This video of Ian and Larissa Murphy ministered grace to my heart. I’d encourage you to watch it. If you’re married, watch it with your spouse.

John Piper shares some helpful reflections on the Desiring God blog.

Read more about Ian and Larissa’s journey at PrayForIan.com.

Logos Bible Software (my employer) is offering a free digital Christian book every month this year as part of its Free Book of the Month program. This month’s free book is John Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, and it’s available for only a few more days. I’d encourage you to pick it up.

After you get the book, you can access it on your PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, Kindle Fire, or Android phone or tablet with one of the free Logos apps—or online at Biblia.com.

You can also enter to win a free copy of the 3-vol., 61-title Works of John Bunyan.

Here’s how Bunyan concludes his personal account “of the exceeding mercy of God in Christ” to him:

6. I find to this day seven abominations in my heart:

1. Inclinings to unbelief.
2. Suddenly to forget the love and mercy that Christ manifesteth.
3. A leaning to the works of the law.
4. Wanderings and coldness in prayer.
5. To forget to watch for that I pray for.
6. Apt to murmur because I have no more, and yet ready to abuse what I have.
7. I can do none of those things which God commands me, but my corruptions will thrust in themselves, “when I would do good, evil is present with me.”

7. These things I continually see and feel, and am afflicted and oppressed with; yet the wisdom of God doth order them for my good.

1. They make me abhor myself.
2. They keep me from trusting my heart.
3. They convince me of the insufficiency of all inherent righteousness.
4. They show me the necessity of flying to Jesus.
5. They press me to pray unto God.
6. They show me the need I have to watch and be sober.
7. And provoke me to look to God, through Christ, to help me, and carry me through this world. Amen.

It’s challenging to take both sin and grace as seriously as they deserve. It’s easy to give too much attention to one at the expense of the other. Bunyan has a healthy view of both.

Here are the books that have been free so far this year:

• January: Temptation and Sin, vol. 6 of The Works of John Owen, by John Owen (cf. the 24-vol. Works of John Owen)
• February: Revelation and Inspiration, vol. 1 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, by Benjamin B. Warfield (cf. the 20-vol. B. B. Warfield Collection)
• March: Authentic Christianity, by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (cf. the 10-vol. Selected Works of Martyn Lloyd-Jones)
• April: Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, by John Bunyan (cf. the 3-vol., 61-title Works of John Bunyan)

Keep an eye out for May’s book, which will be announced soon. Or sign up for the Free Book of the Month email list to be notified when it’s available.

Download three popular Francis Chan books for free until tomorrow at midnight from Vyrso.com:

• Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God
• Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit
• Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity, and the Things We Made Up

After you get all three, check out other Francis Chan books and other free books from Vyrso.

Vyrso is a free app that works on iOS and Android devices. Vyrso books also work with Logos Bible Software, the world’s leading multiplatform (PC, Mac, iOS, Android) Bible study software, and can be read online at Biblia.com. One of Vyrso’s unique features is displaying the text behind Bible references—something you don’t get from competitors like Kindle, Nook, iBooks, and Google Books.

While reading through 1 Clement, I found a nice example of justify (δικαιόω) being used in two different senses (in very close proximity), which nicely parallels its use in the New Testament.

Justified by Works

In this first example, Clement is calling his readers to personal holiness and speaks of their being justified by works (ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι). He seems to have in view a demonstration rather than imputation of righteousness.

30 Seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all the things that pertain to holiness, forsaking slander, disgusting and impure embraces, drunkenness and rioting and detestable lusts, abominable adultery, detestable pride. (2) “For God,” he says, “resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (3) Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self-controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words [ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ μὴ λόγοις]. (4) For he says: “He who speaks much shall hear much in reply. Or does the talkative person think that he is righteous? (5) Blessed is the one born of woman who has a short life. Do not be overly talkative.” (6) Let our praise be with God, and not from ourselves, for God hates those who praise themselves. (7) Let the testimony to our good deeds be given by others, as it was given to our fathers who were righteous. (8) Boldness and arrogance and audacity are for those who are cursed by God; but graciousness and humility and gentleness are with those who are blessed by God.

His use of justify is similar to Jesus’ use in Matthew 12:33–37:

“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified [ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ], and by your words you will be condemned” (cf. Mt 11:19).

(This is tangential to the main point, but there is a notable difference between what Jesus says and what Clement says. Jesus says you will be justified by your words, and Clement says you aren’t justified by your words. But the difference is only apparent. Jesus is referring to words as fruit, the overflowing of the heart. In this sense, words are a form of works, not opposed to them. And words, like works, will demonstrate your righteousness or wickedness. Clement is trying to discourage boasting and encourage an active, humble faith. He’s arguing that shallow, prideful talking does not make or demonstrate one to be righteous, similar to what John argues in 1 John 3:16–18.)

James’s use of justify in James 2:21–24 seems to carry the same sense:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works [ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη] when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works [ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται] and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works [ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη] when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

As the Old Testament accounts bear out, what James is describing is the justification (sense 1) of the already justified (sense 2).

Justified by Faith

In the second example—just one paragraph later—Clement says that we are not justified through our works (οὐ διʼ ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας . . . ἔργων), but through faith (ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως).

32. If anyone will consider them sincerely one by one, he will understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by him. (2) For from Jacob come all the priests and Levites who minister at the altar of God; from him comes the Lord Jesus according to the flesh; from him come the kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; and his other tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised that “your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” (3) All, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they did, but through his will. (4) And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning [οὐ διʼ ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως ἢ εὐσεβείας ἢ ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως, διʼ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπʼ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν]; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This use of justify is parallel to Paul’s use in Romans 3:20, 28–30 (and elsewhere):

For by works of the law no human being will be justified [ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ] in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. . . . For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law [δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου]. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

This passage from Clement nicely demonstrates that justification terminology can carry different senses, so it’s not contradictory to insist that a person is justified (sense 1) by works and is not justified (sense 2) by works.

As part of  Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Crossway is giving away Justin and Lindsey Holcomb’s Rid of My Disgrace: Hope and Healing for Victims of Sexual Assault today and tomorrow. It’s worth picking up.

Description

The statistics are jarring. One in four women and one in six men are or will be victims of sexual assault in their lifetime. But as sobering as the statistics are, they don’t begin to speak to the darkness and grief experienced by these victims. Because sexual assault causes physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual pain, victims need clear help, hope, and healing. In Rid of My Disgrace, a couple experienced in counseling victims of sexual assault explains how the grace of God can heal the broken and restore the disgraced.

Justin and Lindsey Holcomb outline an approach for moving from destruction to redemption. While avoiding platitudes and shallow theology, Rid of My Disgrace combines biblical and theological depth with up-to-date research. This book is primarily written for those who have been assaulted (either as children or adults) but also equips family, friends, pastors, and others to care for victims in ways that are compassionate, practical, and informed. Part of the Re:Lit series.

Endorsements

Careful research, lots of Scripture, and a demonstration that the work of Christ says “you are washed clean” to those who feel like outcasts, which will speak to victims of sexual abuse.

—Ed Welch, Counselor and Faculty, The Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation

I can’t express how grateful I am that someone is tackling this subject with both a pastoral heart and an understanding of how the devastating effects of sexual assault can wreak havoc for decades after the abuse. It is an epidemic issue where resources are scarce. There isn’t a weekend that goes by where we aren’t told a gut-wrenching tale of innocence stolen and left trying to help a man or woman make sense of their pain. I praise God for the gospel that can heal and restore and for the Holcombs that had the courage and wisdom to write this book for us.

—Matt Chandler, Lead Pastor, The Village Church, Highland Village, Texas; author, The Explicit Gospel

Read more at the Crossway blog.

Whether you’re a hard worker, a workaholic, or neither, I commend to you these two recent posts.

Matt Perman defends working hard by looking at Proverbs (Prov 12:27; 18:9; 19:15; 24:30) and Paul (Acts 20:34–35; 2 Thes 3:7–9). It’s worth a quick read.

On the flip side, Tim Challies interviews David Murray about workaholism as part of the Connected Kingdom podcast. As one who throws himself into his work and constantly struggles to keep everything in its proper place, I found it helpful and challenging. It’s worth your twelve minutes.

David shares a number of suggestions for overcoming workaholism:

1. Take a full week off work in order to examine yourself in the light of God’s work. Ask your family if they think you’ve got work in the right place. Listen to your body.
2. Confess workaholism to God.
3. Take every Sunday off work.
4. Memorize Psalm 127:1–2 and believe it.
5. Set a reasonable number of working hours per week.
6. Don’t answer email or make work-related phone calls on vacation.
7. Schedule daily exercise and family time.
8. Remember your created limits.
9. Remember that the Lord has put a curse on work.
10. Project yourself to your death bed.

See also these recent posts on the 40-Hour work week:

• Why Working More Than 40 Hours a Week Is Useless
• Bring Back the 40-hour Work Week

If you’ve studied New Testament Greek, you know who Daniel Wallace is (not to be confused with the author, angler, and alligator wrestler, the rheumatologist, or the Star Wars geek). His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (also available from Logos Bible Software) is an essential resource for intermediate Greek students. Not only does it provide an excellent overview of the grammar and syntax of the Greek NT, but it also offers some fresh perspectives on difficult passages. I don’t always agree with Wallace’s exegesis, but I find his views helpful and thought provoking.

Wallace has contributed online through the Pen and Parchment blog and the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts blog, but now he has his own blog, which you can find at DanielBWallace.com. I’d encourage you to check it out and subscribe to the RSS feed (or if RSS still mystifies you, sign up for the email or bookmark the site).

I’ve seen Calvinists quote this (along with others like it) to demonstrate that the notion of limited atonement didn’t originate with Calvin or his followers. But I’m having a hard time tracking down the source. Neither Logos Bible Software nor the Internet have been able to get me any earlier than 1979.

Michael Horton quoted it twice in Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.) Unfortunately, he didn’t cite his source. Even worse, he attributed it to two different people: Ambrose of Milan (c. 337–397) and Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109).

Ambrose, a church father, said, “If you die in unbelief, Christ did not die for you.” Don’t think that didn’t make people think twice about the offer of Christ! (118)

Anselm lost a lot of friends over this one:

If you die in unbelief, Christ did not die for you. (247)

Prior to Horton, Erwin Lutzer referenced it in The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998).¹ He attributed it to Anselm, but likewise didn’t cite his source—and curiously treated it not as an exact quotation but as his own wording and syntax (an unfortunate but all-too-common example of unintentional plagiarism).

Did anyone hold to the doctrine of particular atonement before the Synod of Dort? Yes, there are statements that imply that this doctrine was held by men such as Justin Martyr and Cyprian. Anselm said that if you die in unbelief, Christ did not die for you. Tyndale wrote that the blood of Christ puts away only the sins of the elect. (187)

Even earlier, Authur Custance quoted it in The Sovereignty of Grace (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979). He attributed it to Ambrose, but didn’t cite his source either.

Ambrose was surely right when he exclaimed, “If you die in unbelief, Christ did not die for you.” Christ died for no one in vain.

Google Books also turns up a result in Cyprian Davis, The Church: A Living Heritage (Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett, 1982), but doesn’t let you see inside.

Elsewhere on the Internet, you’ll find this statement attributed to both Ambrose (3x) and Anselm (15x)—no doubt the result of Horton’s mistake. If a source for the quotation is given, it’s Horton (7x).

I have four questions that I’d like help answering:

1. Who is the original source of this statement? Ambrose? Anselm? Someone else?
2. Is it an exact quotation or a paraphrase?
3. Where did Horton, Lutzer, and Custance find this? (And why didn’t they cite their source?)
4. Why is there no apparent trail of this prior to 1979?

If you have any suggestions, please share them. I’d love to look at this statement in its original context.

Update: Thanks to Dax and Todd for the sources. Here’s are some updated points:

1. Ambrose is the source of the statement, not Anselm.
2. The Latin reads, “Si non credis, non descendit tibi non tibi passus est.“ The source of the Latin is De fide 4.2.27.
3. The full paragraph reads, “Grande ergo mysterium Christi quod stupuerunt & angeli. Et ideo uenerari debes, & domino famulus derogare non debes: ignorare non licet, propterea enim descendit ut credas. Si non credis, non descendit tibi non tibi passus est. Si non uenissem, inquit, & locutus suissem his, peccatum non haberet. Nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo. Qui me odit, & patrem meu odit. Quis igitur odit Christum, nisi qui derogat? Sicut enim amoris est deferre, ita odn est derogare. qui odit, quæstiones mouet: qui amat, reuerentiam desert.”
4. The English translation in the ECF reads, “If thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee.” It comes from Exposition of the Christian Faith, IV, II, 27. Ambrose of Milan, “Exposition of the Christian Faith,” trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin and H. T. F. Duckworth in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume X: St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 265.
5. The full paragraph reads, ”Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. ‘If I had not come,’ saith the Scripture, ‘and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.’ Who, then, hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonour?—for as it is love’s part to render, so it is hate’s to withdraw honour. He who hates, calls in question; he who loves, pays reverence.”
6. Jerome Zanchius (aka Hieronymus Zanchius or Girolamo Zanchi) quotes Ambrose as saying, “si non credis, non tibi passus est” (notice the unidentified omission of non descendit tibi) and summarizes it “if you are an unbeliever, Christ did not die for you.” Jerom Zanchius, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted, trans. Augustus Toplady (New York: George Lindsay, 1811), 81. He gives the source as Ambros. Tom. 2. de fid. ad. Grat. 1. 4. c. i.
7. John Owen cites Ambrose in The Death of Death as saying, “Si non credis, non descendit tibi Christus, non tibi passus est.” And he translates it, “If thou believe not, Christ did not descend for thee, he did not suffer for thee.” Notice the insertion of Christus/Christ. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburg: T&T Clark), 10:423.
8. Horton, Lutzer, and Custance quote a different English translation altogether, and it doesn’t line up well with the Latin. I’m still not sure where that version of Ambrose’s statement originated.

Footnotes

1. The first edition was published in 1989.

Vyrso currently has John Piper’s A Holy Ambition: To Preach Where Christ Has Not Been Named available as a free download. For now, it’s available digitally exclusively through Vyrso. Vyrso is the new Christian ebook platform from Logos Bible Software.

Three other free books available from Baker for today only are

• Success Is Not an Accident: Change Your Choices; Change Your Life by Tommy Newberry
• Finding Christmas: Stories of Startling Joy and Perfect Peace by James Calvin Schaap
• On Sparrow Hill by Mareen Lang

Other books on sale include

• Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper for $4.49
• Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears for $2.99
• Disciple: Getting Your Identity from Jesus by Bill Clem for $2.99
• The Godly Home by Richard Baxter for $1.49
• Joy: A Godly Woman’s Adornment by Lydia Brownback for  $1.49

See all of the Vyrso Black Friday deals. More freebies and deals coming on Cyber Monday.

Those who reject the notion of hierarchy in the imminent Trinity often point to B. B. Warfield as a supporter of their position. In his article in ISBE on the Trinity,¹ Warfield discusses at length his reservations about reading what we see in the economic Trinity back into the immanent Trinity.

19. The Implications of “Son” and “Spirit”

. . . To the fact of the Trinity—to the fact, that is, that in the unity of the Godhead there subsist three Persons, each of whom has his particular part in the working out of salvation—the New Testament testimony is clear, consistent, pervasive and conclusive. There is included in this testimony constant and decisive witness to the complete and undiminished Deity of each of these Persons; no language is too exalted to apply to each of them in turn in the effort to give expression to the writer’s sense of His Deity: the name that is given to each is fully understood to be “the name that is above every name.” When we attempt to press the inquiry behind the broad fact, however, with a view to ascertaining exactly how the New Testament writers conceive the three Persons to be related, the one to the other, we meet with great difficulties. Nothing could seem more natural, for example, than to assume that the mutual relations of the Persons of the Trinity are revealed in the designations, “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” which are given them by Our Lord in the solemn formula of Mt. 28:19. Our confidence in this assumption is somewhat shaken, however, when we observe, as we have just observed, that these designations are not carefully preserved in their allusions to the Trinity by the writers of the New Testament at large, but are characteristic only of Our Lord’s allusions and those of John, whose modes of speech in general very closely resemble those of Our Lord. Our confidence is still further shaken when we observe that the implications with respect to the mutual relations of the Trinitarian Persons, which are ordinarily derived from these designations, do not so certainly lie in them as is commonly supposed.

It may be very natural to see in the designation “Son” an intimation of subordination and derivation of Being, and it may not be difficult to ascribe a similar connotation to the term “Spirit.” But it is quite certain that this was not the denotation of either term in the Semitic consciousness, which underlies the phraseology of Scripture; and it may even be thought doubtful whether it was included even in their remoter suggestions. What underlies the conception of sonship in Scriptural speech is just “likeness”; whatever the father is that the son is also. The emphatic application of the term “Son” to one of the Trinitarian Persons, accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His subordination to the Father; and if there is any implication of derivation in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective “only begotten” (Jn. 1:14; 3:16–18; 1 Jn. 4:9) need add only the idea of uniqueness, not of derivation (Ps. 22:20; 25:16; 35:17; Wisd. 7:22 m.); and even such a phrase as “God only begotten” (Jn. 1:18 m.) may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as “the first-begotten of all creation” (Col. 1:15) may convey no intimation of coming into being, but merely assert priority of existence. In like manner, the designation “Spirit of God” or “Spirit of Jehovah,” which meets us frequently in the Old Testament, certainly does not convey the idea there either of derivation or of subordination, but is just the executive name of God—the designation of God from the point of view of His activity—and imports accordingly identity with God; and there is no reason to suppose that, in passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the term has taken on an essentially different meaning. It happens, oddly enough, moreover, that we have in the New Testament itself what amounts almost to formal definitions of the two terms “Son” and “Spirit,” and in both cases the stress is laid on the notion of equality or sameness. In Jn. 5:18 we read: ‘On this account, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, not only did he break the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.’ The point lies, of course, in the adjective “own.” Jesus was, rightly, understood to call God “his own Father,” that is, to use the terms “Father” and “Son” not in a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God’s son, but in the real sense. And this was understood to be claiming to be all that God is. To be the Son of God in any sense was to be like God in that sense; to be God’s own Son was to be exactly like God, to be “equal with God.” Similarly, we read in 1 Cor. 2:10, 11: ‘For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who of men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.’ Here the Spirit appears as the substrate of the Divine self-consciousness, the principle of God’s knowledge of Himself: He is, in a word, just God Himself in the innermost essence of His Being. As the spirit of man is the seat of human life, the very life of man itself, so the Spirit of God is His very life-element. How can He be supposed, then, to be subordinate to God, or to derive His Being from God? If, however, the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence and their derivation from the Father are not implicates of their designation as Son and Spirit, it will be hard to find in the New Testament compelling evidence of their subordination and derivation.

20. The Question of Subordination

There is, of course, no question that in “modes of operation,” as it is technically called—that is to say, in the functions ascribed to the several Persons of the Trinity in the redemptive process, and, more broadly, in the entire dealing of God with the world—the principle of subordination is clearly expressed. The Father is first, the Son is second, and the Spirit is third, in the operations of God as revealed to us in general, and very especially in those operations by which redemption is accomplished. Whatever the Father does, He does through the Son (Rom. 2:16; 3:22; 5:1, 11, 17, 21; Eph. 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:9; Tit. 3:5) by the Spirit. The Son is sent by the Father and does His Father’s will (Jn. 6:38); the Spirit is sent by the Son and does not speak from Himself, but only takes of Christ’s and shows it unto His people (Jn. 17:7 ff.); and we have Our Lord’s own word for it that ‘one that is sent is not greater than he that sent him’ (Jn. 13:16). In crisp decisiveness, Our Lord even declares, indeed: ‘My Father is greater than I’ (Jn. 14:28); and Paul tells us that Christ is God’s, even as we are Christ’s (1 Cor. 3:23), and that as Christ is “the head of every man,” so God is “the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in “modes of subsistence,” as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence. Question is raised in each case of apparent intimation of subordination in modes of subsistence, whether it may not, after all, be explicable as only another expression of subordination in modes of operation. It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity—a “Covenant” as it is technically called—by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, in which the Son, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself, enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate character. Question has even been raised whether the very designations of Father and Son may not be expressive of these new relations, and therefore without significance with respect to the eternal relations of the Persons so designated. This question must certainly be answered in the negative. Although, no doubt, in many of the instances in which the terms “Father” and “Son” occur, it would be possible to take them of merely economical relations, there ever remain some which are intractable to this treatment, and we may be sure that “Father” and “Son” are applied to their eternal and necessary relations. But these terms, as we have seen, do not appear to imply relations of first and second, superiority and subordination, in modes of subsistence; and the fact of the humiliation of the Son of God for His earthly work does introduce a factor into the interpretation of the passages which import His subordination to the Father, which throws doubt upon the inference from them of an eternal relation of subordination in the Trinity itself. It must at least be said that in the presence of the great New Testament doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work’s sake and of the Two Natures in the constitution of His Person as incarnated, on the other, the difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually obtrudes itself, whether they do not rather find their full explanation in the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the Humiliation of Christ, and the Two Natures of His incarnated Person. Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament.²

I appreciate Warfield’s concerns. (1) We must be clear when we’re drawing inferences from what the Scripture says, (2) we must draw those inferences cautiously—especially when we’re dealing with the very nature of the triune God, a subject that has been fraught with heresy since dawn of the NT church—and (3) we must evaluate whether there are better options that account for all the data. Warfield’s reservation is healthy, and I think we’d all do well to take it to heart and tread carefully when discussing the nature of the eternal Trinity.

However, I think that anti-hierarchicalists want to see in Warfield more than is really there.³ What’s clear is that Warfield’s chief concern is to eliminate the kind of subordination of the Son or the Spirit that “would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers.” He is not necessarily opposed to a kind of subordination that preserves them, even if he does have some reservations about it. Instead, he’s open to the possibility that the relations in the economic Trinity are rooting in the eternal relations in the immanent Trinity.⁴

Footnotes

1. “Trinity,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 5:3,012–22.
2. Note: This section is in smaller print in the original, indicating, perhaps, that Warfield viewed it as something of an aside.
3. Strangely, hierarchicalist Wayne Grudem cites Warfield in support of his position and is, I think, a little misleading (even if unintentionally) in doing so: “Several evangelical theologians speak of the subordination of the Son to the Father. . . . See also B. B. Warfield: ‘There is, of course, no question that in “modes of operation,” . . . the principle of subordination is clearly expressed.’” “The Meaning of κεφαλή (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 1 (2001):  35n23.
4. Cf. Fred G. Zaspel, “B. B. Warfield on the Trinity,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10, no. 1 (2005): 58–71.

Earlier this week, the Gospel Coalition blog featured a post on the Incarnation and God’s immutability, which caught my attention. An individual asked,

How do we hold together the idea that God doesn’t change with what happened at the incarnation and resurrection—where Jesus was united to a human nature and took on an earthly body and ultimately a resurrection body? It’s hard to understand that God[’s] taking on a human nature and all that he experienced in the flesh is not [a] fundamental change for him.

James Anderson, Assistant Professor of Theology and Philosophy at RTS in Charlotte, blogger, and Van Tillian, responded with a several considerations that help to lessen, though not remove, the tension.

As I see it, orthodox Christology doesn’t require us to say that the Incarnation involved an intrinsic change in God the Son. All we need to say is that (1) the Incarnation was a contingent event (i.e., God could have freely chosen not to take on a human nature) and (2) it’s timeless true that God the Son is not-related-by-incarnation with respect to creation-before-4-BC and related-by-incarnation with respect to creation-after-4-BC. The creation is conditioned by time, not God.

Not satisfied? Neither is he. Here’s how he concludes:

Some people will feel that while these theological distinctions take us so far, they don’t remove all of the perplexities and a residue of paradox remains. I’m one of those people. But given the limitations of the human mind, the profundity of God, and the philosophically puzzling nature of time, we shouldn’t be too surprised or disturbed by this. Nor should we think that these perplexities give us reason to abandon any biblical teachings or orthodox doctrines. Rather, we should continue to think hard and creatively about such matters, while acknowledging with due humility our limited understanding of God and his unfathomable ways (Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Tim. 3:16).

The post was particularly interesting to me because I’ve wrestled with a similar question over the years. And since I’ve had a partially drafted blog post in the queue for about five years, I thought I’d take the opportunity to resurrect it and finish it off.

My variation of this question focuses more on the notion of improvement than it does change (though improvement, of course, implies change). Here’s how I’d state the tension: because the triune God is eternally perfect and immutable, He cannot change or improve. Yet it seems that in the Incarnation God gained an ability that He did not formerly possess and thus, in a sense, the Incarnation “improved” God.

Before I go any further, let me be clear that I wholeheartedly affirm the biblical and historic view of the triune God as infinite, unchangeable, perfect, complete, lacking in nothing, and unimprovable—and all of these things eternally so. God always has been and always will be absolutely perfect in every conceivable way.

But several passages of Scripture seem on the surface to stand at odds with that statement—particularly, three in Hebrews.

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering (cf. 5:8-10).

It seems that the Incarnation with all that it involved was necessary in order for Christ to be made qualified or fit for His work as our high priest, which suggests that prior to the Incarnation He was not qualified to be our perfect high priest. In this sense, it seems that something was lacking that the Incarnation added.

Hebrews 2:14–18 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

The Incarnation was necessary in order for Christ to be our perfect high priest. His suffering and temptation made Him able to do something that He could not do prior to the Incarnation. Christ’s ability to relate to us prior to the Incarnation was based on His omniscience, but He lacked personal experience of weakness, suffering, and temptation. It seems, then, that the Incarnation added something to Christ that He did not have before the Incarnation—namely, the ability “to help those who are being tempted.” Obviously, Christ was able to help Abraham, David, and the saints of old, but He can now help us in ways that He couldn’t help them. Thus God became better equipped by the Incarnation than He was before.

Hebrews 4:14–16 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Prior to the Incarnation, Christ could not sympathize with our weaknesses to the degree or in the way that He can now. He knew them only in theory, by virtue of his omniscience. Because of the Incarnation, He now knows them by experience—resulting in an improved and superior ability to sympathize with and help us.

So from these passages, I’d draw this tentative conclusion: God’s becoming a man seems to have added something to Him—namely (1) experience of weakness, suffering, and temptation, (2) the ability to relate to and help weak, suffering, and tempted people like us, and (3) the qualification to be our perfect high priest.

How does the Bible’s teaching about God’s eternal immutability and perfection harmonize with this apparent change and improvement in God’s ability to relate to His sinful people?

Here are a few possible resolutions:

1. God’s Timelessness/Eternality: Perhaps we can resolve the tension by appealing to God’s eternality and timelessness. What seems to be change and improvement in time is really just our experience of eternal realities. The challenge with this approach is avoiding the notion that God was eternally united to humanity in the second person of the Trinity.
2. Only Apparent Improvement: Or perhaps what appears to be change and improvement is only apparently so. Maybe the change wasn’t really in God, but in how we relate to God based on our sin. We were the ones who changed from being in perfect fellowship with God, not God. Or to put it another way, perhaps it wasn’t that God couldn’t relate to us in the new and improved way prior to the incarnation but that He didn’t. But the Hebrews passages certainly make it sound like God changed to relate to us in a new way that He formerly couldn’t (δύναται in Heb 2:18 and δυνάμενον in Heb 4:15).
3. Functional Not Essential Improvement: Maybe we need to make a distinction between ontology and economy. It’s possible that nothing changed in God’s essence, but instead He took on a new role, a new function, as the God-man. But it’s hard to image how a new ability doesn’t involve essential change.
4. Improvement with Respect to Jesus’ Human Nature: These passage speak of Christ with respect to His human nature, so perhaps nothing changed with regard to Christ’s divine nature or the triune God. But His human nature was hypostatically united to His divine nature, so the second person of the Trinity became able to relate to His people in a way He formerly couldn’t. And the Son is perichoretically united to the Father and the Spirit, so the triune God likewise became able to relate to His people in a way He formerly couldn’t.
5. Divine Improvement Compatible with Biblical Immutability: Perhaps the Bible allows for there to be some change and improvement in God. Statements about His not changing may refer only to the constancy of His character and His faithfulness to His Word. But the overarching testimony of the Bible is that God possesses all power and authority and lacks nothing, seemingly ruling out any notion of improvement of any kind.

None of these “solutions” is without its problems. Consequently, I think it’s best to come to the same conclusion James did. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, God’s becoming man and all that it entailed is a great mystery beyond our ability to comprehend fully.

I occasionally create PDF documents using Adobe InDesign. The source document always comes from Microsoft Word. More often than not, when placing (think importing) the document in InDesign, it crashes and says, “Adobe InDesign CS5 has stopped working. A problem caused the program to stop working correctly. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available.” It gives no indication of what the problem might be, forcing me to search the Word document to see if I can locate the issue myself.

I proceed by dividing the document in half and then trying to import each half. The one that fails, I divide in half. I repeat this process over and over (and over) until I’ve located the page or paragraph with the problem. Since there’s no visible problem with the text itself, I use PureText to wipe out all the formatting and problem code and then reformat it by hand to match the original. It’s not a fun process, but it gets the job done.

After doing this for the third time, I decided there had to be a better (i.e., faster) way to identify the problem and fix it. I finally realized this time that in each case the problem has been the presence of a single empty footnote tag within a footnote. (I have no idea how it gets there.) There’s no indication of anything on the surface. However, underneath there’s an empty footnote tag in the code. This trips up InDesign every time, causing the program to crash and the placing process to fail. (It sure would be nice if it would just skip right over it and ignore it.) Don’t ask me how the people who create the documents I import manage to get empty footnote tags in their footnotes. If I knew, I’d ask them to stop it.

Anyway, I found a solution that works and will save me about an hour or more each time in the future. I’m posting it here so I don’t forget—and in hopes that it might help others who run into the same problem and turn to Google for the solution.

Here’s what you need to do:

1. Copy and paste your entire document into Dreamweaver (or a comparable program that lets you see the underlying code).
2. Search the code of the HTML document for <a name="fn" id="fn">.
3. Locate the text between <a name="fn" id="fn"> and the closing tag </a>.
4. Locate and select that same text (and, to be safe, the word immediately before and after it) in your Word document and paste it back in without formatting. (You can do this by using PureText, choosing Paste Special > Unformatted Text, or just deleting and retyping the text.)
5. Reformat the text as necessary.
6. Save your document, and retry placing it in InDesign.

If your document is too big to paste into Dreamweaver, you’ll have to take a slightly different approach.

1. Save your Word document as a web page.
2. Open the web page in Dreamweaver or another HTML editor.
3. Search the code of the HTML document for <a name=fn>.
4. Locate the text between <a name=fn> and the closing tag </a>.
5. Follow steps 4–6 above.

Carl Trueman wrote several provocative posts critiquing conservative evangelicalism in American and its purportedly unhealthy promotion of its prominent preachers and teachers—particularly as it relates to conferences like The Gospel Coalition.

Here they are:

1. Home Thoughts from Abroad
2. What hath Jerusalem to do with Hollywood?
3. Thoughts on Marketing and Conferences
4. Not guilty!
5. The Lady Doth Protest Too Much
6. Truly Honoured
7. Fascinating Week
8. An interesting email

Trueman makes some good points worth pondering, but I think his take is a little imbalanced—as did Thabiti Anyabwile:

1. Really Trueman? Only in America?
2. Uncle… Uncle!
3. A Solution I Had Not Considered

For example, he said in his third post,

First, market conferences on the basis of content not speakers. Send a clear signal—from the design of the webpage to the wording of the fliers—that it is what is to be said, not who is saying it, that is important. Indeed, maybe one could be really radical: do not even let people know who is speaking; just tell them the titles of the talks. “Ah, but then no-one will come!”, you say. Well, if that is true, then the case for saying that conferences are all about idolising celebrities would seem to be irrefutable.

I’d guess Carl would have a difficult time being consistent with this kind of an approach. Imagine if our colleges and seminaries stopped listing their professors and what classes they were teaching. Imagine if books were published anonymously and endorsers and reviewers were nameless. Imagine if we wiped out names like Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen (a favorite of Trueman’s), Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, et al. from our history books and focused only on average people. Would that somehow make us more spiritual?

Is it wrong to take a class based on its teacher? To read a book based on its author? To study the life of a prominent historical figure based on the impact his life and teaching had?

While it can be, depending on one’s motives for doing so, it certainly doesn’t have to be.

We’re wise to encourage people to learn from the best teachers, theologians, and preachers that God has given to His church—whether it’s through their preaching at conferences, teaching in classrooms, or writing in books and on blogs. Not to do so belittles the Spirit’s wisdom in giving gifts “to each one individually has he wills” (1 Cor 12:11) and is poor stewardship of the limited time we have to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There’s nothing spiritual about pretending that all people are equally gifted. And there’s nothing unspiritual about preferring to learn from the best.

1 Corinthians and James 2 need to be taken seriously, but I don’t think Carl’s proposal is the answer—at least not without some modifications.

Friends tell me that Carl is quite the popular professor at WTS. If I were there, I’d love to take a class from him. And I don’t think that speaks poorly of me—or of him. In fact, one of the reasons I subscribe to and read the Reformation 21 blog is because men like Carl contribute to it. And for that I’m thankful.

What do you think? Is Carl on target here, or is he taking some valid criticisms too far?

In recent debates about the Trinity—particularly the ones that stem from the gender debate—the question of the differences among the persons of the Trinity comes to the forefront. How do the Father, Son, and Spirit differ from each other?

John Brown of Haddington answers this way:¹

1. By their names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Mt 28:19; 2 Co 8:14; Mt 3:16–17; 1 Jn 5:7; Jn 14:16–17.
2. By their order of subsistence; the Father the first; the Son the second; and the Holy Ghost the third, 1 Jn 5:7; Mt 28:19. But to mark their equality, they are sometimes mentioned in a different order, 2 Co 8:14; Re 1:4–5; 1 Th 3:5.
3. By their different order of operation. The Father acts from himself through the Son and by the Spirit. The Son acts from the Father and by the Spirit: And the Spirit acts from both the Father and the Son, Jn 2:16; 1:1–3; 5:17–19; 15:26; 14:26; 16:7.
4. By their different stations, which, in a delightful correspondence with their natural order of subsistence, they have voluntarily assumed in the work of our redemption:—the Father as the Creditor, Judge Master, and Rewarder;—the Son as the Mediator, Surety, Servant, Pannel, &c.;—and the Holy Ghost as the Furnisher, Assistant, and Rewarder of the Mediator, and the Applier of the redemption purchased by him, Zech 3:8; 8:7; Is 42:1, 6–7; 49:1–9; 53:2–12, Jn 16:8–15; Eph 1:17–18; 3:16–19; 4:30; Ezek 36:27.
5. And chiefly by their personal properties.—The Father is neither begotten by, nor preceeds from any other person, but, being first in order, he begets the Son, and hath the Holy Ghost proceeding from him. The Son is begotten by the Father, and hath the Holy Ghost proceeding form him. The Holy Ghost neither begets, nor is begotten, but proceeds from both the Father and the Son, John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 14:26; Ga 4:4–6; 1 Pe 1:11.

But here’s the crucial question: are these differences eternal, or are they merely voluntarily taken on in time for us and our salvation? Concerning personal properties, Brown continues,

To contend that these properties belong only to these divine persons, as connected with man’s redemption, is really to admit the Sabellian heresy, which represents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as but one divine person, manifested in three different forms in that work: For, if no known differences be admitted, no real distinction of those persons can be admitted. If we assert that these properties must belong to the redemption-scheme, because they are ordinarily found in near connection with something pertaining to it; we must, for the same reason, give up all the evidences as to the true godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost. Mean while these properties are so mysterious, that we can no more comprehend or explain them, than we can do the self-existence, infinity, and unsuccessive eternity of God.

What about the other four differences? Their stations are apparently not eternal differences, but are rather “voluntarily assumed in the work of our redemption”—though they are “in a delightful correspondence with their natural order of subsistence.”

It’s not clear how Brown would address their names, order of subsistence, and order of operation. But I’d be inclined to see these as reaching back into their eternal relationship—or at the very least as accurate representations of eternal realities.

What do you think?

Footnotes

1. The Systematic Theology of John Brown of Haddington (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2002), 142. First published in 1782 as A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion. I updated the format of the Bible references to make them more readable and added bold to the five italicized terms.

My immediate response would probably be God’s special revelation in His authoritative and inerrant Word.

Here’s what B. B. Warfield had to say in “The Deity of Christ”:

The Scriptures give us evidence enough, then, that Christ is God. But the Scriptures are far from giving us all the evidence we have. There is, for example, the revolution which Christ has wrought in the world. If, indeed, it were asked what the most convincing proof of the deity of Christ is, perhaps the best answer would be, just Christianity. The new life He has brought into the world; the new creation which He has produced by His life and work in the world; here are at least His most palpable credentials.

Early in the essay, Warfield clarifies:

A recent writer¹ has remarked that our assured conviction of the deity of Christ rests, not upon “proof-texts or passages, nor upon old arguments drawn from these, but upon the general fact of the whole manifestation of Jesus Christ, and of the whole impression left by Him upon the world.” The antithesis is too absolute, and possibly betrays an unwarranted distrust of the evidence of Scripture. To make it just, we should read the statement rather thus: Our conviction of the deity of Christ rests not alone on the scriptural passages which assert it, but also on His entire impression on the world; or perhaps thus: Our conviction rests not more on the scriptural assertions than upon His entire manifestation. Both lines of evidence are valid; and when twisted together form an unbreakable cord. The proof-texts and passages do prove that Jesus was esteemed divine by those who companied with Him; that He esteemed Himself divine; that He was recognized as divine by those who were taught by the Spirit; that, in fine, He was divine. But over and above this Biblical evidence the impression Jesus has left upon the world bears independent testimony to His deity, and it may well be that to many minds this will seem the most conclusive of all its evidences. It certainly is very cogent and impressive.

He closes the article with this:

The supreme proof to every Christian of the deity of his Lord is then his own inner experience of the transforming power of his Lord upon the heart and life. Not more surely does he who feels the present warmth of the sun know that the sun exists, than he who has experienced the re-creative power of the Lord know Him to be his Lord and his God. Here is, perhaps we may say the proper, certainly we must say the most convincing, proof to every Christian of the deity of Christ; a proof which he cannot escape, and to which, whether he is capable of analyzing it or drawing it out in logical statement or not, he cannot fail to yield his sincere and unassailable conviction. Whatever else he may or may not be assured of, he knows that his Redeemer lives. Because He lives, we shall live also—that was the Lord’s own assurance. Because we live, He lives also—that is the ineradicable conviction of every Christian heart.

These quotations come from Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Deity of Christ,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, et al. (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), 2:239–46. [Amazon | Logos]

Warfield is not talking about one being more reliable than the other. Both of these proofs are equally reliable. Rather, he is talking about what has greater power of persuasion—something that can vary from person to person.

The whole thing is worth reading. It gives a glimpse into Warfield’s apologetic method and makes helpful distinctions between proof, argument, persuasion, and warrant.

What do you think? Do you agree with Warfield?

Footnotes

1. William Porcher Dubose, “The Problem of the Person,” chapter XVI in The Gospel in the Gospels (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908), 207.