If you're like me, you love the idea of reading Joel Beeke & Mark Jones' impressive new book A Puritan Theology, but you also find it pretty inconvenient to carry a book of 1000+ pages with you on the go. Ordinarily, you could just tear out the pages you want to read and then glue them back in later, but lets face it - that's not a great idea. One option is to get the book on Amazon Kindle. Ordinarily, the book is an unpleasant $30 on Kindle (and $60 in print), but for the weekend until Monday the book is on sale for $9.99 at Amazon. Even if you have the book in print, it's probably worth it to get it in this portable format. Although our readers are probably familiar with this book, I want to mention the very first paragraph in the book from the foreword written by Sinclair Ferguson:
The one thousand pages and more than half a million words you now hold in your hand constitute the largest and most comprehensive exposition to date on the theology of the English Puritans. It is a remarkable achievement, the fruit of many combined decades of reading, research, and reflection on the part of its authors.
I did leap on this deal immediately, and while I love print books, this is definitely the kind of book to take with you wherever you go, since it is as devotional as it is systematic. You can fine it here.
One of our readers has just finished working on an edition of the Westminster Standards in Amazon Kindle format. While there are many copies of the Standards available for the Kindle, this version stands out because of several included documents:
The Confession of Faith
The Shorter Catechism
The Larger Catechism
The Psalms of David in Metre
To the Christian Reader, Especially Heads of Families
Mr Manton's Epistle to the Reader
Sum of Saving Knowledge
National Covenant
Solemn League and Covenant
Directory for the Publick Worship of God
Directory for Family-Worship
Form of Presbyterial Church-Government
There are three primary features which make this version superior:
As you can see, this isn't just the Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It also includes a variety of other documents either relevant to or also produced by the Assembly.
The book comes with an initial table of contents that takes the reader to any of the above listed documents. Within each document is its own relevant Table of Contents. So if you go to the Confession, you get a listing of chapters to navigate to.
The most important feature is that the Standards all come with the Assembly's scripture proofs in hyperlinked format. They don't interfere with your reading, but if you want the proofs, you need only click on the footnote to be taken to them, typed out in the King James text.
All that to say, this is the best version of the Westminster Standards available so far in Kindle format. There are many copies of this document available, but this one stands head and shoulders above the rest. It isn't free, but it is worth it. You can find it here.
Jerry Bridges' masterful book Trusting God: Even When It Hurts is available today for free on the Kindle. You can get it by clicking here.
This is actually my favorite of all Jerry Bridges' books. That might be because it's the only one I've actually read, however. One of my favorite things about Trusting God is his extensive and thoroughly convincing discussion of God's sovereignty over all things - even the evils which befall us as His children. It's a good book for everyone, because even if you aren't hurting right now, the Bible guarantees that you will at some point.
It's been awhile since we've had any discussion of the continuing nature of the Sabbath. In Greg Beale's fantastic book, A New Testament Biblical Theology, he discusses the eschatological implications of the Sabbath. He argues that the Sabbath as instituted at creation still persists, although the specifics of the Sabbath as mandated by Yahweh and practiced by Israel has been typologically fulfilled in Christ, which echos Calvin on the subject. Beale then nicely summarizes:
The continuation of a weekly day of rest not only commemorates this past rest but also points forward to Christ's final coming, when believers themselves will be resurrected bodily and completely enter the same rest that Christ has already fully entered. Sabbatarians, however, continue to label this commemorative day to be the "Sabbath," since the sign to which the weekly Sabbath points has not yet been finally and completely fulfilled. This is not a simple carry-over of Israel's Sabbath ordinance; it is a continuation of the expression of the creation ordinance...which mandated that humanity rest on the seventh day (p. 800).
And so, those who complain that Christians don't really celebrate the Sabbath, because they should still be observing it on Saturdays, not Sundays, fail to appreciate the eschatological already-not-yet significance of Christ's coming. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ, but not all aspects of the Sabbath will have been fulfilled until the final consummation at Christ's second coming.
[I offer the warning that this may be spoiler-ish.]
Having just seen Cloud Atlas, I was struck by several themes in the film and wanted to write about them. I must offer a preliminary caveat that I have not read the book which the film is based on. I also want to mention that I am not some sort of self-styled expert on this film and will not pretend to be. Having said that, this film is very good. The reaction by the people in the theatre when I went was quite positive, and everyone immediately started speculating as to the film’s meaning as they were walking down the aisles to exit the theatre. Films that cause us to think about ourselves, about death, about the universe, about fate, about meaning, and about our connection to our fellow human beings seem quite rare, and so when they do happen to come around, our ears should perk up. So having left Cloud Atlas, what did we hear?
For starters, the movie strikes me as the epitome of post-modern filmmaking and worldview. I have heard similar evaluations of the novel by David Mitchell. Frequent reference is made in the movie to “your truth,” “true truth,” “your version of the truth,” etc. In fact, the movie itself is a kaleidoscope of six different stories, all knit together into a single compelling narrative with the story cutting from one to the next. It becomes clear that each of these stories are connected to the others by way of storytelling/documentary narrative devices.
Some see this movie as promoting reincarnation, picturing each character as dying and being reincarnated into the other storylines that follow it chronologically. The reincarnation idea is too overt or obvious, however. The movie is mostly about storytelling, and that is why it concludes with Tom Hanks’ future man living on another planet telling his children and grand children these fantastical tales of this world he once knew like it was a memory. His final storytelling character (he plays six different characters) gives the story narrative unity. Everything that we see in the story is filtered through his narrative (a story within a story), though we weren’t aware of it until the last scene of the movie.
In other words, Cloud Atlas is meant to give us fallible retellings of every event we are seeing. And yet I doubt the filmmakers would say that what we are seeing on the screen is not true. Rather, the movie reflects a fundamental commitment to the idea that all truth is mediated and is therefore interpreted. Van Til would rejoice at this premise. However, since no truth-teller is infallible (Christians can think of one, of course), we are bound to get various versions of the same story.
The reincarnation theme is not, I think, a reflection of an overt belief in literal reincarnation. Rather, it is a reflection of the larger commitments of the filmmakers – namely materialism, determinism, and monism. These three systems are all mutually interlocking and interdependent. The Wachowskis, who wrote the story, are committed Nietzscheans who do not believe in any traditional definition of God. Further, the materialistic universe is fatalistically determined because of the absence of variables in the universe. For the filmmakers, everything is predetermined based on impersonal laws of physical causation. Ultimately, as well, everything in such a universe is one. There is no differentiating one type of matter from another, and so one is left with a universe that is all unity and no diversity.
The reincarnation theme is actually not a reincarnation theme, ultimately. Rather, it is a reflection of a monistic universe where all is one. This can sound abstract, but it preaches well and it is a thematically fulfilling sentiment in the context of the movie. Those who see the movie will notice that it opens and closes with the same shot of the stars. As I was leaving the theatre one woman hit the nail on the head (I admit it isn’t a difficult theme to spot in this movie) when she turned to her companion and said, “So really the movie is saying that we’re all connected to each other.” This is a rhetorically powerful theme, which has great force in our own day and age. In a sense it demands a response from those dissenting from the filmmakers’ larger project.
From the monistic perspective, all is neither good or bad, it simply is – matter in motion evolving and moving from one state of being to another. However, that isn’t even right, because in the end, even the “beingness” in one state cannot, given monism, be differentiated from the “beingness” of matter in another state. Monism isn’t self-defeating. It is self-absorbing. It becomes meaningless because the questions just soak into matter like a sponge absorbing water. Is there pain right now? Just wait – it will pass and be forgotten. Is there delight or joy right now? It’s only a matter of time before it becomes less than a memory.
The Christian perspective on this reincarnation theme is to assert on the basis of received revelation that God has spoken to us, and what he has told us is that he creates each of us at a point in time and that we did not exist before that, though he did. Our lives are linear, moving from conception to birth to death to the eternal state. In this film, the implicit lesson for the here and now is that we must treat one another with love, respect, and care because we are all connected. Early on in the movie, Ewing sees a slave being whipped. The slave looks up and stares at Ewing as if he knew him even though they had never met before. The lesson (if you want to impute such intention to the filmmakers) is that this slave, Mr. Ewing, is you. Mr. Ewing ought to become an abolitionist because he and the slave are one – they are more than connected – they are one another, just like all of us.
From a Christian perspective, we agree. Of course, this agreement comes with some caveats. We are one with one another by way of our relationship to the first man – Adam. We are not to be identified with one another directly, however, though our lives are interconnected and do have an impact one another and on future generations which follow. Our motive for treating one another rightly is related to the common divine image that we all share. The writers of scripture refer to the image of God as motive for treating others as they ought to be treated (James 3:9). This leaves open the possibility of our being kind to one another without compromising our own personal identity and while avoiding the many contraditctory problems of monism.
In the end, Cloud Atlas is a beautiful, compelling, exciting movie that is bound to leave theatregoers profoundly confused. There are other issues to discuss in the movie (and in terms of content, I definitely recommend viewers check out the content advisory at the film's IMDB parental content page), but I wanted to touch on the most core metaphysical issues in this film. The movie was gripping, beautifully shot, absolutely fascinating from beginning to end (even with a near 3-hour running time!), and well-acted. My guess is there will be dissertations and books written about his film in the years to come, (but hopefully there won’t be any misguided books titled The Gospel According to Cloud Atlas). It is my hope that Christians will learn to express their own worldview in as winsome and compelling a way as the Wachowskis have done in this film.
If you follow Jonathan Edwards studies, it’s no secret that Edwards’ doctrine of Justification has been under fire since the 1940s. Examples abound, even in popular Reformed writings. R. Scott Clark has written in an online forum that “At best, Edwards was at times confusing about justification. At worst he was contradictory and unconfessional re the same.” J.V. Fesko devotes a few pages of his otherwise wonderful book Justification to Edwards and concludes: “It does not seem possible to argue that Edwards’ construction is within the confines of Reformed orthodoxy…at minimum, a cloud of ambiguity hangs over Edwards’ doctrine of justification” (39). There are others who argue that Edwards was unambiguously Reformed in his view of justification and that there is no question of the quality of Edwards’ orthodoxy.
In this latter category belongs a new book from Crossway, Jonathan Edwards and Justification. Josh Moody, the editor, as well as the other contributors are all convinced that Edwards has been fundamentally misunderstood by a wide swath of scholars, beginning with Perry Miller during his much lauded rediscovery of Edwards in the 40s and 50s.
Central to this misunderstanding, they argue, is the misreading of much of Edwards' terminology. Among the most “troublesome” aspects of Edwards’ expression of justification is his usage of the word “infusion.” Moody helpfully explains the misunderstanding:
When Edwards talks about infusion and the like, what he is referring to is not the infusion of righteousness that the Westminster divines spoke against, but rather the experience of the new creation, the experience of having Christ in us, and us being in him. This supernatural event takes place when someone becomes a Christian – that is what Edwards is describing… (14)
Moody ably defends this thesis in his own chapter, and also helpfully lays out Edwards’ understanding of justification based on Edwards’ quaestio, his Justification by Faith Alone, and some of his Miscellanies. There is also discussion of Edwards’ ordo salutis. The charges of “confusion” and “ambiguity” are hard to be sympathetic with once one understands that Edwards absolutely does not root justification in personal holiness. Rather, Moody points out that there is a strong emphasis in Edwards on union with Christ as the ground of our justification.
[At one point Moody warns that anything from Edwards’ Miscellanies ought to be regarded as less significant than his printed writings. Moody helpfully quips, “If I am held to the stake for every semiformulated idea I have ever penned in private journals, I had better get rid of some of them before I pass through the veil.”]
Intrinsic to Moody’s case in defense of Edwards is that there is not always a 1:1 relationship between Edwards’ terminology and historic Reformed terminology. The above mentioned reference to “infusion” is a prime example of this. Moody admits that Edwards was a creative thinker and was writing in a context of apologetic against enlightenment thinkers. As such, he offered up-to-date arguments and not simply dogmatic restatements. He was writing for a creative an sophisticated era, and so he often used created and sophisticated language in addressing the challenges of his time.
In Kyle Strobel’s chapter, he argues that “Edwards’ development of soteriological loci under his analysis of the person and work of Christ and the nature and gift of the Spirit.” This is a significant chapter for coming to understand Edwards’ view of the roles of the Trinitarian persons in planning, accomplishing, and applying salvation. In the end, Strobel concludes that Edwards does not deny or undermine the forensic nature of justification because, “For Edwards, the only true ground for forgiveness is Christ himself. Because salvation, in its entirety, is found in Christ, union, we could say, grounds the application of redemption.”
Rhys Bezzant’s chapter, “The Gospel of Justification and Edwards’ Social Vision” explores the ministry context in which Edwards was writing and explores his doctrine of justification within those related pastoral themes. One comes away quite convinced that the portrayal of Edwards as a preacher of subjective change is an unfair caricature, to be sure. His chapter is interesting and contributes to the wider discussion of Edwards’ views.
Samuel T. Logan Jr. spends his chapter discussing what it meant for Edwards in terms of obedience, for someone to be justified. What does a justified person act like? He bases his answer largely in an overview of Edwards’ Religious Affections. It is clear from Logan’s chapter that for Edwards (echoing the rest of the Reformed tradition) there is no justification where there is no growth in the Spirit. This is because “The more a true saint loves God with a gracious love, the more he desires to love him, and the more uneasy is he at his want of love to him; the more he hates sin, the more he desires to hate it, and laments that he has so much remaining love to it…” This “relish for more relish” is something which, according to Edwards, only the regenerate person understands. Likewise, where this is missing, justification is also missing. This is hardly a crypto-Catholic understanding of justification.
The book ends with Doug Sweeney’s chapter, which is simply put, my favorite part. It is a joy to read, and I highly recommend that others actually skip to this one after reading Moody's excellent first chapter. In the fifth chapter, Sweeney spends a great deal of time establishing Edwards’ Reformed bonafides. He discusses the fact that yes, Edwards does point to faith as “the qualification which God has a primary Respect to in Justifying men.” However, Sweeney helpfully points out that “godly love is implied in saving faith and so is spoken of in Scripture as a condition of salvation – not a condition that secures justification before God, but a condition without which one does not have genuine faith” (143). Sweeney also points out the emphasis within Edwards on union with Christ as the ground of the believer’s righteousness before God. This is very much in keeping with the Reformed tradition of Calvin.
I would like to think that Jonathan Edwards and Justification is a solid step towards answering the concerns of men like Fesko, Clark, and others. This is not a substantial volume in terms of size, but it very clearly makes a strong case for the orthodoxy of Edwards’ teaching on justification. Edwards was a creative thinker who used less than conventional language at times to clarify his doctrine. This does not place him outside of Reformed Orthodoxy, but it does mean that he needs to be read more slowly, with an eye to the apologetic context in which he wrote and preached.
[I received a copy of Jonathan Edwards and Justification for review purposes from the publisher and was not required to give a positive review as a condition for my receiving it.]
On November 14-16 the Evangelical Theological Society will be gathering in Milwaukee, WI for their annual meeting. Our own Josh Walker will be delivering a paper, "Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, The New Perspective, and Romans 1:16-17: A Linguistic Approach."
Below is an abstract for the paper that he will be delivering:
Within the current Evangelical discussion of the New Perspective on Paul, the two leading voices, N. T. Wright and John Piper, have many areas of disagreement. One fundamental disagreement in this debate relates to the way the Greek phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is understood in the Pauline corpus. Wright argues that this phrase refers to God’s faithfulness to his covenantal promises, while Piper interprets this construction as describing God’s commitment to his own glory. By defining δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in these ways, both scholars commit the exegetical fallacy known as illegitimate totality transfer by forcing their particular definitions into every instance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the Pauline texts. One important example where both of their definitions do not fit is Rom 1:16 –17. It is argued that in this passage, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ refers to “a righteousness from God” and not a characteristic of God, as both Wright and Piper contend. The primary reason for understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:16–17 this way stems from the fact that Paul cites Hab 2:4 to explain this Greek phrase. When the Habakkuk text is understood as referring to a person who is righteous, and not to a characteristic of God, it then becomes evident that Paul employs δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17 to mean a righteousness from God.
He will be delivering it at the Frontier Airlines Center room 202 C on November 15th from 3:00 to 3:40pm. For more information check out the program schedule. Once he is done, it might not be a bad idea to stick around and listen to Frank Thielman present.
Bill Mounce has a very moving story about the most amazing Bible translator he has met (here). I would highly recommend giving this brief post a read.
The thing that struck me the most about this post is that God is in control of this world in such a way as to ensure that his word reaches the people he intends it to reach. There is nothing, humanly speaking, that can stop the word of God from going to a group of people that God wants to hear his word. This is why Paul can write in Romans 10:15, quoting Isaiah 52:7, "“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" The feet that come bringing the good news, the very words of God, are the feet that have been sent by God to deliver his word. God ensures this is done so that his name might be proclaimed and glorified among the nations. Thus, Bible translation is not a mere academic work; yes, it takes hard work and study to accomplish, but it is ultimately done that God's gospel of forgiveness of sin in Jesus Christ may go forth to every tribe of humanity!
True Community: The Biblical Practice of Koinonia by Jerry Bridges has gone free, temporarily at Amazon. This is a fairly new book that only just came out in August. I haven't read it yet, but this is from the publisher's description:
Fellowship among believers is more than just talking over coffee after church service. Biblical fellowship in New Testament times—or koinonia—had rich and varied meanings, including covenant relationship, partnership in the gospel, communion with God and others, and the sharing of earthly possessions. In True Community, best-selling author Jerry Bridges guides you through koinonia and its implications for today’s church. With discussion questions at the end of each chapter, this book will help you dig deeper into what Christian community in the twenty-first century should look like. You will come away with a new appreciation for fellowship, the church, and what God intended the body of Christ to be.
In the past I have highlighted foolish worldly pop-culture 'thinking' before, and I propose to do it again. I encountered a song on the radio the other day by a 'singer' (quotes emphasized) named Ke$ha. I'm guessing this spelling was an unfortunate error on the part of the nurse filling out the birth certificate. Anyway, I wanted to share some lyrics (though you'll thank me for not quoting all of them) from one of her songs:
I hear your heart beat to the beat of the drums
Oh what a shame that you came here with someone
So while you're here in my arms
Let's make the most of the night like we're gonna die young
We're gonna die young
We're gonna die young
Let's make the most of the night like we're gonna die young
What's of interest to me, and ought to be of interest to everyone is the conclusion drawn. For Ke$ha, the prospect of dying young entails hedonistic premises and leads to hedonistic conclusions. And yet the assumption here is that questions of the meaning of life, of why we're here, of what true and lasting pleasure are, of death and the afterlife are all secondary. For Ke$ha, death is just an obstacle to more pleasure. And I fear for many of us, and for her enthusiastic listeners, this is often the case.
I know it's just a really dumb song, and the people who listen to it claim not to care about the lyrics, but they deserve a contrast from the opposite end of the seriousness spectrum. I have previously compared music lyrics to Edwards, and I'm about to do it again. Jonathan Edwards was the picture of a man who wanted desperately not to waste his life. I quote now from his resolutions:
7. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.
17. Resolved, that I will live so as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.
50. Resolved, I will act so as I think I shall judge would have been best, and most prudent, when I come into the future world. July 5, 1723.
For many, music functions for us as a way to escape the responsibilities of existence. It is a means to forget about work and family and life and just lose oneself in the beat. If music is used in this way, it becomes a tool of self-destruction because, like a drug, it deadens the soul to our deepest and most desperate needs, while at the same time leaving those needs completely unaddressed.
Lets take Ke$ha's advice and live like we're gonna die young. But let's do something different because of it. Don't waste your life, people.
Puritan worship resembles the plays of Shakespeare. Shakespeare was content with the scantiest of stage props and built scenery and imagery into the text of the plays themselves. In a similar way, the Puritan got rid of the 'stage scenery' of the Catholic/Anglican worship and relied on the verbal imagery and symbolism, most of it based on the Bible... Once we grant the validity of the verbal image it becomes clear that the Puritan worship service did not starve the imagination or even the senses of the worshipper.
There have been rumblings and rumors for years that Joel Beeke was at work on a Systematic Theology of English Puritanism. It's so exciting now to see that it is out, and almost more exciting that for the next week Westminster Books will be selling it at 50% off. Weighing in at nearly 1200 pages, the size of A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life is only outweighed by the reputations of the men whose doctrines are explored in it. As Sinclair Ferguson says in the introductory chapter, "As one returns to the world of twenty-first century church, one cannot help feeling that there were giants in the land in those days."
Indeed. If you go to check out the book at Westminster, you'll also find that you can read the introduction, preface, and a sample chapter on union with Christ. Normally, the book sells for $60, but for the next week you can get it for $30. So go and do the right thing.
Either Christ died for:
1. All of the sins of all people
2. Some of the sins of all people
3. All of the sins of some people
However,
1. If Christ underwent punishment for all of the sins of all people, then no one will be in Hell.
2. Some people will be in Hell. Therefore 3. Christ did not undergo punishment for all of the sins of all people.
1. If Christ underwent punishment for only some of the sins of all people, then all people will be in Hell.
2. Not all people will be in Hell. Therefore 3. Christ did not undergo punishment for some of the sins of all people.
1. If some people will not be in Hell, then Christ underwent punishment for all of the sins of some people.
2. Some people will not be in Hell. Therefore 3. Christ underwent punishment for all of the sins of some people.
Owen anticipates a response:
1. Christ underwent punishment for all sins
2. Unbelief is a sin
Therefore 3. Christ underwent punishment for the sin of unbelief
James T. O'Brien is a PCA minister who has started an exciting publishing company called New Puritan Press. They specialize in translating and modernizing lesser known works by the Puritans and selling them in eBook format. These are books you can't find for free online - unless you read latin, that is. O'Brien made this announcement earlier today:
We are celebrating the launch of our e-publishing ministry, New Puritan Press. Our mission is to translate classic works by Puritans and other Reformed authors into 21st century English, so that God's people can profit from them again. To celebrate we are offering a wonderful and rare book, John Preston's The Fullness of Christ, (an exposition of John 1:14) for free today through Thursday only. Click the link or search for the book on Amazon. While there browse the other titles we are offering...
Would you like to know about the new books we will be publishing each month? You can by signing up for our once-a-month Newsletter at: newpuritanpress@yahoo.com. Pam and I want to thank you for your support on this exciting day!
All comments must adhere to the following guidelines or they will be deleted, without any warning or notice. As long as comments do not contain profanity, it is not our policy to delete them. We are not, however, interested in operating an anonymous forum where individuals can make any and every comment that comes into their heads without accountability.
As such, if you are commenting under a pseudonym, nickname, or anonymously, your comments will be deleted. You are free to disagree with us, but you are not free to make anonymous comments without identifying yourselves. We are accountable to our own churches and Presbyteries for the comments that we make here, and it must be possible for our commenters to be held to similar standards. Thus, all comments must contain the author's first and last name.
