In Acts 26 the apostle Paul tells us some of the details about his conversion on the Damascus Road. He tells us, among other things, that when the Lord saved him he also commissioned him to preach the gospel. That which until now he had been opposing was from here on to be his life’s work. The Lord Jesus arrested him, as it were, and set him on a new course entirely.

 “I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:16-18).

Notice that the Lord commissioned him “to open their eyes.” The imagery is common in the Scriptures and is a figure of speech we use today also. When someone doesn’t understand we say “he just can’t see it.” When they do understand we say, “Finally, their eyes are open!” So in reference to Christ, we are born with our eyes blinded to the truth. Our hearts and minds are set against him in favor of ourselves and our sins. We need Christ in order to be saved, but we just don’t see it. Our eyes are blinded to the truth. Others may try to make us see it, but we can’t. We’re blind to the truth.

So the Lord commissions the apostle “to open their eyes.” But that raises an interesting question. How? How can we open their eyes? The problem is blindness, and that is a problem beyond our ability to correct. Yet this is the essence of the apostolic commission — “open their eyes.”

Of course, it is a problem even the apostle Paul did not have the power to correct. The problem goes deeper than any of us can reach. It is a problem only God can correct, for only he can change the heart. Implicit in the apostle’s commission, then, is a promise of divine provision. Paul was but the “servant,” a “witness” through whom the Lord was intending to work to the salvation of others. And so as the apostle Paul went from place to place, he preached the same gospel message. And as he did, the Lord worked through his witness to bring men and women to life, to open their eyes to their need of Christ and to bring them to faith in him so that they would be saved.

This is our part in the divine program exactly. God calls us to do something which we are entirely incapable of doing — “to open their eyes.” But as we witness for Christ, we find, this is precisely what happens. God graciously and sovereignly works through us, his servants, to the salvation of others.

Evangelism, then, is an exciting endeavor. We will never be able to take credit for anyone’s salvation, but as we are faithful in telling others about Christ we will experience the joy of being used of God to see them  “turn from darkness to light” and be saved. Evangelism is a divine undertaking, and it is exciting to be a part of God’s gracious and sovereign work of opening men’s eyes to the saving truth of Jesus Christ. And this is the happy privilege — and responsibility — of every believer.

Fred Zaspel holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the Free University of Amsterdam. He is currently a pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is the author of The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010) and Warfield on the Christian Life: Living in Light of the Gospel (Crossway, 2012).

HT: Justin Taylor

In the recent issue of Credo Magazine, “The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a Triune God Makes All the Difference,” we asked some top experts on topic of worship the question, “Does the doctrine of the Trinity impact our worship in the 21st century?” Here is what they had to say:

Tim Chester, author of Delighting in the Trinity

6–Our worship is inevitably Trinitarian. The Father and Son delight in one another, in the joy of the Spirit and we get to participate in that delight (Luke 10:21-22). But often we miss out on the realization of this when it’s not made explicit in the way we shape our worship. But the Trinity does impact our worship (whether we realize it or not)! Even when our worship is weak and marred by sin, the Spirit connects us to Christ our Priest who represents us before the Father in the heavenly congregation (Heb. 2:11-13).

Bob Kauflin, author of Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God

5–Recent years seem to indicate an increased awareness in the church that God is Triune and that our gatherings should reflect that. But judging from the prayers we often hear and the songs written in the past two or three decades, I don’t think the church at large is generally alert to the fact that we have access to the Father through Christ in one Spirit (Eph. 2:18). Even in liturgies that are evidently triune, I’m not sure people in the congregation can always adequately express why. But I’m confident that God, out of his love for us and concern for his own glory, will always lead us into a clearer understanding of who he is and practices that more faithfully reflect his triune nature.

David Peterson, author of Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship

5–In my experience, those planning and leading services generally do not give enough thought to engaging with God as Trinity. Some traditions rightly emphasize approaching the Father through the Son, but seem to have little place for the Spirit. Others focus on the Spirit and pray to Jesus but seem to be awkward about relating to God as Father.

Read other interviews, articles, and columns in Credo Magazine:

To view the Magazine as a PDF

The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a triune God makes all the difference

One of the dangers every church faces is slipping, slowly and quietly and perhaps unknowingly, into a routine where sermons are preached, songs are sung, and the Lord’s Supper is consumed, but all is done without a deep sense and awareness of the Trinity. In other words, if we are not careful our churches, in practice, can look remarkably Unitarian. And such a danger is not limited to the pews of the church. As we leave on Sunday morning and go back into the world, does the gospel we share with our coworker look decisively and explicitly Trinitarian in nature? Or when we pray in the privacy of our own home, do the three persons of the Trinity make any difference in how we petition God?

In this issue of Credo Magazine, we have brought together some of the sharpest thinkers in order to bring our minds back to the beauty, glory, and majesty of our triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we do not merely want to see him as triune, but recognize why and how the Trinity makes all the difference in the Christian life. Therefore, in this issue Fred Sanders, Robert Letham, Michael Reeves, Scott Swain, Tim Challies, Stephen Holmes, and many others come together in order to help us think deeper thoughts about how God is one essence and three persons, and what impact the Trinity has on who we are and what we do as believers.

Matthew Barrett, Executive Editor

The Grace of Godliness-Matthew Barrett from credomag.com on Vimeo.

In the recent issue of Credo Magazine, “The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a Triune God Makes All the Difference,” we asked some top scholars the question, “Which controversy in church history should Christians know about today and why?” Here is what they had to say:

Michael Allen, Knox Theological Seminary

The Reformation. Beyond the economic and political unrest, even behind the religious celebrity and ecclesiastical tumult, we see that the Reformation was a decisive event in the long history of God’s Word forming his church to hear his promise of good news. We pay attention to the Reformation because it is an instance—a jolting, jarring one to be sure—of the risen Christ’s witness about himself to his people, revealing a bit more of the breadth and length and height and depth of his love for us. We listen to the testimony of the Reformation, then, because we listen to Jesus.

Kevin Bauder, Central Baptist Theological Seminary

Protestant Liberalism. Between 1875 and 1940, the assets and structures of nearly all Protestant denominations in America were transferred from people who held orthodox Christian beliefs to people who held the new theology of modernism or Liberalism. Many who still held orthodox beliefs accepted J. Gresham Machen’s conclusion that Liberalism was not only a different religion from Christianity, but actually a religion of a different kind. One cannot understand the development, eventual fracturing, and present internal strife of the evangelical world without grasping the significance of the theological issues that were first disputed with Protestant Liberalism.

Bradley Green, Union University

Augustine and Pelagianism. This ancient debate is not simply an old one, but is a perennial one.  Every Christian in every generation has to work through this issue, or should.  It is in wrestling with the question of grace—and in thinking through these two traditions in particular—that one can understand the majesty and beauty of grace.  Also, in working through the Augustinian and Pelagian traditions one should make sure and grasp what Augustine had to say about the reality of grace within and during the Christian life (and not just concerning grace and the beginning of, or entry into, the Christian life), which I believe is as important as any contribution Augustine made.  For Augustine, God’s grace does not simply initiate and bring about saving faith.  Grace certainly does that.  But additionally, God’s grace is a grace which efficaciously moves us to seek God, to obey Him, and to persevere.

Michael A.G. Haykin, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Arianism. The Arian controversy, which dominated the fourth century, is one of the three most important controversies that gripped the Ancient Church. Since it had as its subject matter the nature of God—specifically, were Jesus and the Holy Spirit fully God as the Father is God?—it discussed what is the central issue in the Christian Faith. As Athanasius argued, if Christ be not God then we are not saved, as only One who is divine could be our Saviour. Basil of Caesarea similarly concurred with regard to the Spirit: if the Spirit is a creature, then the salvation wrought by Christ falls short of impacting us, for again only One who is divine can communicate salvation.

Read other interviews, articles, and columns in Credo Magazine:

To view the Magazine as a PDF  

The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a triune God makes all the difference

One of the dangers every church faces is slipping, slowly and quietly and perhaps unknowingly, into a routine where sermons are preached, songs are sung, and the Lord’s Supper is consumed, but all is done without a deep sense and awareness of the Trinity. In other words, if we are not careful our churches, in practice, can look remarkably Unitarian. And such a danger is not limited to the pews of the church. As we leave on Sunday morning and go back into the world, does the gospel we share with our coworker look decisively and explicitly Trinitarian in nature? Or when we pray in the privacy of our own home, do the three persons of the Trinity make any difference in how we petition God?

In this issue of Credo Magazine, we have brought together some of the sharpest thinkers in order to bring our minds back to the beauty, glory, and majesty of our triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we do not merely want to see him as triune, but recognize why and how the Trinity makes all the difference in the Christian life. Therefore, in this issue Fred Sanders, Robert Letham, Michael Reeves, Scott Swain, Tim Challies, Stephen Holmes, and many others come together in order to help us think deeper thoughts about how God is one essence and three persons, and what impact the Trinity has on who we are and what we do as believers.

Matthew Barrett, Executive Editor

By Fred Zaspel–

In Matthew chapter 16 Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” The disciples replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But who do you say I am?” Jesus asked. And so Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

I am sure that when people of Jesus’ day said that they thought he was John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah, they meant to be generous and complimentary. After all, it was an honorable thing to be numbered among the great prophets! Jesus Himself said that John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets. To be identified with them would be an honor indeed.

Not surprisingly, then, when we ask people today the same question — “Who is Jesus?” — similar answers are often given. Some may say he was a prophet like the other prophets, with some differences perhaps. They may say he was a great teacher. Or they may place him in a respectable category of religious leaders such a Mohammed, Budah, Confucious. We often hear that he was a man like other men — a man with superior qualities in significant areas, of course, but in the final analysis, a man on the level of other men.

What is significant is that these answers, as respectful as they may have seemed, did not satisfy our Lord. Not until Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Divine Messiah was the question answered well enough. “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!”

In his comments on this passage Matthew Henry observes, simply, that it is entirely possible to have an honorable opinion of the Lord Jesus which is nonetheless wrong — an honorable opinion that is not honorable enough. Not until, like Peter, we acknowledge Jesus’ uniqueness and recognize Him as the Lord from Heaven do we give Him the honor and reverence that is due Him.

Fred Zaspel holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the Free University of Amsterdam. He is currently a pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is the author of The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010) and Warfield on the Christian Life: Living in Light of the Gospel (Crossway, 2012).

Introduced by Matthew Claridge–

By Luke Stamps–

This summer I am teaching a course on Christian Theology to a cohort of students from several churches here in Southern California through the Online and Professional Studies division of California Baptist University. I will actually be teaching the course on site at one of the churches, which should serve as a helpful reminder that the ultimate context of Christian theology is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So I’ve been thinking a lot about how I am going to present the basics of the Christian faith to this class of ministers and aspiring ministers who are completing their Bachelor of Arts degree in Christian Studies.  A large part of the task of theology is defining our terms.  I love definitions. I love the challenge of summarizing in just a few words or sentences precisely what we mean when we use certain terms. John Webster has described the task of systematic theology in precisely this definitional mode: “Dogmatic theology operates best when it is a kind of gloss on the truth of the Christian gospel as it is encountered in the Bible” (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, p. 130).  In other words, the doctrines of systematic theology do not replace or stand over the Bible, but rather they provide definitions and summaries of certain key terms and themes that we encounter in the biblical story.  As such, these definitions are in constant need of revision as further light is cast upon the biblical plotline.

So how should theologians define the task of theology itself?  The term “theology” doesn’t occur in the Bible, but certainly the Bible assumes that its readers will give themselves over to knowing and loving God, which is perhaps the simplest way to define the goal of theology.  But what can we say by way of a fuller and more comprehensive definition of Christian theology? Well, I’ve recently been honing my own definition and here’s what I’ve come up with so far:

Christian theology is the systematic examination of the being, attributes, and works of the Triune God, through the careful study of his revelation to human beings in the created order and preeminently in Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures, practiced within the context of the church of Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, to the end that God’s people might know, love, trust and obey him in increasing measure to the glory of his holy name.

There are several key components to this definition:

1. The subject of theology: God (his existence, attributes and Triune life) and his works (creation, providence, redemption and judgment).

2. The method of theology: systematic examination. This would have to be fleshed out quite a bit, but I have in mind a theological method that is anchored in biblical theology, sensitive to historical theology and oriented toward the contemporary re-articulation of biblical truth, that is, systematic theology.

3. The source of theology: God’s revelation—both general revelation (the created order) and preeminently special revelation (Christ and his Word).

4. The context of theology: the church of Jesus Christ, both local and global, both contemporary and historic. We could also develop this in terms of the church gathered and the church scattered. Theology affects not only what we do when we meet on the Lord’s Day (preaching and teaching, fellowship, the ordinances, prayer, praise, giving) but also what we do when we are sent back into the world to love and serve our neighbors in our various callings.

5. The power of theology: the Holy Spirit. Only the Spirit can give us eyes to see and ears to hear what the Risen Christ is saying through the Scriptures to the contemporary church.

6. The goal of theology: the edification of God’s people and the glory of God’s name.  Theology is a practical science. It is oriented toward knowing and loving God and loving and serving our neighbors. Like the Scriptures it is built upon, Christian theology is concerned with “what man ought to believe concerning God and what duty God requireth of man” (The Baptist Catechism, Q6).  By attending to these things, theology can fulfill its ultimate purpose: the glorification of the One who makes the whole enterprise possible.

So there you have it. My (admittedly verbose) definition of Christian theology. What about you? How would you define theology? Have you come across a particularly helpful definition? Let me know in the comments below.

Luke Stamps is Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at California Baptist University (OPS). He is also a Ph.D. candidate at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in systematic theology. Luke is writing his dissertation in the field of Christology. Luke is married to Josie, and they have three children, Jack, Claire, and Henry. Luke is a weekly contributor to the Credo blog.

By Thomas Schreiner–

One of the problems with preachers who are obsessed with prophecy is that virtually read every current event as a sign that Jesus is coming back. Most of us see the mistake in that view. But we could fall into the opposite extreme so that we don’t think much about Jesus’ second coming. For instance, the Abstract of Principles, the statement of faith at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where I teach, says nothing about Jesus coming back. Surely it was assumed when the statement was written. Still, such a cardinal doctrine should be stated outright. As Christians we should think much about his return. We don’t want to throw the baby (Jesus’ coming) out with the bathwater (strange views of prophecy).

If you are a Christian, Jesus’ return will be the happiest day of your life. And if you are an unbeliever, it will be the worst day of your life, a day of judgment and destruction. So what should we do?

Be Prepared, for Jesus is Coming Soon!

Revelation 22:6 reads, “And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.” Notice the emphasis on when these things will take place. The rest of the passage emphasizes the nearness of the Lord’s return as well:

“And behold, I am coming soon.” (22:7)
“Do not seal up the words of the prophecy ( in contrast to Daniel) of this book, for the time is near.” (22:10)
“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me.” (22:12)
“He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (22:22)

After 2000 years it may seem like Jesus didn’t and won’t come soon. But remember, one day with the Lord is as a thousand years as 2 Peter 3 tells us. Peter also tells us that the Lord extends the time before Jesus comes so more will repent and believe.

Every generation has rightly said that Jesus may come back soon. Every generation has rightly said that the end is near. Surely our generation of all generations should believe this. We have nuclear weapons by which we can destroy one another. North Korea is belligerently threatening to use such weapons. As more nations get such weapons, the possibility increases that a world-wide war will start with the launching of such weapons by some rogue nation or crazy dictator. Iran, for example, is threatening to blow Israel off the map. The tensions between Islamic nations and the West run high. Surely the world is on the precipice. There is no evidence that human beings have become wiser or more peaceful or more loving as history has progressed. Surely, the time is ripe for Jesus to come again.

So, we pray, “Come, Lord Jesus!” We pray, “Your kingdom, come.” Did you notice that the words “Come, Lord Jesus” are a prayer to Jesus? Sometimes people say we should only pray to the Father, but here is a good example of a prayer made directly to Jesus, showing Jesus is fully God.

Do you pray, “Come, Lord Jesus”? Or, have we become so wrapped up in the world that we think only of our own life and our own interests? Do we think this is our best life now? It isn’t. How right it is to pray: “Lord Jesus, please come now! Please wrap up history. May your glory shine over the whole earth by coming again.” And remember what Revelation says, “Jesus is coming soon.” So let’s pray that he will come soon! Many will be surprised. Many will not be ready. You be ready by doing his will.

Hear and Obey God’s Word

The admonition to hear and obey God’s Word is given in the context of the second coming. Did you notice how central God’s Word is in these verses? Hear v. 6: “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”

Do doubts creep in your mind whether Jesus is coming again? John reminds us that these words are true. And by implication all the words of Scripture are true. Remember what Jesus said right after predicting his second coming in Matthew 24? He said “Heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Brothers and sisters, we can trust God’s word. He is always faithful to what he says in it. And it is not just a matter of truth for our heads.

We read in v. 10: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book.” In Revelation the command not to seal up the book is given for the time is near. And by implication this command is true for all of God’s word. We must teach and proclaim this word and announce it to unbelievers. One thing we can say to unbelievers is this: “Jesus is coming again. Are you ready to meet him?” Maybe you can start a conversation with an unbeliever by saying, “Did you know the Bible says Jesus is coming again?” And then just respond to what they say next.

We see the importance of God’s word in v. 16 as well: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.” What I want to emphasize here is that God has given his Word for the life of the church, for our life together. We gather corporately to hear God’s word. We don’t gather to watch movies or videos or to be entertained with stories but to hear the word of God. This is why one of our core values at Clifton Baptist Church, where I preach and pastor, is expositional preaching. We must hear God’s ideas not ours.

But it is not enough just to hear the Word. We must also obey and keep God’s Word. Consider verses 7 and 9:

“Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.” (22:7)

“I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book.” (22:9)

Allow me to give you a biblical example. The Bible says we are to pray for those who are your enemies. Pray for those you don’t like. Do you do that? Can you think of anyone you don’t like right now? Are you praying for that person? Are you doing good to them? Are you asking God to bless them?

Finally, let’s look at vv. 18-19:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

This passage refers to Revelation directly but by extension to all the Bible. It is Satanic to deny God’s word. The devil sows doubts in our hearts about God’s word. “Has God said?” The devil denies God’s word, “You shall not surely die.” So often those in the past who have rejected God’s Word think of themselves as suave, educated, sophisticated, and intelligent. But in reality they have abandoned what God has said about himself. This only highlights the importance of reading and studying the Word of God. Do you spend time in the word of God? Are you feeding your mind with truth or are you spending too much doing other things, maybe even good things, and not being nurtured in the word?

Come and Wash

We read in v. 17: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” What do we have to do to be saved? Many think you have to work hard at being really good. You must show how moral you are, and be a good person. But the Bible says we need to come: come to a person.

Have you thought of God as a person whom you are to love and to obey? If you are an unbeliever, he is inviting you to come, and to take. And what are the qualifications? You must be thirsty and needy, recognizing that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness.

Verse 14 uses the imagery of washing ourselves: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.” If you want life, if you want to be in the heavenly city, then you have to come in by the gates. And that means you have to come by washing away your sin in the blood of the lamb. He provided a cleansing for sins at the cross and we need to come and wash. We are not called to do a great thing but a simple thing!

But there is a warning here as well: Be careful that you don’t linger too long so it is too late. As verses 11-12 explain, “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” This verse means that one must come before it is too late. For when the day of judgment comes there will be no more time. Hence verse 12: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.” (22:12)

Worship Jesus

Not only are we cleansed, but we worship the one who cleansed us. But notice that we are only to worship God. “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.’” (vv.8-9)

It is very clear that Jesus is fully God. We read in verse 13: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Here we see the echoes of Isaiah 44:6, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” The parallel with Isaiah 44:6 makes this very clear. And then add to this verse 16: “I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” Here we also see that Jesus is fully human and fulfills the covenant made with David. So in this passage we see that Jesus is fully man and yet fully God, deserving our worship and praise.

Rely on Grace

Last, the passage closes in v. 21 by instructing us to rely on the grace of God. “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.” Notice, the final word of Revelation is grace. And it is the final word of our lives too. As Paul said, by the grace of God I am what I am. The final word for us is grace. The final signature over our lives is grace. And the final word in the final book of the Bible is grace. May God’s grace strengthen us until the last day, until the day Jesus returns. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Thomas Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Among his many books are Romans, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology, and Galatians.

Interview by Matthew Claridge–

Today, Credo is pleased to introduce Ian J. Shaw and his new book entitled Churches, Revolutions, and Empires (1789-1914). Dr. Shaw is currently the Director of the Langham Scholarship programme in the UK. As one can see from the tile and the time span covered, Dr. Shaw has assumed the daunting task of summarizing this volatile and crucial period in church history. For the church in the 21st century, I cannot think of a more informative and comphrensive introduction to the churches of the 19th century.

I believe you have made a strong case that the period covered in your book, 1789-1914, represents a epoch of revolutionary change in the church’s two thousand year history. As such, do you think this period should receive equal if not more attention as is given to the Reformation period in evangelical centers of higher learning?

 Yes, alongside a thorough grounding in the Reformation period, those preparing for Christian ministry should understand the 1789-1914 period equally well. 

The Reformation was clearly foundational to the formulation and articulation of the theology that lay at the heart of evangelicalism. Between 1789 and 1914 the work of the Reformers then sustained severe theological challenges, and the responses to those challenges (sometimes successful, sometimes less so) shaped the church for much of the twentieth century. The period also brought profound social changes, the legacy of which the church still struggles to come to terms with. The beginnings of the extraordinary global expansion of Christianity, which became such a feature of the twentieth century, also proved equally revolutionary and need to be understood by evangelicals training for ministry in today’s world. 

In the popular imagination, Christian mission is often stained by its connection with imperialism and its record of cultural and economic exploitation. Is this a fair association?

 There were clearly some serious mistakes made in the nineteenth century missionary movement, where some became apologists for, and agents of, colonialism. Yet others saw the spread of colonial influence from the West as God’s providential opening of a door for global mission. As chapters 9 and 13 show, some enlightened advocates of mission appealed to the conscience of the imperial authorities, and called for wise rule, or challenged inappropriate actions. By bringing access to literacy, and rendering spoken languages into modern form, much local culture was preserved, and the seeds sown for future development potential. Churches, Revolutions and Empires explores both sides of this complex story.

Although I had seen the film Amazing Grace, I was genuinely shocked at how extensively the church was involved throughout the 19^th century in social causes, both moral and practical. It continues to be a hotly debated topic in Evangelicalism over how we should integrate social justice with gospel proclamation. Any lessons from our 19^th century forbearers?

 For much of the nineteenth century evangelicals were able to retain a healthy balance between evangelism and social concern. As several chapters in the book demonstrate, it was a natural outflow of their compassion for society as a whole, including those who did not know Christ. Evangelicals were prepared to live and work where the need was the greatest. As with the medical missionary movement, they hoped for the double cure of the soul and the body, and this did not lead to a watering down of the gospel. Only later in the century did this balance begin to be lost, with social concern becoming associated with a social gospel shaped by liberal theology. However, a number of examples in the book show how it was possible to be absolutely committed to evangelism and a desire for conversion, whilst also being moved to compassionate social action for those in great need.

The triumph of Darwin was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. How was it that Darwin’s theory finally gained the ascendancy in the scientific community?

 Many of those who promoted Darwinism did so from a strongly anti-religious stance, for which they were determined apologists. Part of their agenda was to undermine deeply held Christian views on the origin and nature of creation, although most retained an admiration for the moral and ethical teaching of Christianity. The way they presented their case in the popular media was an important part of their growing influence – as is shown in the way that the outcome of the famous Wilberforce – Huxley debate (see chapter ten) as portrayed. As a result, those committed to a Creationist position found themselves increasingly excluded from leading scientific positions, making it difficult for them to offer a sustained challenge to the growing acceptance of Darwinism.  

In some quarters of evangelical or Reformed thought, “voluntarism” has created a consumer-minded church with a watered-down theology. Yet voluntarism appears to have been quite a dynamic force in the resilience and spread of the church during the 19^th century. Is that a fair assessment?

 As the first chapter of Churches, Revolutions and Empires shows, the strength of evangelicalism in the United States in the early nineteenth century owed much to the voluntarist approach. Free of any association with an ‘Established’ church, evangelicalism was able to dynamically adapt its structures to the opportunities that the new nation presented. The strength of Nonconformity in Britain was similarly notable, with most Nonconformists committed to a strongly evangelical theology, although the evangelical tradition was also important to many Anglicans. Most of the missionary movement was also organized on voluntarist lines, and vast sums of money and large numbers of recruits, were mobilized.

I have often placed the Enlightenment and biblical Christianity in two radically opposing camps. Yet it became clear as I read your book that, despite the obvious antagonisms, the Enlightenment did lend some of its values to the social priorities of the church.  Could you tease out for our readers some of these cross-winds of influence?

 The historian David Bebbington has stressed the continuities between the Enlightenment and evangelicalism. It must be remembered that the Enlightenment grew notably out of Europe’s rich Reformation heritage. Evangelicals stressed the value of education and the dignity of the individual. Through their emphasis on education (shared with other enlightenment thinkers) evangelicals sought to open the capacities of the mind to read the Bible, and understand the truths of Christian teaching. The outflow was seen in the promotion of day schools, Sunday schools, and approaches to mission, as chapter seven especially shows. The Christian faith was to be preached ‘reasonably,’ appealing to the rational faculties of hearers. The importance of the individual’s rights and individual conscience was shared by both evangelicals and enlightenment thinkers, and both promoted a good deal of humanitarian concern. As chapter five shows, John Wesley’s hatred of slavery was moved by both biblical teaching and humanitarian enlightenment values.

Could you help us understand why the growing nationalistic conscience of the 19^th century often helped the church in some countries and hindered it in others?

 This is discussed in chapter twelve of Churches, Revolutions and Empires. In some countries churches helped to shape national identity – such as in Greece, or Russia. A close connection between church and state resulted, such that national and religious identities were fused together. Elsewhere, there was a strong reaction against the power of the church, and its influence on state policy, which was a feature of some independence movements in Latin America. In revolutionary France, as chapter two shows, there was even an attempt to remove Christianity and all Christian influence from the nation.

A profound shift seems to have occurred in missions philosophy in the mid to late 19^th century. Early on there was a focus on developing indigenous and self-sufficient churches. Why did the missionary movement begin to move away from this model?

 One cause for this shift was an impatience with how long it took to educate and prepare Christian leaders who had no educational background. The economic development of some regions was very slow, making it hard for churches to support their own clergy. Yet, as chapter thirteen shows, something of the harmful racial thinking of the late nineteenth century crept into churches and mission thinking, rendering white missionaries reluctant to entrust non-white Christians with leadership roles, amidst claims that they were less well developed peoples, and not to be trusted with leadership. When missionary control of the newer churches was eased in the second half of the twentieth century they exploded into growth. In parts of China and Korea, the acceptance by missions leaders of the need for self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating churches created churches independent of mission control far more quickly.

“Paternalism” was a term I found coming up several times in your book to describe how the church conceived of the task of social justice at home and abroad. Could you define this term and its pros and cons as it played out in the years 1789-1914?

 Paternalism was the view that those with power and influence should use it responsibly for the sake of those without power and influence – it was a God-given duty to do so. This was the approach of the evangelical Philanthropist Lord Shaftesbury. It was based on a hierarchical social view, and often those who held it were fearful of popular democracy. Despite this, those who used their power and wealth wisely did a great deal of good for those who benefitted from it. Many governments still see it as their role to act ‘paternally’ towards their people, and use power responsibly. However, paternalism can limit the capacity of the marginalized in society to have a say in their own fate, underplaying their own capacity and dignity.

Michael Rydelnik. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.

Review by Fred Zaspel–

I’m fairly certain that if the average evangelical Christian layman were to hear a respected teacher say that Genesis 3:15 (the promised defeat of the Serpent) is not a messianic prophecy, the response would be one of complete bewilderment: (while scratching their head) “You mean it’s not about Jesus?” Then, after the teacher proceeded to say the same about Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (the prophet greater than Moses), Psalm 110 (great David’s greater son), Isaiah 7:14 (the virgin-born  Immanuel), and Isaiah 9:6 (the son given to rule) the Christian layman would likely be suspicious that something’s awry. The fact is that for those who have read “the rest of the story” it is nearly impossible to read such passages and not think that they are intended to point us to Jesus. Such a reading is instinctive to the Christian. And, in fact, this was the view of Jewish teachers (before Christ, at least) also.

Without hesitation I would bet my money with the Christian layman, but the fact is many Biblical scholars — devoted evangelical scholars among them — will argue that this instinct is mistaken. Understanding just how messianic prophecy “works” has long been a subject of scholarly inquiry and debate. And there is a marked hesitation even among some evangelicals to acknowledge that many of these type of Old Testament passages are directly messianic. There may be a “double fulfillment” or a sensus plenior or even a typological fulfilment, or an outright denial of any messianic connection. But acknowledgment of direct messianic prophecy is often difficult to come by.

Enter Michael Rydelnik. Raised in a Orthodox Jewish home these prophecies played a significant role in his own conversion, and it (rightly) concerns him that such hesitations effectively neutralize the force of the Bible’s primary contention about Jesus (that he is the object of Israel’s ancient messianic hope) and thereby rob the Christian of a leading avenue of witness and a leading reason for confidence in the divine authorship and trustworthiness of Scripture. So he sets out in this book to establish the messianic hope as the centerpiece of the Old Testament.

In chapter one Rydelnik states his case in brief, providing definitions, stressing the importance of messianic prophecy, and charting the way forward in his study. Then in chapter two he surveys the various approaches scholars have advocated. Here he provides a summary of the major literature of the past two or three centuries and then a general classification of their respective positions. This chapter is very helpful toward bringing the reader “up to speed” in the discussion.

Chapter three treats text-critical issues, highlighting the fact that the Masoretic Text reflects, at times, the theological perspectives of post-Christian (i.e., AD) Jewish rabbinic Judaism; thus, the messianic intent of the original is sometimes found in the critical apparatus. Rydelnik provides several stimulating examples to illustrate his point, which, in the end, serve to strengthen his case regarding the deliberate messianic thrust of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Chapter four investigates three passages from the Pentateuch (Gen. 49:8-12; Num. 24:14-19; Deut. 18:15-19), demonstrating that not only are these passages themselves intentionally messianic in outlook but also that they were treated as such by later Old Testament writers. This chapter is an exegetical gold mine for preachers seeking to expound these passages. In Chapter five Rydelnik provides some “canonical perspectives” on messianic prophecy, exposing the messianic considerations in the shaping of the Hebrew canon. Again his case is strengthened by his demonstration of a conscious recognition — on the part of the faithful in the centuries before Jesus — of a messianic hope intentionally fostered by the Biblical writers.

Chapter six provides considerations of fundamental significance in this discussion. It is often alleged that the apostles were arbitrary in their treatment of Old Testament prophecy. Rydelnik shows that the apostolic hermeneutic was learned first from Jesus and that it was, in fact, a way of reading the Old Testament that our Lord himself specifically endorsed. The usual passages (e.g., Luke 24) are examined but with more than usual attention to detail in establishing his case.

Chapter seven examines four ways the New Testament uses the Old: “direct fulfillment” (Matt. 2:5-6 / Micah 5:2), “typical fulfillment” (Matt. 2:15 / Hos. 11:1), “applicational fulfillment” (Matt. 2:16- 18 / Jer. 31:15), and “summary fulfillment” (Matt. 2:19-23). This again is an exegetical gold mine in regard to these (and attending) passages, and Rydelnik goes further to stress that as followers of Jesus we ought to learn to treat the Old Testament in the same way.

In chapter eight Rydelnik seeks to trace out the influence of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzkhaki (1040-1105) on later Jewish and Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) interpreters, thus providing one accounting for the trend away from messianic exegesis.

Chapter nine provides a thorough analysis of Genesis 3:15 in its own context and purpose and in light of the Pentateuch and later Old Testament Scriptures. Chapter ten does the same with Isaiah 7:14, and chapter eleven does the same with Psalm 110. Certainly no preacher would want to overlook the help offered here in handling these prophecies. And chapter twelve concludes The discussion of the New Testament handling of the Old will doubtless continue, and Rydelnik will not convince everyone at each point of exegesis. Of course. But his work is a helpful corrective to those who are slow to acknowledge direct messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, and it is very helpful toward a right understanding of Israel’s ancient hope. Whether a given prophecy here or there should be understood as directly messianic or if more subtle nuances may be involved we may debate, but Rydelnik is certainly right to challenge us to see the Old Testament writers as intentional in their presentation of the Messiah. He certainly succeeds in providing a framework, at least, for understanding specific prophecies, and throughout the book, as I have indicated, he provides a wealth of exegetical aid for the preacher. Not just the New Testament but the entire Bible is a book about Jesus, and Rydelnik deserves our thanks for making that more clear for us.

Fred Zaspel holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the Free University of Amsterdam. He is currently a pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is the author of The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010) and Warfield on the Christian Life: Living in Light of the Gospel (Crossway, 2012).

Today we would like to highlight some helpful messages from Fred Zaspel. As many of you know, Fred is a weekly blogger here at Credo Magazine. He is pastor at the Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia, PA. He is also Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He is the author of The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary  and Warfield on the Christian Life: Living in Light of the Gospel. Here are a dozen or so messages by Fred that you will benefit from:

Warfield and the Christian Life

Seeking Things Above

Discipleship & The Great Commission

Joys & Sorrows of Christian Parenting – 1

Joys & Sorrows of Christian Parenting – 2

Christ – Our Only Theme

The Bitter Cup

Jesus and the Good Shepherd

Jesus, the New Temple

Jesus, the Gift of God’s Love

Lessons for Sufferers from Job

Cur Deus Homo?

By Matthew Barrett–

For professors and pastors alike, one of the most troubling and disturbing realities today is that many of those whom we teach and preach to have little understanding of the person of Christ. It can be quite shocking to discover that those who claim the label “Christian” know not the Christ they follow.

For a young pastor or professor this can be very discouraging. However, if you find that I am describing you and those under your care, it will do us good to take a lesson from the past. If we take a trip back in time to the seventeenth century, what we find is that many Puritan pastors encountered the same phenomenon.

First, consider John Owen, whom many have called the greatest of all Puritans. Owen, at the young age of 26, took a pastorate in Fordham in Essex. To his surprise, he discovered that his congregation was “grossly ignorant” of the person of Christ and the gospel. Owen, however, did not despair. Instead, he put his hands to work, writing two catechisms that focused attention on the person of Christ, the gospel, and the Trinity. The first catechism was short, designed for children. The second was much longer, meant to be studied by the adults. Here in the simple form of a catechism, Owen began to teach children and adults alike who Christ is, what he has done, and why all of this matters for our salvation and the Christian life. Certainly Christology would not be something Owen left behind. These early days would be followed by years to come in which Owen took on the great threat of Socinianism, which in his day led so many astray in rejecting the deity of Christ, as well as his substitutionary work on the cross.

Second, consider Richard Baxter, who likewise encountered the same type of ignorance when it came to Christ and his gospel. In his famous book, The Reformed Pastor, Baxter explains the situation:

For my part, I study to speak as plainly and movingly as I can, (and next to my study to speak truly, these are my chief studies,) and yet I frequently meet with those that have been my hearers eight or ten years, who know not whether Christ be God or man, and wonder when I tell them the history of his birth and life and death, as if they had never heard it before. And of those who know the history of the gospel, how few are there who know the nature of that faith, repentance, and holiness, which it requireth, or, at least, who know their own hearts? … I have found by experience, that some ignorant persons, who have been so long unprofitable hearers, have got more knowledge and remorse of conscience in half and hour’s close discourse, than they did from ten years’ public preaching.

Like Owen, Baxter knows that something must be done to help his people come to a basic understanding of Christ and the gospel. As Sinclair Ferguson observes, this is what led Baxter to engage in his “catechetical labours at Kidderminster.”

What we learn from the experiences of these two Puritans is that even in the seventeenth-century many congregations simply did not know or understand who Christ is nor the gospel he proclaimed. It is no wonder then that Socinianism so easily crept into the church. Certainly this is a warning for us today: if our people do not know Christ and his gospel, they will feed on that which falsely resembles it.

Those we teach today are no different. Many lack a clear understanding of Jesus. Our job is to bring them to the feet of Christ, so that in discovering his person they are brought to their knees in worship of him as their Savior.

Matthew Barrett (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of California Baptist University (OPS), as well as the founder and executive editor of Credo Magazine. He is the author of The Grace of Godliness: An Introduction to Doctrine and Piety in the Canons of Dort, Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration, as well as the coeditor of Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), and Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy. 

Kelly Kapic and Bruce McCormack, eds. Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012.

Review by Matthew Claridge–

I think I can speak for many in the evangelical Reformed camp that Modern Theology often comes across as a wasteland of Ozymandias proportions. Nonetheless, the edifice of many a modern re-construction of Christian theology does have a certain appeal. The sheer ingenuity and imagination required to produce a theology the likes of Hegel or Barth can be as entertaining to read as watching a good sci-fi film. Of course, no self-respecting Modern theologian views their theologizing as a “game,” but it is, in the modern sense, often a product of playful “genius.” This simultaneous repugnance and attraction is captured well in J.I. Packer’s blurb for another popular guide to Modern Theology: it’s a “strange, romantic land, seemingly far off.” For me, then, reading much Modern Theology need not be a frustrating experience. It can be a fantastic one. Its an exercise in imagining how things could be, but happily are not.

The title of Kapic and McCormack’s recent book on Modern Theology is particularly appropriate, Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction. How do you make your way around in this “Alice-in-Wonderland” world? Like trying to untangle the family tree of the Greek Pantheon, Modern theologians and their theological progeny can get easily confusing. Rather than attempting to capture everything a theologian is trying to do and say, the editors have filtered their analysis through the classic theological loci, e.g., “Theology Proper,” “Scripture,” “Anthropology,” “Christology,” “ecclesiology,” etc. Several theologians, of course, keep reappearing in each chapter, but it is certainly helpful to follow how one thread of their theology has developed and contributed to subsequent theological reflection in one particular area. Hence, this is a “thematic and historical introduction.” Rather than relying on a creative outline of their own, the editors’ use of the well-worn and time-tested theological loci goes a long way in clearing the fog that often attends engagement with Modern Theology.

Besides that overall positive element, we could list several other general strengths. The contributing authors for each chapter are, for the most part, outstanding. Some chapters may be better than others, but all of them are informative and handle their material with remarkable aplomb. There’s quite a list of well-known names who have contributed to the volume: Fred Sanders, Kevin Vanhoozer, John Webster, Richard Lints, and Michael Horton among others. Frankly, this was one reason why I was eager to read the book. The most stimulating chapters in my opinion were those by Fred Sanders on “The Trinity,” Stephen R. Holmes on “Divine Attributes,” Kelly Kapic on “Anthropology,” Bruce McCormack on “The Person of Christ,” and John Webster on “Providence.”

The more or less Reformed perspective of the contributors is a bonus which provides at least some confessional standpoint from which to engage the vagaries of Modern Theology. It was gratifying to notice that some chapters engaged with modern “evangelical” theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Charles Hodge. I’m thankful they received a voice here. There are more dialogue partners in Modern theology than Kant, Pannenberg, and Barth. I particularly liked Fred Sander’s subtle jab at the self-importance of the Liberal academic trajectory: “What Barth accomplished was to leverage his own credibility as a decidedly modern theologian, in touch with all the right academic interlocutors and able to draw the attention of academic practitioners, in order to put the classic doctrine of the Trinity in terms that could engage that subculture” (41, emphasis mine).

The book is designed primarily to be a descriptive analysis of Modern Theology, but personal judgment and opinion often intrudes. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I appreciated it. History books listing mere “facts” in chronological sequence are never very helpful. The best chapters in the book are often the most constructive and prescriptive. In some cases, this was a bit over done. Michael Horton’s chapter on Eschatology, while still informative, is nonetheless virtually an argument for Amillenialism. Other chapters provided thought-provoking critiques of the increasingly popular “Analytic theology” movement (Holmes and Webster).

Are there some shortcomings to this volume? Perhaps a few. Overall, this “introduction” to Modern Theology is still a hefty and demanding read. It’s definitely upper graduate level reading for those who have already been exposed to the ABC’s of Modern Theology. The authors often assume a good deal from their readers. This is not entirely a negative; there is just as much a need for such upper level treatments as for more basic introductions.

The only real structural flaw that stands out is the absence of a chapter on hamartiology, the doctrine of sin. To my mind, this is a fairly significant oversight. Not only is the doctrine of sin the elephant in the room in many permutations of Modern Theology, it might have helped to add a counter-balance to some sympathetic portrayals in the book. For instance, McCormack argues that Barthian Christology ties up the loose ends left frayed by the third Council of Constantinople in his chapter on “The Person of Christ” (perhaps the best chapter of the book).  However, a treatment of Barth’s doctrine of sin in the context of his radical supralapsarianism might well temper McCormack’s conclusion a bit.

Otherwise, Mapping Modern Theology is a truly great contribution. It certainly deserves a place among graduate level textbooks providing an advanced introduction to Modern Theology.

Matthew Claridge, Senior Pastor of Mt. Idaho Baptist Church in Grangeville, ID

This book review is from the new issue of Credo Magazine. Read it today!

To view the Magazine as a PDF  

The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a triune God makes all the difference

One of the dangers every church faces is slipping, slowly and quietly and perhaps unknowingly, into a routine where sermons are preached, songs are sung, and the Lord’s Supper is consumed, but all is done without a deep sense and awareness of the Trinity. In other words, if we are not careful our churches, in practice, can look remarkably Unitarian. And such a danger is not limited to the pews of the church. As we leave on Sunday morning and go back into the world, does the gospel we share with our coworker look decisively and explicitly Trinitarian in nature? Or when we pray in the privacy of our own home, do the three persons of the Trinity make any difference in how we petition God?

In this issue of Credo Magazine, we have brought together some of the sharpest thinkers in order to bring our minds back to the beauty, glory, and majesty of our triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we do not merely want to see him as triune, but recognize why and how the Trinity makes all the difference in the Christian life. Therefore, in this issue Fred Sanders, Robert Letham, Michael Reeves, Scott Swain, Tim Challies, Stephen Holmes, and many others come together in order to help us think deeper thoughts about how God is one essence and three persons, and what impact the Trinity has on who we are and what we do as believers.

Matthew Barrett, Executive Editor

In the most recent issue of the magazine, “The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a Triune God Makes All the Difference,” Joey Allen checks in for five minutes in order to talk to us about how we should teach our children about the Trinity. Joey, his wife Christy, and two little theologians Claire (6) and Joe (3) have worked in a Muslim South Asian country for over five years. Joey holds a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from the University of Georgia and a Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. Joey is the author of the Big Thoughts for Little Thinkers series, which includes The Gospel, The Trinity, The Scriptures, and The Mission, published by New Leaf Press. Here is the interview with Joey:

As parents, why is it so important to teach our children about the doctrine of the Trinity at a young age?

I am baffled that teaching the Trinity is often seen as something other than teaching about God. Parents and teachers treat the Trinity like a spare tire—it’s good to have, but not necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No one would argue that the gospel is optional, and yet the gospel is a trinitarian reality. The gospel becomes unintelligible without a concept of the distinct persons of God. For example, 1 John 4:14 says, “The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.” This simple gospel verse opens our eyes to the persons of the Trinity working together to bring about our salvation. The Trinity is more like the engine that drives our understanding of the gospel—therefore, it is utterly indispensable.

Since God is more wonderful than anything in the Universe, we want our children to experience the joy of knowing God. To know God as he really is, as he has revealed himself in the Bible, is to know him as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Media bombards even the most sheltered kids, teaching them explicit and implicit messages about God, themselves, and the world. If parents do not intentionally instruct their children in the truth of God, Satan will not miss his opportunity.

The Trinity can be very difficult to understand. What is your advice to parents as they explain the Trinity to their children?

With a unanimous voice, the godly men and women of old declare that faith comes before understanding. Indeed, faith is the door that opens our understanding. So my advice would be, “Don’t worry about your child’s ability to understand the Trinity. Simply teach them what is true.”

Adults struggle with the mysterious nature of the Trinity. Children just accept it. Children exhibit remarkable faith. My three-year old son believes that there is one God who is three persons. He has never once asked me, “How can that be?” I wonder if this isn’t the kind of child-like faith Jesus said was necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven.

How can parents avoid heretical definitions of the Trinity in their efforts to simplify such a complex concept for their children?

Parents can avoid heretical definitions of the Trinity by not trying to simplify a complex concept. The Trinity is deep. Let it be that way. We want our children to have an exalted view of God. Ask your children if an ant can understand an airplane. In the same way, we can’t come close to grasping God.

Allowing your explanation of the Trinity to be complex doesn’t mean you have to go into details about the economic Trinity or the speculative notions from contemporary scholarship. For very young children, simply teaching that there is one God who has always been the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may be enough. As they grow, so can your explanations.

David Covington said, “Mystery is not the absence of meaning, but the presence of more meaning than we can comprehend.” The doctrine of the Trinity is mysterious, yes, but we can teach our children with confidence what Christians have always believed about God.

What about illustrations and analogies? Should we use them when describing the Trinity to our children? Why or why not?

In my Big Thoughts for Little Thinkers book on the Trinity, I don’t use any illustrations or analogies. I don’t want children thinking God is like an egg or water. Whenever we equate God with something in his Creation, we fall into error.

I don’t think illustrations or analogies are bad, as long as we clearly understand that they are only illustrations or analogies. Augustine, for example, used analogies quite freely. His meditations on 1 John 4:8, “God is love,” provide some of the most profound insights into the nature of God that theologians have ever considered. I think kids can understand that love needs more than one person, so if God is love, we understand that God is both the lover and the beloved. This kind of description may help children understand the Trinity better.

The gospel itself gives us tremendous insight into the Trinity because in the gospel we see the Father sending the Son, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to take the wrath of the Father in order to invite us into the eternal community of God. Parents who get a hold of this truth will love teaching the doctrine of the Trinity to their kids.  

Read other interviews in the new issue of Credo Magazine:

To view the Magazine as a PDF  

The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a triune God makes all the difference

One of the dangers every church faces is slipping, slowly and quietly and perhaps unknowingly, into a routine where sermons are preached, songs are sung, and the Lord’s Supper is consumed, but all is done without a deep sense and awareness of the Trinity. In other words, if we are not careful our churches, in practice, can look remarkably Unitarian. And such a danger is not limited to the pews of the church. As we leave on Sunday morning and go back into the world, does the gospel we share with our coworker look decisively and explicitly Trinitarian in nature? Or when we pray in the privacy of our own home, do the three persons of the Trinity make any difference in how we petition God?

In this issue of Credo Magazine, we have brought together some of the sharpest thinkers in order to bring our minds back to the beauty, glory, and majesty of our triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we do not merely want to see him as triune, but recognize why and how the Trinity makes all the difference in the Christian life. Therefore, in this issue Fred Sanders, Robert Letham, Michael Reeves, Scott Swain, Tim Challies, Stephen Holmes, and many others come together in order to help us think deeper thoughts about how God is one essence and three persons, and what impact the Trinity has on who we are and what we do as believers.

Matthew Barrett, Executive Editor

HT: Justin Taylor

By Matthew Barrett–

Brannon Ellis. Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Brannon Ellis takes on a massive and controversial subject in his new book, examining the different Reformation and post-Reformation reactions to Calvin’s understanding of the Son’s aseity or self-existence, particularly in light of the long history of “eternal generation.” Ellis also looks at Calvin himself, and how he affirmed the Son’s eternal begotteness, while simultaneously asserting his deity in and of himself. Ellis argues that Calvin did not stray from classical trinitarianism but his view sought to be the most consistent with it. Michael Horton commends the book, saying:

Ellis guides us on a well-researched and well-written tour of Calvin’s controversial defense of the Son’s aseity, its reception history, and the secondary literature among which this book itself now takes pride of place. Anyone interested in the history of Trinitarian reflection or the development of the Reformed theological tradition will be impressed by Ellis’s passionate interest in the subject as well as the seriousness, nuance, and weight of his arguments.

Euan Cameron. The European Reformation. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Cameron’s second edition of The European Reformation is out. Cameron is Henry Luce III Professor of Reformation Church History at Union Theological Seminary, New York. Previously he taught at the University of Oxford. How is this second edition different, you ask? He has revised chapters 1, 15, and 21 in light of recent scholarship since his first edition, even adding new material to these chapters as well. Despite any changes, Cameron says one of the distinctive characteristics of the book that remains is that he, without apology, believes “that it is vital to take the theological content of the reformers’ thought seriously.” He claims to maintain the overall argument that was in the first edition.

Thomas Aquinas. The Power of God. Edited by Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Well, this is not a new book. But it is an old book with a new editor, introduction, and publisher! The Power of God is Aquinas’s attempt, in ten questions, to understand how God’s power corresponds to the created order, whether it be the natural world or human beings. Aquinas also turns to the doctrine of the Trinity in order to comprehend how the three members relate to one another. Aquinas answers all types of questions, from “Is God’s Power Infinite?” to “Is There Procession in the Divine Persons?” However, note that Regan’s translation is an abridged version. So you will not get the full text here, but rather Regan’s synthesis of what he believes to be Aquinas’s most important passages. Anyone interested in understanding how Thomas understood God’s omnipotence as well as his doctrine of the Trinity will want to pick this volume up.

Scott M. Manetsch. Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609 (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

What a fascinating book this is! Manetsch takes us behind the scenes of Geneva, into Calvin’s ministry and relationship with different reformed pastors. He also takes us beyond Calvin, into the start of the seventeenth century as well, covering seventy years total. He observes the 130 men enrolled in Geneva’s Venerable Company of Pastors, including Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza, Simon Goulart, Lambert Daneau, and Jean Diodati. You will find more than theologians in these men; you will find committed pastors and shepherds of God’s flock, much after the likeness of Calvin. J. Todd Billings writes of this volume:

“In this rich and illuminating book, Scott Manetsch introduces readers to the fascinating cast of characters who served as Geneva’s ministers from 1536-1609. By carefully combining social history with historical theology, Manetsch probes the connection between pastoral theology and concrete practice among these ministers, presenting a marvelous portrait of Genevan pastoral life in Calvin’s day and afterward. Lucidly written, this book is a treasure for exploring pastoral identity in the Reformation context.” —J. Todd Billings

Matthew Barrett (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of California Baptist University (OPS), as well as the founder and executive editor of Credo Magazine. He is the author of The Grace of Godliness: An Introduction to Doctrine and Piety in the Canons of Dort, Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration, as well as the coeditor of Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), and Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy.

Tim Challies is no stranger to Credo Magazine, having contributed to some of our past issues. But in the most recent issue of the magazine, “The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a Triune God Makes All the Difference,” Challies has joined us for our 10 Questions interview. In this interview Challies talks about how he came to know Christ, some of the challenges when it comes to the pastorate, the importance of expository preaching, the ever-evolving world of technology, and much, much more. Just a little about Tim. He blogs at challies.com. He is also a pastor at Grace Fellowship Church in Toronto. He is the co-founder of Cruciform Press and the author of The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment (Crossway), and The Next Story (Zondervan).

Here is the beginning of the interview to get you started:

Tim, how did you come to know Christ?

I had the immense privilege of being raised in a Christian home. My parents were born and raised in secular Quebec and both came from unbelieving families. They first encountered the gospel as university students and after professing faith were introduced to the Pentecostal tradition. A short time after they got married they traveled to Switzerland and were introduced to Francis Schaeffer and L’Abri. This also opened their eyes to the Reformed tradition and they were captivated by its emphasis on truth and on the knowability of God. They never looked back.

I was raised in the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed traditions, memorizing the Bible and catechisms from a young age. I mark my conversion sometime around fourteen or fifteen, though it may well have been much earlier. It was in my mid-teens that I began to experience both the desire for and reality of greater independence. I began to understand that the choices I was making would prove whether or not I was a Christian. I began to ask myself whether I really believed in the Christian faith or if I was just following along behind my parents. One evening from this period is particularly vivid. I was in my bedroom, reading a Frank Peretti novel (of all things) and listening to a Christian rock album when I began to weep and to pray, expressing to the Lord that I wanted to be his and to live for his glory. This was either the moment the Lord saved me, or the moment that I began to take seriously a commitment I had made as a child.

You are a pastor at Grace Fellowship Church in Toronto. What is the most difficult part about being a pastor and what advice can you give to other pastors?

I am “the other” pastor at Grace Fellowship Church—not the one who preaches every week, but the one who does the other things. I focus on discipleship and mentoring, coordinating our small groups, and so on. I have been doing this for a couple of years now after rather unexpectedly finding myself being asked to enter into full-time ministry.

Pastoring is a joy and a privilege, and occasionally a sore trial. The aspect I have found most difficult is carrying the burdens of so many other people. As a pastor I am entrusted with other people’s greatest griefs, the things they might not dare to tell anyone else. The pastor knows what his people fear, he knows what they love, he knows the deep burdens they bear, and he bears it all with them. This affords him unique opportunities to rejoice with those who rejoice and to weep with those who weep. Today I battle insomnia and I count it no coincidence that my inability to sleep began just at the time that I was called to ministry and began to carry the weight of so much pain and sorrow.

My advice to other pastors (and do keep in mind that I am still quite new to pastoring) is to regularly meet with other pastors. Paul Martin, my colleague at Grace Fellowship Church, has been both a dear friend and a mentor; his wise and patient counsel has prevented me from more pastoral disasters than I can count. Julian Freeman who pastors one of our church plants is another friend who has answered many of my ignorant questions. At least once a month I meet with a room full of pastors to discuss stresses, challenges, and triumphs. I can’t express how much I value these times and these men.

Do you practice expositional preaching and why is this type of preaching so important?

I suppose I do. I learned to preach by being put in front of a group of people and being told to preach to them. I don’t think of what I do as expositional preaching simply because I have never seriously considered an alternative. This is the only kind of preaching I’ve known, the kind I’ve had modelled to me, and therefore, the kind I do, or attempt to do. Mark Dever’s terse summary of expositional preaching has been a helpful question for me to ask of my sermons: Is the point of the passage the point of the sermon?

I preach expositionally because I am very aware of my tendency to preach what is most urgent to me in place of what a passage actually says. Expositional preaching sets the boundaries of my preaching, ensuring that I can preach no more and no less than what the text allows. It reigns me in, it keeps me focused, it keeps me preaching God’s Word rather than my own mind.

Read the rest of this interview today:

To view the Magazine as a PDF  

The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a triune God makes all the difference

One of the dangers every church faces is slipping, slowly and quietly and perhaps unknowingly, into a routine where sermons are preached, songs are sung, and the Lord’s Supper is consumed, but all is done without a deep sense and awareness of the Trinity. In other words, if we are not careful our churches, in practice, can look remarkably Unitarian. And such a danger is not limited to the pews of the church. As we leave on Sunday morning and go back into the world, does the gospel we share with our coworker look decisively and explicitly Trinitarian in nature? Or when we pray in the privacy of our own home, do the three persons of the Trinity make any difference in how we petition God?

In this issue of Credo Magazine, we have brought together some of the sharpest thinkers in order to bring our minds back to the beauty, glory, and majesty of our triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we do not merely want to see him as triune, but recognize why and how the Trinity makes all the difference in the Christian life. Therefore, in this issue Fred Sanders, Robert Letham, Michael Reeves, Scott Swain, Tim Challies, Stephen Holmes, and many others come together in order to help us think deeper thoughts about how God is one essence and three persons, and what impact the Trinity has on who we are and what we do as believers.

Matthew Barrett, Executive Editor

By Matthew Barrett—

Jellyfish Christianity. It is Christianity with no theological backbone or nerve. It occurs when a Christian will not stand up for what he believes and knows to be true due to pressure from others. It is Christianity with no gusto, no courage, and no ability to tell it like it is.

It is not hard to spot a jellyfish Christian or theologian. They care more about what others think about their beliefs than the truth of their beliefs. To use contemporary language, a jellyfish Christian or theologian is one who just won’t “be a man” about his beliefs. Nor is he willing to pay the cost for them. He professes to follow Christ, but when he is called upon to pay the price, he compromises, either redefining the Christian faith or denying it altogether.

Sadly, there are many jellyfish Christians and theologians today. If we are not careful, we can subtly become one too. We begin to compromise, shift our positions, become ambiguous, or hide our beliefs in embarrassment. And lest we be recognized for what we are, we begin to pressure others to do the same.

Jesus, however, was no jellyfish nor did he produce jellyfish followers, but disciples who would pick up their cross and die, literally.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 ESV)

As we look through the halls of church history, we discover those who were unwilling to be jellyfish theologians. No doubt Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Charles Spurgeon are but a few that come to mind. But one man we should not miss is J. C. Ryle (1816-1900). What I love about Ryle is how he stood strong and firm for his doctrinal beliefs in the midst of a church going liberal. As John Piper explains, “Ryle saw a failure of doctrinal nerve — an unmanly failure. Dislike of dogma, he wrote,

is an epidemic which is just now doing great harm, and especially among young people. . . . It produces what I must venture to call . . . a ‘jelly-fish’ Christianity . . . a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or power. . . . Alas! It is a type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, ‘no dogma, no distinct tenets, no positive doctrine.’

We have hundreds of ‘jellyfish’ clergyman, who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity. They have no definite opinions . . . they are so afraid of ‘extreme views’ that they have no views of all.

We have thousands of ‘jellyfish’ sermons preached every year, sermons without an edge, or a point, or corner, smooth as billiard balls, awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint. . . .

And worst of all, we have myriads of ‘jellyfish’ worshipers—respectable Church-gone people, who have no distinct and definite views about any point in theology. They cannot discern things that differ, any more than colorblind people can distinguish colors. . . . They are ‘tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine’; . . . ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old.”

These words by Ryle may be some of the most important, and sobering, words I have ever come across. What is so alarming is that he says this jellyfish mentality—an epidemic he calls it—has taken root among young people. The result? Christians who have no “bone, or muscle, or power.” Pastors who have no courage to take a stand on doctrine. Sermons where there is no gospel. Worshipers who know not what or whom they worship. Ryle’s last line is especially profound. Jellyfish Christians are “ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old.” Doctrinal novelty has their attention because they either are clueless, indifferent, or antagonistic to the great truths defended in the past, tested by time.

Piper goes on to explain that this “aversion to doctrine was the root cause of the church’s maladies, and the remedy was a manly affirmation of what he called ‘sharply cut doctrines’ recovered from the Reformation and the Puritans and the giants of the eighteenth century in England.” Ryle, however, does not leave us without the remedy:

Mark what I say. If you want to do good in these times, you must throw aside indecision, and take up a distinct, sharply-cut, doctrinal religion. . . .

The victories of Christianity, wherever they have been won, have been won by distinct doctrinal theology; by telling men roundly of Christ’s vicarious death and sacrifice; by showing them Christ’s substitution on the cross, and His precious blood; by teaching them justification by faith, and bidding them believe on a crucified Saviour; by preaching ruin by sin, redemption by Christ, regeneration by the Spirit; by lifting up the brazen serpent; by telling men to look and live—to believe, repent, and be converted. . . .

Show us at this day any English village, or parish, or city, or town, or district, which has been evangelized without “dogma.” . . . Christianity without distinct doctrine is a powerless thing. . . . No dogma, no fruits!

Why is Ryle’s warning and admonishment so profound? It is profound because the jellyfish Christianity that described his own day characterizes our own as well. We have no doctrinal nerve, and so we compromise, shift our positions, become ambiguous, or hide our beliefs in embarrassment. The consequences are deadly. Ryle’s word of correction is that we return to “dogma.” “No dogma,” he says, “no fruits!” Plain and simple. Ryle’s encouragement to pastors in his own day is the same as mine today: Put aside indecision and take up a distinct, sharply-cut, doctrinal religion. Preach and teach the gospel, whatever be the consequences. Take up your cross and die.

Matthew Barrett (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of California Baptist University (OPS), as well as the founder and executive editor of Credo Magazine. He is the author of The Grace of Godliness: An Introduction to Doctrine and Piety in the Canons of Dort, Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration, as well as the coeditor of Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), and Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy.

In the most recent issue of Credo Magazine, “The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a Triune God Makes All the Difference,” Scott R. Swain has contributed an article entitled, “The Mystery of the Trinity.” Swain walks us through some of the most important facets of the doctrine of the Trinity. But first, a little about Scott Swain. He joined the faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary in 2006 and serves as Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Academic Dean of the Orlando campus. He teaches core courses related to systematic theology and biblical interpretation. Prior to joining RTS, Dr. Swain taught theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois and served on the faculty of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

In his teaching and research, Swain seeks to retrieve the riches of patristic, medieval, and Reformation patterns of biblical interpretation and theologizing for the sake of the contemporary church’s renewal according to the Word of God. With Michael Allen, he edits two series that seek to embody a theology of “renewal through retrieval”: Zondervan Academic’s New Studies in Dogmatics and T & T Clark’s International Theological Commentary. He is the author of The God of the Gospel: Robert Jenson’s Trinitarian Theology (IVP Academic, 2013), Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and its Interpretation (T & T Clark, 2011), and co-author with Andreas Köstenberger, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (IVP Academic, 2008).

Here is the introduction to Swain’s article:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most sublime truth of the Christian faith and its supreme treasure. Christian teaching concerning one God in three persons flows from the revelation of the high and holy name of the Lord God Almighty: “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). This glorious name identifies the true and living God and, because it is the name into which we are baptized, constitutes our only comfort in life and in death. Not only does the doctrine of the Trinity identify God, it also illumines all of God’s works, enabling us to perceive more clearly the wonders of the Father’s purpose in creation, of Christ’s incarnation, and of the Spirit’s indwelling. All things are from the Trinity, through the Trinity, and to the Trinity. And so, seen in the sublime light of the Trinity, we see all things in a new light.

Sublime and supreme, the doctrine of the Trinity is also singular and self-interpreting. The doctrine is singular insofar as the truth about God as Trinity cannot be categorized among or explained by comparison with other “trinities” in creation (for example, the threefold form of ice, water, and vapor). “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?” the Lord asks in Isaiah 40:18. And the desired response is “no one.” The triune God is and acts in a class by himself. For this reason, the Trinity is self-interpreting, a mystery that faith comes to grasp only insofar as the triune God interprets his identity and action to us in Holy Scripture. “No one knows the Father except the Son,” Jesus declares in Matthew 11:27, “and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” The good news of course is that the triune God does interpret himself to us, presenting to Christian theology the delightful and demanding task of bearing witness to the supreme and singular reality that is the Lord our God, the reality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The purpose of the present article is to provide a brief overview of the doctrine of the Trinity, following the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 11:25-27 as our primary guide, but also attending to ways in which this teaching is echoed throughout the Bible and summarized in the church’s creeds and confessions. In the doctrine of the Trinity, as in all other doctrines, the Lord Jesus Christ is our only teacher (Matt. 23:8). He alone knows the Father (again, Matt. 11:27) and he, with the Father, gives us the Spirit that we might know the things freely given to us by God (1 Cor. 2:11-12). Therefore, if we would learn of the Trinity, we must learn from Jesus (Matt. 11:29). We must direct our attention to the place where he speaks, Holy Scripture, and we must submit our minds to the obedient pattern of thinking which he demands. Only then will we know the doctrine of the Trinity as we ought to know it. Only then will we share the mind of Christ.

Read the rest of Swain’s article today:

To view the Magazine as a PDF  

The Trinity and the Christian Life: Why a triune God makes all the difference

One of the dangers every church faces is slipping, slowly and quietly and perhaps unknowingly, into a routine where sermons are preached, songs are sung, and the Lord’s Supper is consumed, but all is done without a deep sense and awareness of the Trinity. In other words, if we are not careful our churches, in practice, can look remarkably Unitarian. And such a danger is not limited to the pews of the church. As we leave on Sunday morning and go back into the world, does the gospel we share with our coworker look decisively and explicitly Trinitarian in nature? Or when we pray in the privacy of our own home, do the three persons of the Trinity make any difference in how we petition God?

In this issue of Credo Magazine, we have brought together some of the sharpest thinkers in order to bring our minds back to the beauty, glory, and majesty of our triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we do not merely want to see him as triune, but recognize why and how the Trinity makes all the difference in the Christian life. Therefore, in this issue Fred Sanders, Robert Letham, Michael Reeves, Scott Swain, Tim Challies, Stephen Holmes, and many others come together in order to help us think deeper thoughts about how God is one essence and three persons, and what impact the Trinity has on who we are and what we do as believers.

Matthew Barrett, Executive Editor