For some reason, WordPress has taken over the RSS feeds of certain blogs.  Brian Fulthorp, Chuck Grantham, ElShaddai Edwards, Robert Jimenez, George, and myself were all victims of this.  I went to read the 10 new posts from each blog (knowing darn well that I hadn’t posted 10 new things), and instead, the same 10 posts from http://en.blog.wordpress.com.  I don’t know what’s going on, but I don’t like it.  Shed some light if you have any to shed, or at least tell me if the same thing happened in your RSS reader.

B”H

The God Who is Triune: Revisioning the Christian Doctrine of God

.

Many thanks to the wonderful crew at InterVarsity Press for this review copy!

Allan Coppedge (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) was a name that I was unfamiliar with.  I had never heard anything about him, nor read anything that he had written, but given my love for all things ‘Trinity,’ it was an easy choice to request this book.  When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, it doesn’t matter much whether I love or hate a book, no matter my feelings when finished, I simply have to read it.  But I was pleasantly surprised with how much I enjoyed Coppedge’s contribution to Trinitarian studies.

Rather than follow the recent trend of surveying various prominent theologians and examining their Trinitarianism (see e.g., La Due’s The Trinity Guide to the Trinity; Letham’s The Holy Trinity; Grenz’s Rediscovering God¹, et. al), Coppedge opted to take a more systematic approach in offering a thorough examination of what Scripture has to say about God.  Of course he touches on the history of the doctrine, and the prominent theologians surveyed by the above mentioned authors are referenced in the footnotes and bibliography; but Coppedge’s volume is thoroughly concerned with what the Bible has to say.  Another thing that separates him from the rest is his examination of Open Theism and Process Theology in light of Trinitarianism.

In the first two chapters Coppedge builds the Trinitarian case from what the Old and New Testaments have to say about the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Spirit.  In these chapters he suggests that only examining passages with ‘triadic forms’ is an ”entirely inadequate” approach to dealing with this subject. [p. 25]  He suggests three proposals to “adequately handle the significant data of the New Testament on the trinitarian nature of God” [p. 26]:

1. Broaden our understanding of the literary structure to include the theology of the persons of the Trinity in the selection of data.
2. Consider the literary structure of whole New Testament books in light of trinitarian references.
3. Jesus’ challenge to his disciples in the Great Commission will serve as a lens for organizing other trinitarian passages that refer to all three persons of the Trinity.

This method allows passages in which only two of the three persons are mentioned to count as ‘trinitarian.’  It also allows us to examine entire books in light of the brief sections that have generally been considered trinitarian.  Coppedge’s reading of Scripture is certainly trinitarian (as well it should be), but there were times when I questioned whether or not the data supported his reading of it.  For example, Coppedge says in reference to the virginal conception:

Jesus’ divine nature is confirmed by the angel’s statement to Mary that Jesus will “be called holy” (Lk1:35). Luke also adds that the Father’s essential name/nature is also holy (Lk 1:49). The Lukanbirth narrative demonstrates that Jesus shares in the essential nature of a holy God and that Jesus’ holiness is shared with both the Father and the Spirit. [p. 30]

In the third chapter Coppedge spends a bit of time tracing the historical development of the doctrine.  It’s an adequate enough treatment, and certainly enough to get the novice going, but obviously, anyone interested in the subject will want to pick up a book (or multi-book) length treatment of it. 

Chapters four through nine focus primarily on the economic and immanent Trinity.  Coppedge certainly takes more than enough space to outline the ways in which God relates to creation and within himself.  He takes the time to define the key terms (e.g., essence/substance, person, consubstantial, coinherence, etc.), and notes the differences in language between Eastern and Western Christianity, as well as the confusion that it caused.  Like those great theologians who have gone before him, Coppedge is careful to walk the fine line of the diversity and unity, distinction and indivisibility of the three persons, noting their shared functions in the economy.  He also appropriately points out that while they ’share the work,’ so to speak, certain persons take the prominent position in specific acts (i.e., the Father’s prominence in creation, the Son’s in redemption, the Spirit’s in sanctification, etc.). 

Coppedgealso takes the position of most theologians, that the economic Trinity reveals the Ontological (i.e., immanent) Trinity.  He sees the incarnation of the Son as the interpretive key to understanding more fully the Father and the Spirit.  He states: “In terms of knowing God (our epistemology) we begin with Jesus and the economic Trinity. However, with the being of God (our ontology) we focus on the role of the Father and the ontological Trinity.” [p. 128-129]  This of course is an approach that has a distinguished pedigree throughout Church history.  This section of the book is littered with various tables and charts that illustrate Coppedge’s points and certainly help the reader to retain the information.  I am a big fan of this kind presentation, as it only helps to encourage memorization and reinforce what has been learned. 

But as much as I have enjoyed the book up until this point, everything has largely been review.  This was all information that I had been privy to for quite some time.  Where Coppedge impressed me the most was with his examination of God’s providence.  In my reading on the Trinity I have yet to come across anyone who mentions providence in more than a passing manner, and even then, it is usually from a Calvinist’s perspective, but Coppedge devotes two chapters (12-13) to the subject, from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective.  In them he takes a look at concepts such as human free will, God’s foreknowledge, prevenient grace, determinism, and more.  He examines the various concepts through the lenses of classical theism, process theology, open theism, and finally trinitarian theism.

I found his arguments for the freedom of humans being grounded in the loving interpersonal relationship of God to be solid.  The point of his position that I was most impressed by was that:

The triuneGod is a social being, with interpersonal relationships at the heart of who he is. The freedom to relate in love is a crucial component of his personhood. God made people in his own image, that is, for freely chosen personal relationships. [p. 306]

Finally, I was pleased to see Coppedge address open theism because it is a concept that I have not studied in depth, nor one that I have cared much about; that is until it was presented in the light of the Trinity!  He basically outlines briefly the ways in which open theism is opposed to classical theism, and then offers some correctives via trinitarian theism.  He suggests that if we begin with the revelation of God in Christ, then we should first view God as ‘loving Father’ and not ’sovereign King.’ [p. 327]  Trinitarian theism also balances God’s transcendence and immanence, which is exemplified in God’s entering the world of space and time through the incarnation.  And lastly, God’s interpersonal relationships are the foundation of all personal relationships.  God has created man to relate to him and to one another in genuine, personal relationships, but this requires freedom.  He says:

People are free to respond to God, to love God, and to take moral responsibility for their actions. There is a certain “risk” in this, but it is a limited risk because God does have complete foreknowledge of the future.  Thus he is able to providentially order the circumstances of life, the world and history to accomplish his purposes in light of human freedom. [p. 327]

The book is rounded out by a two-page name index, listing all of the authors mentioned throughout the volume; a four-page subject index; and nine-page Scripture index.  I think that this speaks to how thoroughly Bible-going Coppedge was throughout this text.  And I must mention that I was ecstatic that he (and the editors/pulishers) decided to go with footnotes in this volume! 

When it’s all said and done, The God Who Is Triune is a good, solid, treatment of the Trinity from an evangelicalperspective.  Although he does dealwith some of the more technical aspects of Trinitarian theology, I’d still recommend this text to beginners, as he builds up to the more difficult concepts and is always quick to define his terms and the way things work.  The intermediate student can learn quite a bit as well from Coppedge’s book, while the advanced student would be mainly reviewing.  I could definitely see this as a text for a class on Trinitarianism, either seminary level, or adult Bible study/Sunday school.  I give this book a solid 4 starsout of 5, which would be closer to 4½, but my stars only come in wholes.  Go out and pick this volume up at your earliest convenience; you won’t be sorry.

B”H

¹ Review forthcoming.

I placed the order for 10 volumes of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2 on Tuesday evening, it shipped Wednesday morning, and was expected to arrive Friday afternoon.  Instead, I received it today!  Now that was fast!  Thank God for UPS! 

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for my ’slightly hurt’ copy of the Synopsis of the Four Gospels which shipped nearly a week-and-a-half ago from the SAME LOCATION that this package came from!  God help the USPS!

B”H

Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit’s Power

.

In chapter two Moreland says that his “primary purpose is to expose naturalism for what it is, not to provide an apologetic critique of it.” [p. 40]  However, he admits though, that at times throughout the chapter he will be doing exactly that.  After introducing the reader to “strong scientism” (the view that we can only know things that can be tested scientifically) and ”weak scientism” (the view that some claims in the fileds outside of science are rational and justified), Moreland defines the naturalist theory of knowledge as: “the belief that scientific knowledge is either the only kind of knowledge there is or an immeausurably superior kind of knowledge.” [p. 41]  He follows this with a brief explanation of the “naturalist creation account” and launches into a mini-apologetic for Intelligent Design. 

Moreland then discusses the naturalist view of reality which is grounded in physicalism.  He says that such a view is ultimately reductionist or eliminativist in that “what you cannot reduce to (identify with) the physical you must eliminate, pretend that it does not exist.” [p. 46]  The rest of the chapter is devoted to outlining and commenting on Naturalism’s inadequacy to account for six factors that I will not not list here in the interest of keeping this review as succint as possible. 

He concludes the chapter by showing how Naturalism fails to provide meaningful answers to his “five crucial questions”¹ concluding that: “[i]n light of these five questions, naturalism is exposed as the shallow, destructive fraud that it really is.” [p. 59]  He believes however that the Christian worldview “provides deep, satisfying, true answers to these questions.” [p. 59]  While I would agree so far as his statements are concerned, I recognize that my agreement comes from sharing the same worldview.  We share the basic presuppositions that things like “good” and “well off” actually exist and I doubt that many naturalists would accept these concepts on the same grounds that we do, so ultimately, I’m not sure as to their argumentative value.

B”H

Table of Contents

¹ (1) What is real?, (2) What are the nature and limits of knowledge?, (3) Who is well off? What is the good life?, (4) Who is a really good person?, (5) How does one become a really good person? [p. 34]

Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit’s Power

.

In Kingdrom Triangle, Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland examines three different worldviews: Naturalism, Postmodernism, and Christianity, arguing for the consistency, validity, and truthfulness of the latter.  As the subtitle to the book suggests, Moreland’s “Kingdom Trinagle” consists of a (1) recovery of the Christian mind, (2) renovation of the soul, and (3) restoration of the Spirit’s power.  If the Church can accomplish these three things then it should be able to greatly impact the world around it, even in the midst of competing worldviews.

In chapter one Moreland begins with a brief story about a missionary in Africa who received a miraculous answer to the prayers of a young girl.  He sketches out what the response to this story would be from the three worldviews that he addresses in the book, but notes one thing that all parties would agree on, that is, the drama in the story.  He notes a longing for drama that exists within the human condition and goes on to outline various ways in which this plays out, most notably in the pursuit of happiness.  Moreland does well to show that with Naturalism’s and Postmodernism’s emphasis on individualistic happiness, they end up resulting in anything but what they so strongly desire. 

Moreland also gives a preliminary view of what the difference is between a ‘thin world’ and a ‘thick world.’  Basically, a ‘thin world’ is a world in which there are no absolutes, and very little meaning.  Naturalism and Postmodernism fit into this category.  A ‘thick world’ is the polar opposite; it’s a world in which things have meaning, a world in which we live for a higher purpose.  He says that Islam fits into a ‘thick world’ even if it is ultimately a false belief system.  He closes the chapter by asking what he calls “five crucial questions”:

1. What is real?
2. What are the nature and limits of knowledge?
3. Who is well off? What is the good life?
4. Who is a really good person?
5. How does one become a really good person? [p. 34]

B”H

Table of Contents

Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit’s Power

.

Many thanks to Chris Fann at Zondervan for this review copy!

1. The Hunger for Drama in a Thin World
2. The Naturalist Story
3. The Postmodern Story
4. From Drama to Deadness in Five Steps
5. The Recovery of Knowledge
6. Renovation of the Soul
7. Restoration of the Kingdom’s Miraculous Power
8. Conclusion: Confronting the Crisis of Our Age

B”H

I’m referring to both the stunts in this video as well as the music it’s set to.  You have to check this guy out.

B”H

Often times I’ll hear preachers in my church say something along the lines that we are to worship God because of who He is, and not because of what He does.  Many times, comments like this will preface our singing of the song “Because of Who You Are.”  But when I listen to the song and sing along, I notice a glaring contradiction. 

Here are the lyrics:

Because of who you are, I give you glory
Because of who you are, I give you praise
Because of who you are, I will lift my voice and say
Lord I worship you, because of who you are

Jehovah Jireh, My provider
Jehovah Nissi, Lord you reign in victory
Jehovah Shalom, My prince of peace
And I worship you, because of who you are

Jehovah Rapha, You’re my healer
Jehovah Shammah, Always with me
Jehovah Sabaoth, Strong deliverer
And I worship you, because of who you are

The song itself (one of my favorites in fact), defines who God is according to what God does.  Of course I am of the belief that God’s actions flow properly from his nature and character, so I see no problem with identifying God according to what he does.  It just makes me wonder if we could ever properly seprate the who from the what.  Is such a directive (i.e., worshipping God for who he is, not what he does) sensible?

B”H

At the time I am writing this, it is technically Thursday, but since I have not gone to sleep and woken up, it is still Wednesday to me.  In any event, I rarely share really personal stuff on the blog because, well, it’s just not my style; but I thought I would share a brief testimony.

Early this afternoon I received a phone call from my mother, during which time she informed me that she was on her way to the emergency room.  She had gone to see her doctor because she was feeling weak and fatigued.  After examining her, the doctor suggested that she go to the emergency room because he thought she might have Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is extremely serious.  Well, I heard the news and didn’t panic, I didn’t tell everyone that my mother was ill, I simply spoke to God.  I didn’t pray a long drawn out prayer, nor did I scream and get all riled up cursing the vile sickness back to the depths of hell.  I simply asked God (in the name of Jesus) to heal her of whatever it was that was afflicting her. 

A few hours later I received a phone call from my mom informing me that her blood work came back normal and her CAT scan came back normal.  They did however admit her to the hospital so they can monitor her and give her an MRI tomorrow.  My sister and I then stopped by her house to pack her a bag, and take care of her dog, before going to see her in the hospital.  While in the hospital we spoke with the neurologist who after running a few preliminary physical tests was confident that it was not Guillain-Barré.  It was also a joy to discover that the worst thing my mother was experiencing was hunger pains from not eating (which we remedied with some McDonalds), and the attitude of the ER nursing staff (which was done away with once she was moved to the 2nd floor).

Whether or not she had it and God healed her, or she never had it and God healed her of something else, I don’t know.  But I do know this: God is faithful!  I have the fullest confidence that her MRI was show nothing out of the ordinary and that she will walk out of that hospital in perfect health on the morrow.  I know that God is a healer and there isn’t a person dead or alive who can tell me otherwise.  Glory be to the God that heals!  He is faithful!

B”H

David Ker tagged me with a weird worship meme in which I’m supposed to list five weird worship songs.  The problem is that I don’t know any (aside from those ‘Jesus is my boyfriend songs’).  All the worship songs I know make perfect sense, and I tend to listen to a lot of rap in my spare time, so I’m not as engrossed in the whole worship music scene as I probably should be.  So it is for this reason that I must decline this meme.

B”H