Thanks for the clicks!

I just want to thank our readers for their clicks to the Westminster Bookstore. As you may know, when you follow our links to WTS Books, we get a small amount of credit each time. What you see above just came in the mail a matter of minutes ago. They are for my Fall seminary classes at RTS Jackson. These aren't all of the books that I need for all of my classes, but they are the books that you - our readers purchased.

One of the most exciting books, for me, is Michael Kruger's Canon Revisited. I had wanted to read it for my own edification, but now I will be reading it for Doctrine of Scripture class. I'm glad that an important work like this has been integrated into our curriculum here at RTS. We will also be reading Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum's Kingdom Through Covenant as well as Meredith Kline's The Structure of Biblical Authority for Introduction to Biblical Theology. All in all I couldn't be more thrilled about the Fall classes or more thankful to our readers.

Summer Institute for Biblical Languages

James Anderson Blog and John Frame Festschrift

James Anderson, a RTS-Charlotte professor, has just made available his chapter in John Frame's Festschrift titled, Speaking the Truth in Love. Anderson's article is called, "Presuppositionalism and Frame’s Epistemology," and as the title suggests, the article gives a succinct overview of Frame's presuppositionalism. Some will even be interested in that he defends Frame's triperspectivalism which is regularly misunderstood by those who appear to have not read Frame very carefully (or at all!). Anderson writes,

Perhaps the most helpful analogy here is the geometrical one. Given that we are stereo-optical creatures restricted to one point of view in time and space, we lack the capacity to see every part of a three-dimensional object at once, particularly if it is large and complex. For example, suppose I visit a house to assess it as a potential purchase. Clearly, it is not possible for me to view the front, back, and sides of the house simultaneously. I need to change my vantage point—my perspective—to gain a fuller understanding of the house. Likewise, I cannot see the entire house all at once in fine detail. I can first stand back and take a wide view, but then I need to step up close and scrutinize individual features. Exterior and interior views give me further perspectives and enhance my knowledge. I may also decide to visit the property again in different weather or lighting conditions. Finally, it will be prudent of me to invite other people to view the house, so that I can benefit from their additional perspectives. Our spatiotemporal limitations are but one aspect of our finitude.

Frame’s basic point is that what goes for geometrical perspectives goes for other kinds of conceptual perspectives too. The geometrical analogy also makes it clear that the charge of relativism, occasionally leveled at Framean perspectivalism by its critics, is quite misguided. It doesn’t follow, from the fact that a house appears differently to five people standing in various locations, that the house as such is different for each person or that there are no objective truths about the house. The critics thus conflate relativism and relativity; the former is self-defeating nonsense, whereas the latter ought to be self-evident common sense. In any case, Frame is careful to point out that the very basis for objectivity is the existence and self-revelation of an absolute God.

My point in this quote is not to claim that Frame's triperspectival "perspective" is helpful (though I have found it to be helpful in my hermeneutics), but only to point out that triperspectivalism, rightly understood, is not teaching "relativism" or that you can't call someone's perspective "wrong." After all, Frame calls people's "views" wrong all the time!

If you are interested in the festschrift more details can be found at Anderson's blog.

Dr. Waters is A Debtor to Mercy Alone

Dr. Guy Waters was recently interviewed on his chapter in Risking the Truth titled, "A Debtor to Mercy Alone." This new book has an interesting layout in that it is set up like an interview. The author is asked a series of questions and then gives a response. This gives the book a more conversational feel. The audio of this interview can be found here (do not worry when you hear the people speaking Spanish, the interview was done on a Spanish speaking radio station). The interview also covers the Federal Vision and the New Perspective(s) on Paul. Dr. Waters takes a balanced and even handed approach to both of these movements in the interview, which should be commended.

Van Pelt on the Biblical Languages

The Place of Anger in the Christian Life

I just finished listening to a sermon on Ephesians 4:26-27 by my friend Justin Estrada about anger in the Christian life, which can be heard here. Justin graduated from RTS last May and is now on his way to Oxford to work on a Ph.D. in Old Testament. I would commend the sermon to your listening. Justin does a fine job in explaing the text and passionately applying it to the people of God. I am particularly thankful for Justin's pointing out of the proper place for anger within the Christian worldview and the guardrails he sets for it.

Your Calling is Now

As many of our readers know, I am a full time seminary student at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS. As such, I often hear conversations about "calling." This "calling" is usually used to refer to what someone wants, or is called, to do after seminary. People will say, "I am called to the ministry," or "I am called to preach the word of God in the pulpit." Rarely, if ever, have I heard anyone say, "I am called to be a good father," or "I am called to be a faithful and loving husband." Are not these callings as well? Further more, if you are called by God to full time gospel ministry, why is it that seminary is looked at as a hurdle to jump or a necessary evil that must be done to get to what God is really calling you to? If God is calling you to full time ministery, then by necessity, God is calling you to be equipped for that task. In other words, if you are in seminary training for pulpit ministry, then you are, right now, called to be a good, diligent and faithful seminary student. Seminary is your calling. Seminary is not just preparing you for your calling, it is part of it. I hear people say things like, "I want to get done with seminary so I can start my calling," or "I am thinking about leaving seminary early so I can get into the ministry." Seminary should be viewed as your ministry. It is in seminary that the foundation for the rest of your life in God's service is laid. If the foundation is bad or abandon, then the whole building (your "real" calling) will be off. So, take heart those in school training for the pulpit. You are right where God wants you. You have already begun to fulfill your calling now!

Lookout Providence!

Tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. I will be heading with a fellow RTS student, Jonathan Kiel, and one of my professors, Dr. Miles Van Pelt, to Providence, Rhode Island to attend this year's annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I am looking forward to this meeting. It will be great to see some good friends I have not seen for awhile. I also have a few important meetings with prospective Ph.D. advisers (scary and exciting). There are a few key papers I am looking forward to hearing. One is Dr. Van Pelt's paper on the days of creation. And another is Andrew Pitts' paper on word order in biblical Greek.

It is also worth noting that there is a movement that is trying to expand the doctrinal bias of ETS. There are many helpful links about this issue on the Founders Blog which can be found here. I am not a voting member of ETS so I cannot vote on this issue, but I would encourage all voters to look into this issue and give it serious consideration. As it stands right now, a person can be a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and have a horrible view about the evangel (the gospel). This seems very odd to me. Anyway, I will try to blog about the conference while I am there, but I do not know how busy I will be, so I cannot make any promises.

Worship in All We do

As a new semester begins, I am reminded that as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to do everything we do with an eye to the glory of God. All we do needs to be an act of worship to the great God of the universe.

Dr. Derek Thomas on Christ the Center

One of my bosses, Dr. Derek Thomas was on the podcast of Castle Church, Christ the Center. The program, which can be found here, deals with the relationship between the academy and Christ's body, the Church. Dr. Thomas, since he is both a pastor and a professor, had many insightful things to say. This is one podcast I look forward to every week.

Van Pelt on Canon and Covenant

As most of our readers know, I was in Washington D.C. last week for a class on exegesis taught by Dr. Miles Van Pelt. During part of this class Dr. Van Pelt gave his lectures on the Canon and the Covenants. These lectures are fantastic. You can hear him give this lecture at Biblical Training.org. Pay particular attention to the Old Testament section to hear him on this topic. You have to register before you can download the lectures, but it is fast and, best of all, free. I highly recommend these lectures. They give a great framework for understanding the overall theme and structure of the Bible.

Washington D.C. and Exegesis

I wanted to let our readers know that I will be out of town for about 10 days (starting today). I am travailing to Washington D.C. with Dr. Miles Van Pelt and a few students from RTS Jackson to take Advanced Biblical Exegesis at the D.C. campus of RTS. I have no idea if I will be able to get online while I am gone, so I may not be able to post any new articles or respond to comments. However, you can rest assured that as soon as I get back I will follow up in the comment section and have pictures from the trip to post. Please pray for our trip. I think the drive is something like 15 hours. I have never been in a car that long before in my life. I hope my ADD stays in-check! Also, pray that the class will go well and the students learn to better handle the word of our glorious God and King, Jesus Christ.

Fairbairn Honor Scholar of Biblical Languages

I received some exciting news the other day. I was asked by Dr. Miles Van Pelt assistant or to put the job title in a more regal way, I am now one of the Fairbairn Honor to be his teaching Scholar of Biblical Languages. Patrick Fairbairn was a biblical scholar in the 19th century in the Free Church of Scotland. My new position is named in honor of him. The job will mainly consist of helping students learn Greek (my Hebrew is not so good) and aid Dr. Van Pelt in his writing projects. This new position will not take away from my other T.A. position with Dr. Derek Thomas (you can read more about this in my blogger profile).

I am humbled by and I look forward to this opportunity. It will be a great chance for me to cultivate my skill in the biblical languages and build relationships with students and Dr. Van Pelt. Please pray that God will use this new opportunity to bring glory and honor to his Son through my hard and diligent work.

A Few Thoughts on Philippians 2:7

I am working on a paper for my Pauline class taught by Dr. Guy Waters here at RST. Here are a few exegetical thoughts I have for Philippians 2:7, "but made himself nothing, taking the nature of a slave, becoming the form of a man and being found as human likeness."

1) There is a whole theory of the incarnation, the ‘kenotic’ theory, that is built on this passage, in fact on one phrase, avlla. e`auto.n evke,nwsen,, “but emptied himself,” or literally, “but himself emptied.” This theory teaches that at the incarnation Christ emptied himself of the form of God. That is, at the incarnation Christ divested himself of all the distinctive of deity; he set aside is infinitude. To this theory we can make the following objections. First, it is illegitimate to translate evke,nwsen as ‘emptied.’ All of the other uses of evke,nwsen in the New Testament have a metaphorical uses, such as 1 Corinthians 1:17, “the cross of Christ should be of no effect.” Second, and more formidably, this passage says nothing as to what was ‘emptied.” Thus, even if we grant the translation of ‘emptied,’ the theory still cannot find support in this text because this text is silent as to what was ‘emptied’ in the incarnation. However we understand evke,nwsen it cannot mean that Christ ceased to be what he was, God. Now, given the context of Paul’s exhortation, it seems best to take evke,nwsen to mean the humiliation or the ‘lowering’ Christ did at the incarnation (Macleod, 19-26)

2) e`auto.n is a reflexive pronoun. This is frequently done to denote that the subject is also the object of the action of the verb. In this case it indicates that Christ is the one who did the action and the one who received the action (Wallace, 350).

3) At least one thing Paul has in mind by morfh.n dou,lou labw,n is the fact that Christ became under the law. That is, in the incarnation Christ voluntarily subjected himself to the Law of God (Macloed, 27). Paul spells this out more clearly in Galatians 4:4-5, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

4) The two participial phrases here (1. taking the nature of a slave and 2. becoming the form of a man) should be seen as model. That is, they explain the mode or way in which Christ “made himself nothing” (Fee, 211).

5) Further, these two participial phrases (from #4) are in such close relationship (both are model participles and as such they complete the main verb) that their meaning should be seen as parallel. In other words, Paul is saying the same thing in two different ways (Melick, 104).

6) There is a textual variant in this text. P46, with support by some versional and patristic evidence, read avnqrw,pon instead of avnqrw,pwn. The reason for this should not be seen in theological motivation, but rather as a simple assimilation to the singular dou,lon. This is a common scribal error in the P46 manuscript.

Dr. Thomas Sharpens

Dr. Derek Thomas from Reformed Theological Seminary was on the radio program Iron Sharpens Iron. They discussed 'heresy.' The program can be found here.

Of particular note is his fine discussion, toward the end, of the Federal Vision in response to a caller. He shows great wisdom in handling this controversial issue.

The Federal Vision Heats Up

A recent blog article at the Green Bagginses points to some comments that James Jordan has made on this blog. Many of the comments by Jordan have been deleted, but a few are still there at the original site. Either way, Andy Webb from the Green Bagginses has them posted on his site.

Now, before reading anymore, you must read Jordan's comments. Some of them are so outrageous that my commentary will be of little help if Jordan's remarks are not squarely in view.

Go read it...

Did you read it???

Good, you can proceed.

There are two main thoughts that come to my mind in this situation. The first is that we have moved way beyond discussing the issues and have clearly moved into the ad hominem phase of this controversy. Now clearly not everyone involved in this controversy is 'throwing mud.' There are men on both sides of this issue who are handling this with great respect and integrity. One such man is Dr. Guy Waters. It seems that everyone feels like he is the 'whipping boy' of the TR's. At every turn people are taking shots at him. The recent article in the Westminster Theological Journal that reviews his book on the FV is a great example of this. But despite all the attacks against him, I have never heard, see or read him say anything negative about the so-called 'FV guys.' Sure he has said thing about their views, but there has never been one personal attack that I am aware of. I am sure that he has not said anything close to the level of James Jordon's most recent comments. I think that everyone in this debate could learn a few things from Dr. Waters. If you agree with his views or not, he has constantly shown Christian character throughout this controversy.

The second thought I have is that I am, on one level, glad that Jordan said what he did. Before you jump on me for this comment, let me explain. There are many on the FV side of this issue that seem to think (and the repeat over and over) that the TR's are the only ones 'throwing mud.' Clearly Jordan is not the first FVer to lower to this level, but those who are sympathetic to the FV always find a way to see their guys in a positive light and the TR's in a negative light. With these comments by Jordan, there is no way that they can be spun to not look like mud throwing.

Now given the big picture, I wish all sides, including Jordan, could carry this discussion on with Christian character. Remembering that the greatest of these is Love. When I first read Jordan's comments, I was truly saddened by them. I was saddened to see the discussion come to this level. But to Jordan's credit, it appears, that he did delete many of the comments. This may be the lowest point in the debate, but it could be on a up swing. We can only watch and pray.

Guy Waters is a Liberal

Hot off the press, today in our Greek exegesis class Dr. Guy Waters identified himself as a 'liberal.'

I was shocked! After all, Waters is often called a TR. You know a 'TR', it stands for 'Totally Reformed' or 'Truly Reformed.' This is used by some as a chide remark for people who are far to the right theological of where they are and usually carries with it the idea that the person holds strongly to a certain confession of faith. In other words, this term is used in a negative way to put down those among the Reformed faith who take their tradition seriously and have the nerve to actually hold to the doctrinal standards of their faith. (At this point I am being sarcastic. I needed to say that because many today in the Reformed church actually think it is a bad thing to hold strictly to, say, the Westminster standards. This is far beyond my understanding. I am a Presbyterian precisely because it holds to the Westminster Standards.)

Back to the hot news, after Waters referred to himself as a 'liberal,' he followed up his comments with, "liberal in the 18th century sense of that word." At this point I wiped the sweat off my brow. I was relieved to find out that Water's was still my favorite TR, after all liberal in this sense means broad or wide.

Also, in this vain, Dr. Waters has a great new book out, By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justifications. Guy Waters and Gary Johnson co-edited this book. I hope to have a review of this book up in the future. But this book, among others, is one of the reasons that Dr. Waters is labeled a 'TR'. I would like to be the first and hopefully not the last to thank Dr. Waters for being a 'TR.' The Reformed faith needs more men like this. Men who are willing to stand up to those who are distorting the historic Reformed faith. So, Dr. Waters, THANK YOU!