the death of Christ was the communiPaul generally refers to the Father simply as “God” cation of the Holy Spirit.” It is his life within us that (see Rom. 1:1-9; 5:10; 1 Cor. 1:9)—he is in effect engenders this fellowship that we now enjoy. countering an error that some fall into even today.

In summary, we may say that it is God the Father Sometimes Christians assume that our salvation who initiates salvation, God the Son who objectively comes almost exclusively from Jesus, as if a loving accomplishes it, and God the Holy Spirit who subjectiveSon had to plead with his angry Father on our ly applies or completes it. When it is read with these “ecobehalf. But this would imply a division of wills in nomic” distinctions in mind, the New Testament is full the Godhead, which is profoundly unscriptural (see of allusions to the glorious and indispensably trinitarMatt. 26:39, 42; John 4:34; 5:30; Heb. 10:5-10). ian work of the Godhead in bringing salvation.

Indeed, the wills of God the Father and God the Thus it is no wonder that the earliest church Son are so consonant that Jesus declared that “the fathers confessed Trinitarianism almost immediateFather is in me and I am in the Father” (John 10:38). ly and that their confession came to be crystallized Consequently, it is vital that we see that God the in the great ecumenical creeds.

Father sent God the Son to be our Savior (see Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10) and that he has done this The Theological Necessity of the Trinity t should now be clear that it is profoundly because he chose us “in Christ” before the world’s wrongheaded for Christians to think of God as creation (see Eph. 1:3-6). It is the Father’s eternal just one person. The theological consequences love for his chosen ones that accounts for Christ’s

I

3 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

of Unitarianism, whether it is clothed in evangelical biblicism (“we’re just following Scripture”) or in apologetics (“we must speak of God only as one to defend the faith”) are enormous. It mortally wounds true Christian faith. Even if we say that we believe that God is three persons but then still permit ourselves or other Christians to think or speak as if God is only unipersonal, we marginalize the doctrine of the Trinity in a way that makes it little more than a second blessing for the enlightened few.

This is not what our Lord or the Apostle Paul would have us do. They would have us teach and celebrate our trinitarian faith in all of its richness and glory. As Hodge says in concluding his comments on the apostle’s great benediction: “The distinct personality and the divinity of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, to each of whom prayer is addressed, is here taken for granted. And therefore this passage is a clear recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.” For, as he continues, to be a Christian just is to be “one who seeks and enjoys the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost.” ■

SPEAKING OF

T

he doctrine of the Trinity, then, sums up the astonishingly rich and hard-won insights of Christian believers down the

ages into the nature of God. For the theologian, it is a safeguard against inadequate understandings of God; for the Christian believer, it is a reminder of the majesty and mystery of the God who gave himself for his people upon the cross. It does not really help us to understand God, but it does enable us to avoid inadequate ways of thinking about him. Faced with the choice between an invented God who

Mark R. Talbot (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania) is associate professor of philosophy at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. R. Scott Clark (D.Phil., Oxford University) is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California).

could be understood without the slightest difficulty, and the real God who couldn't, the church unhesitatingly chose the latter option. The believer will

Professors Talbot’s and Clark’s quotation from John Murray is found in John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), p. 372. Their quotation from Leslie Allen on Psalm 110 can be found in Leslie C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 21: Psalms 101150 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983). The two quotations toward the end of their article from Charles Hodge are found in Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 2 Corinthians (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959 [first published in 1859]), emphasis added.

still find it easier to talk about 'God' than to talk about 'the Trinity', and need hardly be criticized for doing so. But when that believer begins to reflect upon who this God whom he worships and adores really is, his thoughts will move toward the 'strong name of the Trinity'. It is here that the long process of thinking about God comes to a stop, as we real-

Copies of this article are available for purchase by calling (215) 546-3696 or by ordering online at www.modernreformation.org.

ize that we can take it no further. And it is here that thought gives way to worship and adoration.

— Alistair E. McGrath, Understanding the Trinity, 151-152

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

T R I N I T Y | God in Three Persons

Trinity and Christian Life: Why Believe the Trinity Today?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty …

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord …

I believe in the Holy Ghost …

(The Apostles’ Creed, ca. 4th–5th c.) ince its earliest days, the church has discussed, fought over, debated, professed ignorance of, conducted heresy trials about, but always ultimately confessed, the Trinity, the classic expression— unique to Christianity— of God as simultaneously both unity and plurality.

The doctrine of three persons in one essence was hammered out over long years of correspondence, councils, writing, and preaching. In the church’s patristic period, many were excommunicated and branded as heretics because of their various departures from the orthodox form of this belief, and,

S

during the Reformation, some even lost their lives for rejecting it.

In today’s evangelical world, however, the doctrine of the Trinity often seems to be almost an add-on to “the things surely to be believed.”

Evangelicals do treat this belief as weighty and valuable, even as necessary for professing true Christianity.

But outside the learned circles of theological seminaries, ordinary pew-sitters have no idea why this is so. Still less do they know what the practical consequences of faith in God as Triune are. The doctrine is respected more from an attitude that “we have always believed this” than from any understanding of what it actually asserts.

Even more, thoughtful consideration of a life lived in relation to the triune God seems almost nonexistent.

As a result, practical mistakes abound in both our corporate worship and our individual devo-

by A N D R E W T R O T T E R 3 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

tional lives. Different groups of worshipers elevate one person of the Trinity over the others in different ways. Some positively denigrate the Father, rejecting reference to him at any point in their services, lest those who have had bad experiences of fatherhood obtain a mistaken view of him—at one Ivy League university, chapel speakers are told not to refer to God by any masculine personal pronoun. Some groups, following the powerful social currents of feminism, choose to refer to God as both our Father and our Mother, while others completely depersonalize the Trinity by talking about God as Life Force, thus ignoring the use of biblical language entirely.

Other groups simply want to elevate Jesus. But promoting “only Jesus” in worship is dangerously myopic and fails to exalt the Christian God in all his triune glory. Although focusing on Christ is perfectly appropriate at times in worship, whole portions of the history of God’s work, due largely to the activity of the Father or the Spirit, are neglected if Christ is the sole focus. When this happens, the preaching, prayers, and hymns of worship become strangely weak and shallow.

Still others view the Holy Spirit as having been neglected for so long that they insist on promoting him and his work, adoring him before all else in every part of the service. This often involves depersonalization of a different sort, as the Spirit focused upon is not the third person in the Trinity at all, but an emotion-soother or a jazzy, contemporary Power that infuses worship with an energy differing little from the excitement felt at a really good college football game. While in college, I once encountered a priest I knew handing out balloons on Pentecost to any students he met. I asked him what his view of the Holy Spirit was. He answered, “Well, you see, it’s kind of like school spirit. His job is to make us happy while we do God’s work.” Such is the state of understanding of the Trinity in Christian groups today.

In our individual devotional lives it is not much better. Here affinity with Jesus seems most prominent, although some in charismatic circles describe the Christian life almost entirely in terms of its being “Spirit-led.” Evangelicals are strong on devotion to Christ as Lord, teaching that a disciple of the living God follows Jesus wherever he leads. Of course, this is right and good, but mention that discipleship also means that you are a soldier in the army of the Lord of hosts, or that you are a son and heir of the Father, or especially that you are a slave in the household of the Master, and you will often meet with looks ranging from complete incomprehension to active distaste. Claiming that the Spirit led you to make a decision can make people suspicious that you are

wildly emotional in your views. In a different context, state that you pray only to the Father, and you may be thought to be in need of instruction about a personal relationship with Christ.

I cannot investigate here all the reasons the church has to recover a full-orbed understanding of the Trinity. But, after defining the doctrine very briefly and pointing out some of the primary implications of saying we believe in a triune God, I will then examine one crucial area where the church’s mission would be greatly improved if she were, in everything she does, to work hard at honoring our God in all his triune fullness.

A Brief Statement of the Doctrine he doctrine of the Trinity is not discussed directly in Scripture, but Scripture clearly teaches both the oneness of God in essence and the threeness of the persons in the Godhead.

God’s oneness is everywhere assumed, from the first commandment of the Decalogue to the picture of the great “I Am” in the book of Revelation, but perhaps nowhere so clearly as in the Jewish Shema (see Deut. 6:4–5). These verses, and those following, are still one of the most important prayers of the Jewish faith today, and were foundational to all the Jewish Christian authors of the New Testament, as well as to the Lord himself.

The plurality we confess in our God is clearly at work in two passages often called “The Great Commission” (Matt. 28:19–20) and “The Grace” (2 Cor. 13:14). Here the three persons of the Trinity are mentioned together equally while they are also clearly kept separate in accordance with the uniqueness of their persons within the Godhead.

In the Great Commission, Jesus instructs his disciples in their responsibility to go into all the world, proclaiming and implementing his good news. His followers are to baptize in the name—and the singular noun may be significant here—of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We may wonder how developed the Eleven’s understanding of the Trinity was at this point, given this subtle and theologically rich statement where Jesus seems to be assuming so much on their parts. Of course, the idea that the apostles would have had any conception of the Trinity raises a guffaw from modern, critical scholarship, but there is no way to know what they were assuming as they preached and wrote. In their later communications, where there are several trinitarian hints and allusions (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 1:2), we have no reason to doubt that some notion of unity and plurality in God may have been present in their conception of him.

Similarly, Paul ends his second letter to the Corinthians with one of the most often-repeated

T

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

benedictions in the history of the church, writing “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Again, equality, unity, and diversity are evident in this declaration. In mentioning all three persons, Paul is probably playing off the simple promise of God’s presence with them that he made in verse 11.

These three passages are not the only ones in the Bible supporting the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they help us to see why orthodox Christian theologians have agreed throughout the ages that, though a clear statement of the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any one place in Scripture, the Bible’s entire picture of God cannot be understood apart from it. To put it in other words, the more we read Scripture, the more we should see the Trinity in its pages.

Simply defined, what is the doctrine? Perhaps the Westminster Shorter Catechism expresses it as well as can be in two simple questions and answers: Question 5: Are there more Gods than one?

Answer: There is but one only, the living and true God. Question 6: How many persons are there in the Godhead?

Answer: There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Question 5 makes clear that Christianity is not polytheism and that our triune God is neither dead—as an idol or an abstraction would be—nor

classic ideas of the eternal generation of the Son by the Father and the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, but the Shorter Catechism perhaps rightly bypasses these. Although the generation and procession discussions are important ones, it is much more crucial that the Christian maintain the balance between God’s unity and the Godhead’s plurality. There are many reasons for this, but I will now emphasize one that is crucial in our twenty-first century context.

The Trinity Is Important to Good Evangelism irst–century Christians faced a mandate from their Lord to take the gospel to a world that had two very different conceptions of God. On the one hand, there were the Jews, who, as we have seen, believed passionately in one God who stands not simply above all other gods but is directly opposed to any who would even call themselves “god.” Long before, through the prophet Isaiah, Yahweh treated the idols in the cultures surrounding Israel derisively, saying:

F

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and I am God. Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” (Isa. 43:10–13)

The city is still full of idols today, yet Christians too often do not recognize Nothing had changed by the first century. The Jews Philo and Josephus both scoffed at the polytheism surrounding them, and the Jewish Zealots continued the two-hundred-year-old war against the pagan rulers of Palestine—first Greeks, then Romans—who threatened to desecrate their temple and oppose their God. On the other hand, the polytheism of the Greco-Roman populace in the cities of the Mediterranean basin is well-known. Whether one called him Zeus or Jupiter, the chief god was still merely the head of a pantheon of gods and, while monotheism of an abstract sort was popular among the Stoics and other intellectual philosophers of the day, these gods were strongly entrenched in Gentile hearts and minds. The story of Paul and

them for what they are and, even if we do, we often are not ready to challenge them as we should. false in any sense of the word—as a confused human construction would be. Polytheism’s challenge is met twice in this question, once when the question is directly asked and answered by the simple “There is but one,” and again for good measure by the addition of the adverb “only” to reinforce the adjective “one.” As if that were not enough, an elaboration of God’s oneness is added to Question 6, declaring the three persons’ sameness in substance and equality of power and glory.

Question 6 focuses on the Godhead’s three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Larger Catechism and the Confession of Faith elaborate on the

3 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

FYI

Barnabas’s journey to Lystra bears witness to this. Paul had healed a man who could not walk, and so the people immediately concluded that gods were visiting them, calling Paul Hermes and Barnabas Zeus. The priest of Zeus even wanted to offer oblations to the two (see Acts 14:8–13). Luke also tells us that when Paul was in Athens, “his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16). This led him to challenge the Athenians with the gospel.

The city is still full of idols today, yet Christians too often do not recognize them for what they are and, even if we do, we often are not ready to challenge them as we should. Our challenging them depends on our recognizing that first-century tensions between monotheism and polytheism remain with us, but in radically different forms. Currently, religious challenges to Christianity in America come from religious pluralism—the polymorphous “spirituality” that is heir to the New Age movement—and from the radically monotheistic incursion of Islam. As in Paul’s day, the only answer to the questions raised by both of these challengers is evangelism that is clear about the uniqueness of the triune God. Looking at one popular example of religious pluralism will show how trinitarian truth exposes its shallowness and inadequacy.

As I write, The Matrix Reloaded, which is the second of three movies in the Matrix series, has recently debuted. As you read, the third, The Matrix Revolutions, should have opened. Gregory Bassham correctly describes these movies’ religious perspective as a “cafeteria pluralism”—“the view that religious truth lies in a mix of beliefs drawn from many different religions.” Both movies so far are a mishmash of Christian symbol, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, humanism, deconstructionist philosophy, and ancient Gnosticism. Each of these, as is true of every religion or philosophy with any staying power, points to some sort of god, whether it acknowledges his existence or not. Even the so-called “ethical philosophies” of Zen Buddhism and humanism make, respectively, nothingness and man the measure of all things, and so worship them as idols. The picture of a “god” that emerges from a mixture of them all is bound to have inconsistencies that make a coherent life, built upon them, impossible.

But that has not stopped the Wachowski brothers, as the creators, writers, and directors of the entire Matrix series, from trying to paint such a picture. Through the characters of Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity (Does anyone need more proof of the significance of the doctrine of the Trinity than the

Godhead: another word for referring to God as Trinity, rather than any particular Person of the Trinity.

use of this name for one of the main characters?) and Agent Smith and the Merovingian on the other side of whatever moral divide exists in the films, Andy and Larry Wachowski explore a number of crucial ideas that determine how we view our existence in the postmodern world. The Princeton philosopher Cornell West, who advises the brothers and has a small role in the second film, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that he and the Wachowski brothers “had bonded over ‘wrestling with the meaning of life and the purpose of human existence.’ They share an affinity for plucking ideas from religion, philosophy, pop music, television and movies, and synthesizing them into a prophetic, liberating message. They want to make the world a more philosophical place.” Human freedom versus the determinism of the machines’ computer programs, cause and effect, whether good exists if everything is simply virtual reality, the very nature of reality itself—all of these ideas are investigated as deeply as a movie is able to do such things.

But perhaps most striking is the picture of “deity” found in the character of Neo, played by Keanu Reeves. Neo is a messianic figure, with elements borrowed from the Bible’s portrayal of the Son of God. He is regularly referred to as “the One” in the film—a figure, prophesied by “the Oracle,” who will save humanity from destruction at the hand of the machines. Early in the first film, he is even called “my savior, my own personal Jesus Christ” by another character. Allusions to his messianic calling as the “savior of the world” fill that movie, especially through the strong plot line in which Neo dies, is resurrected, and even ascends at the end of the film, after delivering his message of hope to the world.

But Neo is a savior who doubts—perhaps even more so in the second film—that he is the savior at all. He wanders through the films constantly questioning his role in the battle against the machines.

This doubt has religious overtones, as Neo sometimes debates with Morpheus and Trinity about whether or not he is the One. Sometimes Neo flatly denies that he is. Strikingly, and not accidentally, his name in the matrix is Thomas Anderson, combining the New Testament’s figure of “doubting Thomas” with the title “son of man” as the meaning of Neo’s last name. (“Ander” comes from the Greek root for the word “man.” When com-

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

FYI

Zen Buddhism: a mingling of Mahayana Buddhism and Chinese

cations that Neo will be converted into Everyman in the Taoism, traditionally understood to have originated in Japan in the final film. If so, the final message will be that we are all early eighteenth century. It is characterized by "intuitive" under- able to “save ourselves.” In that case, we could probably standing, which asserts that words have no fixed meaning and logic is irrelevant. add the Hindu notion of pantheism to our list of sources for the film’s religious stance. bined with the English “son,” one gets Anderson is If all a Christian can say to someone who the Son of Man.) This doubting messiah is bor- believes in this kind of cafeteria pluralism is “believe rowed from the early heresy of Gnosticism, where Jesus,” without being able to proclaim the truth as it Jesus is regularly portrayed as “correcting” the dis- really is found in our triune God, then, tragically, a ciples in their assumptions, claiming only to appear generation of postmoderns will never know that to be a man (the heresy of Docetism) or assuring Christianity involves an encounter with the God them that they can be gods like him, if they will who, in his nature, solves the tension between the only enter the Gnostic world of “knowledge.” one and the many . . . and so much more. ■ The pastiche that is Neo is not simply one of misused Christian symbols and early church heresies. Neo’s learning in the first film that “there is no Andrew Trotter (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) is president spoon” depends on the Buddha’s teaching of the of the Center for Christian Study in Charlottesville, Virginia. world as illusion. This idea deepens in the second He is the author of Interpreting the Epistle to the film as Neo has doubt cast upon his very existence, Hebrews (Baker, 1997) and has lectured on film and culoutside virtual reality, by both the Oracle and the ture at colleges, seminaries, and churches throughout the Architect. More subtly, in The Matrix the statement United States. “there is no spoon” occurs within the matrix, a world everyone accepts as illusory, but in The Matrix Reloaded it is repeated as Neo receives the Copies of this article are available for purchase by gift of a bent spoon in the “real” world of Zion. calling (215) 546-3696 or by ordering online at The humanistic portrayal of Neo as powerful, www.modernreformation.org. humanity-saving hero (“It is not the spoon that bends; it is only yourself” says the Potential in the Oracle’s sitting room) and the deconstructive Looking for small group resources? Log on now notion of truth as doubt, as well as the Taoist idea to www.modernreformation.org for study quesof the primacy of self-knowledge (a plaque in the tions related to this article.

Oracle’s apartment reads “Know Thyself” in Latin)—all these are forced into one character, one notion of god, the savior, who is not a transcendent being but a human one.

Christians who grasp the doctrine of the Trinity will see these false ruminations for what they are: idols for destruction. The Christian understanding of the Trinity, as the lynchpin of our faith, holds the answers to all human questions in its profound tension between the many and the One, but a truncated Christianity, devoid of this complexity, can never meet the challenges of postmodern pluralism. The Wachowskis offer us a savior who is one and many at the same time. Constructed of bits of many religions, yet showing the true path, Neo is to be our deliverer. Many are buying their pluralistic fiction, some even trying to live as if we actually exist in a programmed matrix. Many more look for humankind’s salvation through a god made up from all the religions. Although we will not know until the third film is released, there are indi-

@

MR RECOMMENDS…

3 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

We Confess…

I

believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father….

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified….

— Nicene Creed, Fourth Century

N

ow the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the Father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite.

So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten.

The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.

So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits.

And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, But the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped.

He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.

— Athanasian Creed, Ninth Century

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

F

R F

O

R

E D

I

A

L

E O

G

U

E

| O

U

T

S S

I

D

E

P O

F

A O

U

R

C C

I

R

C

E L

E

S

An Interview with Dr. David Paulsen

Are Mormans Trinitarian?

Christians have long been suspicious that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is a heretical sect, in part because of a faulty view of God. Recently, however, some evangelical theologians have begun espousing views that are similar to traditional LDS teachings. MR asked noted Mormon philosopher David Paulsen to explain to our readers what the LDS believes about the nature of God, especially in light of Open Theism, social Trinitarianism, and other trends in evangelical theology.

DAVID PAULSEN

Professor of Philosophy Brigham Young University

Before addressing your questions, it is important for readers of Modern Reformation to understand that Latter-day Saints have no official theology as such. Our doctrines are based not on rational theologizing, but on what we believe to be divine self-disclosures. Joseph Smith, founding prophet and first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once said: Could we read and comprehend all that has been written from the days of Adam on the relation of man to God … we should know little about it …. Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you should know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.1 Joseph claimed many such privileged gazes, beginning with his “first vision” in 1820 when God the Father and the resurrected Lord appeared to him near Palmyra, New York.

Revelations that came to or through Joseph Smith have been published in three books which, together with the Holy Bible, constitute our “standard works” or canon. These are the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Together, with official declarations of the First Presidency of the Church, these standard works constitute the principal sources for a Latter-day Saint understanding of God. In addition, we give significant, though not binding, weight to non-canonized discourse by Joseph Smith and other latter-day prophets and apostles. These are the sources I will cite as I

4 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

attempt to answer your questions. Thanks to the editors of Modern Reformation for this rare privilege.

MR: Please briefly explain to our readers how the LDS Church’s doctrine of God is similar to or different from the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

DP: Our first Article of Faith affirms our belief in the New Testament Godhead. It states simply: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.” We reject the traditional, but extra-biblical, idea that these three persons constitute one metaphysical substance, affirming rather that they constitute one perfectly united, and mutually indwelling,2 divine community. We use the word “God” to designate the divine community as well as to designate each individual divine person. Thus our understanding of the Godhead coincides closely with what is known in contemporary Christian theology as “social trinitarianism.”3 This, we believe, is the model of the Godhead portrayed in the New Testament.

MR: Christian theologians from all the major traditions (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) are united in their belief in monotheism (only one God in this and any other universe, existing beyond time and space). Is LDS theology monotheistic or is it polytheistic?

DP: As indicated above, Latter-day Saints, like other Christians and New Testament writers, affirm that there is a plurality of divine persons. Yet, at the same time, we witness (as our scriptures

repeatedly declare) that “the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God.”4 Given the plurality of divine persons, how can there be but one God? In at least at least three ways: (1) there is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community.

We call that community “God” and there is only one such. (2) There is only one God the Father or fount of divinity.5 (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.6 In his explanation of the unity of God, LDS Apostle James Talmage, wrote: “This unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike. Under any given conditions each would act in the same way, guided by the same principles of unerring justice and equity.

The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God.”7 MR: What is the relationship between man (specifically Adam) and God? Is God an exalted man? Is it possible for men to become God? Was God once mortal flesh like we are?

DP: We believe that God the Father is, in a literal sense, the father of the human family.8 Men and women are “begotten sons and daughters unto God.” We are his children, not mere creatures. In a 1995 official proclamation, the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles of the Church declared: “All human beings—male and female— are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny...”9 Adam is a “noble and great” spirit son of God our Father.

God (the Son) was once mortal flesh like we are (John 1:1-5, 14), though not exactly like we are for he was God incarnate. He is now exalted and resurrected with a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-43). And when we are resurrected we will be like him (I John 3:2). Latter-day Saints thus affirm the teaching of the New Testament and the early church fathers that we, as God’s children, through the grace of Christ and the sanctifying power of

the Holy Spirit, may become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).10 In addition, many Latter-day Saints believe that prior to our creation God (the Father) also was incarnate on an earth in much the same way God (the Son) was incarnate on our earth.11 This helps us understand why the Father, in both the Old and New Testament, is consistently portrayed as a gloriously exalted embodied person, humanlike in form.12 MR: There have been a number of discussions recently among evangelical Protestants about the nature of God’s being. Some theologians, commonly called “Open Theists,” are asserting that God grows in knowledge in response to the actions and choices of his creatures. Does the LDS doctrine of God allow for a similar view of God’s growing and changing according to time and circumstance?

DP: Latter-day Saint scriptures resonate with the openness teaching that God in his love endowed his human children with moral agency.13 Thus, we are free to choose either eternal life or eternal captivity.

In endowing us with freedom, God has thus chosen to be neither all-determining nor all-controlling. He responds to our free desires, decisions, and deeds creatively, lovingly, and persuasively and works cooperatively with us in achieving his purposes.

Thus, we agree with openness thinkers that God is the most moved mover.

The Book of Mormon powerfully portrays the tender and profound passibility of God the Son. Consider two examples. The first is a prophetic foretelling of our Lord’s incarnation in the flesh. Alma, an ancient American prophet, wrote (ca. 120 B.C.): And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities (Alma 7:11-12).

The second is an eyewitness account of a visit of our resurrected Lord to a gathering of ancient Americans. As his visit was drawing to a close, the Lord advised the multitude that he was leaving.

But “cast[ing] his eyes round about again on the multitude, [he] beheld they were in tears, and did look steadfastly upon him as if they would ask him to tarry a little longer with them.” Discerning their

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 1

desires, the Lord lingered, responding: “Behold my bowels are filled with compassion towards you.”

He inquired if there were any sick among them and told them, “Bring them hither and I will heal them, for […] I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.” As he healed them they “bathe[d] his feet with their tears.” Then Jesus invited them to bring their little children to him, and he prayed for them. The record continues: “no one can conceive of the joy which filled [their] souls.”

Seeing that their joy was full, Jesus said, “Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full. And when he had said these words, he wept.” Then he “took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them. And when he had done this he wept again.” (3 Ne. 17:1-25; emphasis added).

Our resurrected Lord planned to leave earlier, but lingered because he discerned that the people wanted him to stay. And when their joy was full, then his joy was full. Throughout the Book of Mormon narrative we see portrayed the tender and profound passibility of God the Son, who is in the express image of his Father’s person (Heb. 1:1-3). As openness thinkers teach, God does lovingly respond to the desires, decisions and deeds of his children.

But does God also, as openness theologians suggest, continue to grow or progress? Joseph Smith taught: What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.14 Notice that this statement implies that divine persons progress. Joseph Smith did not see divine perfection as a state of static completeness, but as a dynamic life—one of unending growth and progress. God, qua God, is eternally self-surpassing in some respects.

But in what respects? Most would likely agree, as Joseph clearly taught, that God is eternally selfsurpassing in glory, dominion, and kingdom.

Likewise all (or nearly all) would probably agree that God is eternally self-surpassing in creativity and creative activity.

But does he grow in knowledge? On this point, the Church has no official position and faithful Latter-day Saints often disagree. Some very

4 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

influential LDS thinkers, including two men who served as Church President, BrighamYoung and Wilford Woodruff, have affirmed that God is eternally self-surpassing in both knowledge and power. President Young taught that “the God I serve is progressing eternally [in knowledge and power], and so are his children; they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful,”15 and, in agreement with President Young, President Woodruff explained, “If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end […]”16 Other Church leaders have taken a position more in line with that of conventional Christian theology. President Joseph Fielding Smith asserted, “Do we believe that God has all “wisdom”?

If so, in that, he is absolute. If there is something he does not know, then he is not absolute in “wisdom,” and to think such a thing is absurd […].”17 Apostle Bruce R. McConkie expressed a similar sentiment, “There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge …. This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it …

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply …. God is not a student …. He has indeed graduated to the state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things.”18 In sum, faithful Latter-day Saints differ somewhat on the question of whether God continues to grow in knowledge, but they speak with one voice in affirming human freedom and God’s profound and tender passibility.

MR: Is it proper, in light of the significant differences between traditional Christian theology and the doctrines of the LDS Church, to call faithful Mormons “Christians”?

DP: Yes! Latter-day Saints believe that through modern day revelation, God has literally restored his New Testament Church and teachings (Acts 3:21) in preparation for Christ’s Second Coming. Thus, we believe that faithful members of this restored Church are quintessentially Christian.

My response is also affirmative when I attempt to answer the question without the light of modern revelation. As my responses to the preceding questions demonstrate, LDS understandings of God, in some respects, differ significantly from conventional conservative Christian theologies although some of these differences are not nearly as substantial as they are usually represented to be.

However, none of these differences is relevant to the question of whether faithful Latter-day Saints

are Christians. Faithful Latter-day Saints put their trust in, believe in, and worship the New Testament Godhead. They accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They love him and seek to follow him and keep his commandments. By these standards, the earliest saints were known as Christians. By these same standards, Latter-day Saints are also Christians, as well as faithful members of evangelical and many other Christian Churches.

Spatial constraints allow only the briefest answers to the questions posed.

For fuller explanations, I earnestly suggest you consult sources written for Latter-day Saints by Latter-day Saints. I’ve yet to see a presentation of LDS doctrine by a non-LDS writer that comes anywhere close to getting it right. My recommendations: Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith by LDS Apostle James Talmage. For those wanting to become acquainted with uniquely LDS scripture, I suggest you begin with The Book of Mormon. I would also be delighted to either personally field your questions or, if necessary, refer you to a specialist. You can contact me at david_paulsen@byu.edu.

David Paulsen (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a Professor of Philosophy at Brigham Young University. He has published widely on issues in the philosophy of religion in both international and national venues, including The International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Analysis, The Harvard Theological Review, Faith and Philosophy, and the Journal of Speculative Philosophy. At BYU, he has held the Richard L. Evans Professorship for Religious Understanding.

In the LDS Church, he has served as a Bishop and as a member of a Stake Presidency.

Footnotes 1 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1976), p 324.

2 Blake Ostler writes, “The Father, Son, and Spirit are primordially united—a claim made in the Gospel of John by use of the Greek words en and hen, i.e., in and one. The Father is said to be “in” the Son and the Son “in” the Father, and the Spirit is “in” them both and they “in” the Spirit. Because of this “in-ness,” or one-ness and loving unity, they act as one God. FARMS Review of Books, vol. 8, no. 2 (1996).

3 Among the many influential Christian thinkers who have also opted for a social model of the Godhead are Cornelius Plantinga (see his “Social Trinity and Tritheism” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, eds. R.J. Feenstra and C. Plantinga (Notre Dame:

University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp.21-47); Jurgen Moltmann (see his The Trinity and The Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1981); and Leonardo Boff (see Trinity and Society, trans., Paul Burns (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988); Clark Pinnock (see his “Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness,” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001).

4 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 11:36; D&C 20:28.

5 1 Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

6 See Cornelius Plantinga, supra. “Social Trinity and Tritheism” for a fuller explanation of how a social model of the trinity remains properly “monotheistic.” See B.H. Robert’s “The Seventy’s Course in Theology,” (Dallas: L.K. Taylor Publishing Company, 1976) p 106. He suggests that there is only “one God-nature.”

7 James Talmage, “A Study of the Articles of Faith” (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1988), p 37.

8 James Talmage, “A Study of the Articles of Faith,” 421.

9 “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102.

10 See Father Jordan Vajda’s “Partarkers of the Divine Nature: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization” (Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002) 11 See Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1976), pp. 342-362.

12 See David Paulsen’s articles: “Augustine and the Corporeality of God,” Harvard Theological Review 95:1 (2002) 97-118; “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review 83:2 (1990) 105-16. Also see, Kim Paffenroth, “Paulsen on Augustine: An Incorporeal or Nonanthropomorphic God? Harvard Theological Review 86:2 (1993) 233-234; and Paulsen’s, “Reply to Kim Paffenroth’s Comments,” Harvard Theological Review 86:2 (1993) 235-239.

13 2 Nephi 2:27; Mosiah 2:21; D&C 37:4; 58:28; 98:8; Moses 7:32.

14 Teachings, 347-348.

15 Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:285.

16 Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, 6:120.

17 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56), 1:6-7.

18 Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies,” 1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year, (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1981), 75.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 3

R

E

V

I

E

W

S

BOOKS | Pilgrimage of a Presbyterian: Collected Shorter Writings

On the Road

W Pilgrimage of a Presbyterian: Collected Shorter Writings

by John H. Leith, edited by Charles E. Raynal Geneva Press, 2001 363 pages (paperback), $29.95

hen I received a Th.M. in church history from Westminster Theological

journey in the religious sphere much like the noted Seminary in 1982, I was a ministerial candidate of the Presbyterian Church neo-conservatives in the political sphere. To what in America (PCA) and had been a member of the Tenth Presbyterian degree he actually changed—or that his fellow Church of Philadelphia for nearly five mainliners were simply growing more liberal—is years. I had also served on the editorial not clear, but his pointed critique of the theological staff of Eternity magazine. So I was what crisis in the PC(USA) in The Reformed Imperative might be called a well-informed (1988), From Generation to Generation (1990), and Crisis “evangelical Presbyterian.” Yet in spite of in the Church (1997) surely established Leith not as my education and connections with an enemy of the PCA conservative breakoff, but as northern conservative Presbyterianism, I an enemy of the ringleaders of the liberal mother had never heard of John Haddon Leith church. So marginalized from his own Union (1919–2002) of Union Theological Seminary where he had taught for 31 years, only a Seminary in Richmond until nearly ten handful from the school attended his memorial years later when, as a minister of the service September 2002 at Grace-Covenant PCA, I picked up a copy of Leith’s Presbyterian Church in Richmond.

The difficulty in pigeonholing Leith, however, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition: A Way of Being the Christian Community (1977), should not prevent conservative Presbyterians from considered today a classic, as well as The Reformed appreciating his legacy, which is captured in Imperative: What the Church Has to Say that No One Else Pilgrimage of a Presbyterian, his last book. This collection of his shorter (and mostly unpublished) Can Say (1988), perhaps Leith’s finest book.

That I ended up discovering this preeminent writings compiled by Charles Raynal of Columbia John Calvin scholar and authority on the Theological Seminary reveals Leith the pastor, the Westminster Assembly on my own may not have teacher, and the churchman. Containing more been all that surprising, given that John Leith was than 21 sermons, including his senior sermon as a not on good terms with the founding fathers of the student at Columbia in 1942, chapel messages PCA. During the 1950s and 1960s, Leith was during his tenure at Union, editorials from the identified with the liberal wing of the southern Presbyterian Outlook, and various addresses, Pilgrimage Presbyterian Church because of his qualified neo- contains gems of wisdom for those who seek orthodoxy (what he called “critical orthodoxy”) faithfully to apply the Reformed tradition to the and especially his involvement in the civil rights workings of congregations, presbyteries, and movement. Nevertheless, Leith was no champion general assemblies. of the proposed reunion of the northern and Readers concerned about the state of seminaries southern Presbyterian churches nor did he support will appreciate Leith’s vision for the proper training the ordination of women. In fact, after the creation of ministers, expressed in his 1960 inaugural of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 1983, Leith address at Union, a working paper from 1976 that appeared to become a conservative, following a expounds the critical components of a theological

4 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

education, and his 1984 syllabus for a course on the history of doctrine. Yet the book also offers those in the trenches of parish ministry a wealth of practical, pastoral advice. Included, for example, is a 1954 sermon Leith delivered on the occasion of the dedication of a new sanctuary in Auburn, Alabama, “The Pilgrim Church,” exploring the seeming ironies of faith in the city without foundations and the sense of permanence that a building implies. Elsewhere, Leith clarifies the nature of the call to the ministry, seen in three aspects: the inward call, the outward call, and the appropriation of the people over time. He also speculates on the ideal time to confirm baptized children and admit them to the Lord’s Table, suggesting that the current practice of the PC(USA) of inviting baptized but nonprofessing members to partake of the sacrament works against nurturing a meaningful church commitment on the part of adolescent covenant children. Another section offers a Reformed theology of the funeral service, which includes a model funeral sermon, itself worth the price of the book.

Together, these writings confirm what Charles Raynal says in the preface that “more than any other service, Leith wanted to be a pastor.” As Leith reflected in Crisis in the Church, “If I were to choose eleven years to relive, it would probably be the eleven years I was in Auburn,” when he was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church. The church, after all, was Leith’s passion in a way that very few northern Presbyterians (whose passion is Evangelicalism) can claim or appreciate. Although a scholar par excellence, his passion was the visible church and the ministry of the Word, which he identified with Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the written Word of God, far more than did Barth or Brunner. In addition, his advocacy for preaching that “is not moral advice or political rhetoric or personal therapy or entertainment” but as the means of grace puts to shame many liberal and evangelical Presbyterians. So even as conservatives may hesitate to claim this gifted theologian as one of their own, his Pilgrimage ought to make them reconsider his contribution to the recovery of the Reformed tradition in our time.

Robert W. Patterson Leesburg, VA

The Rhythm of God’s Grace: Uncovering Morning and Evening Hours of Prayer

by Arthur Paul Boer Paraclete Press, 2003 192 pages (paperback), $15.95 For many Protestants, the phrase “Daily Office” is foreign. It could as easily refer to the place where the mayor of Chicago works as to a system of set times for daily prayer. To make up for this ignorance, Arthur Paul Boers’s book, The Rhythm of God’s Grace, is an accessible introduction to the lost Christian practice of daily morning and evening prayer. The style is easygoing, and the logic is simple. The main thrust of his whole book is found in the subtitle Uncovering Morning and Evening Hours of Prayer.

Some of the benefits of fixed-hour prayer are discipline, a bridge between individual prayer and corporate worship, a sense of the catholicity of the church at prayer, and reliance upon one of God’s ordinary means of grace. “Prayer is like that,” Boer, a Mennonite pastor, writes, “discipline is no guarantee that we will encounter God, but our chances improve” (84).

Though his approach is not overwhelmingly impressive, Boer does make a good biblical case for having fixed-hour prayers in Chapter 3, “Ancient Rhythms of Prayer.” Surprisingly, his arguments claim warrant from both the Old and New Testaments. Though maybe not conclusive, his argument is worth examining. In the Old Testament, for instance, the Psalms refer to prayer in the morning (5:3), early hours (130:6), evening (141:2), and day and night (92:2). Boer argues that the first Christians perpetuated this practice. Jesus and the disciples prayed alone, in synagogues, and in the Temple. The early church also participated in daily prayer (Acts 1:14 and 2:42–47). Some of these prayers even had set times (Acts 3:1). For Boer, the New Testament phrase, “pray without ceasing” (Matt. 7:7–12; Luke 11:5–13,18:1; Col. 4:2; Eph. 6:18; 1 Thess. 1:2) was a reference to the practice of daily prayer.

Boers’s analysis of why corporate fixed hours of prayer fell into disuse is intriguing. He shows how the rise of Monasticism in the fourth and fifth centuries actually began to nurture an individualistic view of prayer, making the hours less corporate and more private. This cluttered up the liturgy of fixed hours, and made the Daily Office less accessible for the laity. As the centuries

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 5

unfolded, and monastics became popes and priests, this individualism infested the church, and finally turned prayer over to the professionals. He also lays some blame on the reformers and their heirs who reacted against the abuses of Rome. The corporate character of prayer comes through nicely in Chapter 8, “Giving at the Office.” Here Boer stresses the importance of using written or rote prayers in a public setting. “Formalized language,” he observes, “reminds us that prayer calls us to engage the world on God’s behalf and is not just privatized faith” (109).

The Rhythm of God’s Grace is not without defects.

For instance, Boer confuses the practice of individuals keeping the Daily Office and corporate observance of these set times of prayer. On the one hand, he states that “Christian prayer is intended to be corporate…. Common prayer means we intentionally join in prayer with others” (121). But on the other hand, throughout the book the author regularly talks about following these fixed hours of prayer alone. Even in his one pastoral experience of using the Daily Office, which he comes back to repeatedly, the example he uses is a confusing mixture of individual and corporate prayer. Boer also demonstrates an unfortunate softness toward Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. For this reason he leaves the impression that we are all just traveling up the mountain to God, though using different paths.

Nevertheless, the long-term benefit of this book is the way in which it raises an awareness of the propriety and importance of corporate common prayer. Seminarians, families, and congregations would do well to investigate this book, discuss how it would best be used in their various settings, and see how to imitate an ancient churchly practice.

Rev. Michael W. Philliber New Life Presbyterian Church (PCA) Midland, TX

What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?

by William G. Dever Eerdmans, 2002 313 pages (paperback), $21.00 Just how much history does the Bible contain?

Not much, according to a productive group of scholars, who have earned the title of “minimalists”

4 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

or even “nihilists” by some because of their skeptical views on the historicity of ancient Israel as recorded in the Bible. These academics, as one of them says, contend that, “theology must liberate itself from history.” For the minimalists, the Hebrew Bible is a product of the Persian-Hellenistic period and is merely a literary or social construct not containing a reliable historical record. William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, sounds the alarm, however. “There is a crisis in the current study of the history of ancient Israel,” he contends, and this crisis, “should be of concern not only to theologians and clerics, but also to intelligent lay folk, and indeed to all who cherish the Western cultural tradition, which in large part derives from values enshrined in the Bible.”

This new book is nothing less than a full frontal assault on the camp of the minimalists and their allies. Chapter 1 of this book serves as an introduction to the major trends of the new literary criticism of the Bible. Chapter 2 provides a survey of the writers in this new school of revisionists.

These first 52 pages alone are worth the price of the book. Chapter 3 takes a sharp turn to the subject of archaeology and its relationship to the extant texts, particularly the Bible. Professor Dever is especially concerned to revitalize the dialogue between archaeology and biblical studies in history writing. Chapters 4 and 5 survey the material remains that provide evidence for a consideration of much of what is recorded in Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings concerning the religion and state of Israel and the United Monarchy. Chapter 6 follows with a synthesis of the foregoing material, while returning to another spirited engagement with the minimalist school. By the time the reader approaches the end of the book, the author provides an answer to the provocative title of his book: “What did the biblical writers know, and when did they know it?” Simply stated, They knew a lot; and they knew it early, based on older and genuinely historical accounts, both oral and written.

The book has many more strengths than can be mentioned in this brief review. First, it is written in a clear and engaging style; second, specialist jargon is explained for the uninitiated; third, the book includes a positive survey of the archaeology, art, and architecture in ancient Israel which confronts the modern assumption that the ancients were devoid of aesthetic sensibilities; and fourth, the book is written by an expert in the archaeology of the ancient Near East.

Some aspects of the book will probably appear wanting to the readers of Modern Reformation. For

example, Dever seeks to recover the history of ancient Israel through two sources, texts and artifacts. Much of the book is concerned with the methods currently used in writing a history of ancient Israel. He may often, however, prove too confident in the primacy of archeological data over the biblical text in the process of interpretation, where indeed both text and artifacts must be subjected to correct interpretation. As an extension of the previous point, we may question whether Dever’s proposal for a “secular humanist” approach toward the end of the book will provide the power necessary to outlive the revisionist theories of the minimalists.

All of this aside, Dever is courageous and successful in severely spanking the new revisionists, those minimalists such as professors Davies, Thompson, Lemche, Whitelam, and others whose theories seem very distant from the sources themselves: either the text or the artifacts. For that reason, among others, this book is commended to the reader.

Dr. Bryan Estelle Westminster Seminary California Escondido, CA

SHORT NOTICES Preaching that Speaks to Women

by Alice P. Mathews Baker Book House, 2003 188 pages (paperback), $14.99

preaching of the apostles, which generally addressed the people of God corporately, is any indication.

Does God Have a Future?

A Debate on Divine Providence

by Christopher A. Hall and John Sanders Baker Book House, 2003 222 pages (paperback), $17.99 The debates over Open Theism are far from over. Some of them are even being published in the conversational form in which they take shape.

Does God Have a Future? is a lively exchange between a professing Open Theist, John Sanders who teaches theology at Huntington College, and a critic, Christopher A. Hall, who teaches at Eastern University. In fact, the book is a series of letters between these men that began in 2001 as a forum in Christianity Today. The book begins with personal reflections on how each author came to his view, runs through a variety of issues that Open Theism raises, and concludes with remarks about the task of theology and the function of history in theological method. It includes an appendix with summary definitions of Open Theism and the Classical view, as well as a glossary with key terms defined briefly. On the whole, this is an informative book. Unfortunately, the format—an exchange of somewhat personal correspondence— may reveal a subtext that tolerance and friendship may trump serious doctrinal differences. After all, if Sanders and Hall can debate their differences cordially and retain their friendship, is Open Theism really so bad?

In the foreword to this highly accessible book, Haddon W. Robinson observes that his files are filled with articles about preaching to “Busters, Boomers, Builders, and Generations X, Y, and Z.” Most of these “take women for granted.” This is the problem that Mathews, a professor at GordonConwell Theological Seminary, addresses in her aptly named book. The chapters address such topics as sermons filled with principles versus preaching that cultivates relationships, whether men and women hear differently, and questions surrounding female identity and virtues. The book concludes with sensible advice about ways to avoid patterns of speaking and themes that reflect an exclusively masculine frame of reference. At the same time, adding another item to a pastor’s demographic checklist may not be what the doctor of practical theology ordered, especially if the

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 4 7

O R U M I N A T I O N S

N F R O M

|

M

A L L I A N C E

Y O F

|

C O N F E S S I N G

M

I

E V A N G E L I C A L S

N C O U N C I L

D M E M B E R S

Rod Rosenbladt

A Father’s Life-Giving Calling

I

am deeply interested in the way theology and psychology intersect when it comes to

on. I was being taught bald moralism from a pietistic how a father affects his children. The doctrine in question is that of calling. Bad curriculum of Bible stories.

My father looked at me and doctrine here leads to poisoned souls. said, “How would you like to quit?” I answered, “Dad, I’d It irks me that our culture can have over eighty love to quit!” And he said, “Why don’t you stop five percent of its prison inmates come from going? Come in and sit next to me in the adult homes without fathers, and at the same time, class.” Deliverance! speak every day as if fathers are only My father was teaching me by analogy that nincompoops or deadbeat dads. No one seems to there is something in the universe much deeper see any disjunction in this. I scan the shelves and than the law. He was doing Romans and see that this subject is now “in” in Christian Galatians in the flesh every day of my young life! circles. I see more and more books directed to He knew (though he probably didn’t know it to Christians on the subject of “fathers” or quote) the truth of George MacDonald’s line in “fathering.” But these books never go deeper than his poem to his father, “… but most of all I thank ROD ROSENBLADT you for teaching me that fatherhood is at the the idea of the father as a disciplinarian.

The role of disciplinarian is a biblically Great World’s core.”

The calling of a Christian father is to be a grounded idea, but Martin Luther was on to Professor of Theology something when he spoke of the father being a priest to his family, living evidence to the truth Concordia University priest to his family. The deepest and most that “the law will never be allowed to have the Irvine, California “unfindable-anywhere-else” function of a father is final word.” In the words of Anthony Hopkins in to provide for his children a way of blessing and Legends of the Fall (the father to Brad Pitt as son), escape from one who has an “air tight case” “You’re not damned. I won’t let that happen!”

Beyond and above the law is a “eucatastrophic” against them.

I had learned this from my own father. As a (J.R.R. Tolkien) deliverance to joy that the True child, I was one of the lucky ones. My surgeon- Father provides for believing sinners, a joy father was a gift to me from heaven itself. I love purchased at great cost—the substitutionary cost telling other men stories about my father. Men of his Son’s blood and death. That’s what a Father are so hungry to hear such stories that it almost is: an analogy of that story to his children. Absent takes my breath away. And yet I understand it. that living story, children die inside.

Robert Bly tells us that today’s sons are just dying to hear their father’s blessing, and they almost never get it. Sons are dying to hear “father-asdeliverer” stories. So here is just one of many: One day my father and I were standing in the narthex of our church and he looked at me and asked how Sunday school was. I replied something like, “O.K.” He saw what was going

4 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G