Read. Reflect. Write.

A few weeks ago, I preached on the doctrine of divine impassibility. As I was preparing the sermon, there was a particular section on interpretation that I thought was very helpful (it was for me at least) and thus definitely blog-worthy. What follows is that section (so it has a more pastoral tone), in which we look at a principle of interpretation that maintains the proper Creator-creature distinction when handling biblical texts about God when couched in human language (i.e., eyes, arm, hand, nostrils, etc.). In doing so, we ensure greater consistency in our biblical interpretation. What I articulate here is nothing new; rather, I stand on the shoulders of giants, dead and alive, distilling their insights (and adding a few of my own), so I can pass them along to edify others in Christ.  First, let’s define our terms. The doctrine of divine impassibility is defined as follows: God does not experience emotional changes either from within or affected by his relationship to crea...

Last week, I got myself entangled in a Twitter discussion stemming from a post about Donald Trump rushing to execute death row inmates before his term is up. I wasn’t so much interested in the original post but rather the tweet below it. A lady said: “I’ve never understood how people can claim to be pro life but also pro death penalty. It’s like they only care about a life before birth after that everyone is SOL.”  In response I said: “Big difference between the two—the unborn are innocent victims that never got a chance to live; murderers have taken the lives of innocent victims, of which the death penalty is their just due, unlike the unjust death penalty given to the unborn.” I figured that should clear things up. But it just stirred up the nay-sayers and fallacy flingers (but it did get 45 hearts!). And then she responded back with, “There have been innocent people on death row. What about them?” Do you see what she did? She tripped over the fallacy of false equivalence. False ...

In his fascinating work, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ , [1] J. Todd Billings sheds light on Calvin’s eclectively developed (yet speculatively restrained) metaphysic that structures his understanding of a believer’s union with God. In so doing, Billings dispels contemporary critics (Radical Orthodoxy ‘Gift’ theologians) who claim that Calvin’s theology was heavily influenced by late medieval ‘nominalist’ tendencies. Gift-giving specialists adopt the metaphor as a framework for “the relation of divine giving (in creation and redemption) and human giving (self-giving love)”(2). And according to ‘Gift’ theologians, the place of unilateral sovereignty in the Reformed tradition—with Calvin as the poster child—has eradicated any type of active (gift-giving) role in man’s relationship with God (and with that, a believer’s communion with Christ—the “ en Christo ” hallmark of Pauline theology). From Calvin’s account (not according to Calvi...

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,...

Last week my daughter felt compelled to reach out to my mother to ask her a few questions about her views on the Trinity. My mother is a Jehovah’s Witness, so she has different views on many things pertaining to Scripture and God. When my daughter reads her Bible and she comes across passages that demonstrate the deity of Christ and the Trinity, she highlights them and then asks me: “Dad, have you talked about this one with nana Bessie? (My mom’s name is Leslie, but my daughter has called her Bessie from the time she could first say her name). Or, she will look at me in bewilderment, wondering why my mom cannot see that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. I used to have theological conversations with my mother, but they would quickly get heated, and it got to the point that we wouldn’t talk. So, I have kept a theological distance from her, which she also wanted. I always want the door to be open to my mom if/when the time comes, by the Lord’s grace, that she finally sees him as God’...