There is no doubt that Peckham is a gifted writer, and his intentions motivating his work are noble. He seeks to provide an account of the divine attributes that is biblically faithful and theologically coherent in hopes that readers will be drawn to worship and praise for God. Unfortunately, Peckham’s unique formulation of the doctrine of God has far too many deficiencies to overcome. Rather than pointing readers to the God of Scripture, Peckham has breached the Creator/creature distinction and created a God made in the image of man.

Following up on his introductory work, The Doctrine of God: Introducing the Big Questions (2019), Adventist theologian John C. Peckham has published Divine Attributes: Knowing the Covenantal God of Scripture. In this work, Peckham aims to give an account of the divine attributes that are thoroughly biblically grounded over and against models of classical theism which he believes undervalue the plain meaning of Scripture in favor of Greek philosophical presuppositions. As Peckham writes in his introduction, his goal is to “offer a careful theological analysis of divine attributes” that would uphold the “unique normativity of Scripture, in dialogue with core issues in the contemporary discussion of classical theism” (17). Following the introduction, each chapter focuses on a particular attribute in order to show that the covenantal God is one who is dynamic in His relationships and experiences genuine movement and emotions.
Overview
Following the introduction, chapter one surveys various models of theism, including that which Peckham identifies as strict classical theism, process theology, moderate classical theism, and a small section on the God of Greek philosophy. Readers of this review may be most interested to see how he defines and contrasts the strict and moderate conceptions of classical theism. Strict classical theism holds that God must possess the attributes of “divine perfection, necessity, pure aseity, utter self-sufficiency, strict simplicity, timeless eternity, strict immutability, strict impassability, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence” (20-21). Moderate classical theists, however, differ by understanding that God, “engages in genuine relationships with creatures that make a difference to God” (23). According to Peckham’s view, each model surveyed in the first chapter falls short of doing justice to the God of Scripture.
For a model of God to be biblical and true, it must account for the dynamic back-and-forth relationship in which God engages with creatures. Thus, Peckham offers covenantal theism, which “affirms God’s aseity and self-sufficiency, qualified immutability and passibility, everlasting eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence and sovereign providence, covenantal action, omnibenevolence, and relational triunity” (37). Chapter one closes with an overview of Peckham’s view of canonical theology, which is tied to the belief that Scripture is a “unified corpus of writings that God has commissioned as the uniquely normative rule of faith and practice and the final form of theological interpretation, to be understood in subjection to guidance by the Holy Spirit” (29).
Chapters two through six address various attributes of God, such as aseity, qualified passibility, and others. Each attribute defined by Peckham is rooted in the belief that Scripture is to be exegeted on its own terms without any external metaphysical presuppositions. In other words, Scripture alone provides the necessary metaphysics to understand and account for the divine attributes.
Read More
Related Posts:

On June 6, 1882, George Matheson sat alone a day before his sister’s wedding and penned “O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go.” Though delighted for his sister, the Scottish minister felt sorrow mixed in with joy before the wedding festivities. At age 20, Matheson lost his eyesight, and his fiancé at the time decided that she could not be married to a blind man. His sister had taken him in to care for him, and through her love and support of him, Matheson became an effective preacher and minister of the gospel. 

Despite being absent of any real musical ability, I have always been fascinated with the hymn lyrics and the history behind them. Some of these stories are legendary among Christians. For example, who can forget the tragic events that precipitated the writing of “It Is Well” by Horatio Spafford? In God’s providence, the hymn born out of Spafford’s tragedy has provided great comfort for Christians for well over a century.
However, it is a lesser-known hymn with a tragic story that I want to highlight today, as it too has provided me with great comfort. On June 6, 1882, George Matheson sat alone a day before his sister’s wedding and penned “O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go.” Though delighted for his sister, the Scottish minister felt sorrow mixed in with joy before the wedding festivities. At age 20, Matheson lost his eyesight, and his fiancé at the time decided that she could not be married to a blind man. His sister had taken him in to care for him, and through her love and support of him, Matheson became an effective preacher and minister of the gospel. His sister learned Greek and Hebrew, and she helped Matheson study the biblical text every day. Some have reported that he knew the biblical text so well – and was such a gifted preacher – that unless you knew he was blind, you would not have suspected such to be the case.
Now with his sister to be married, Matheson found himself alone again. It was out of this moment of bittersweetness – even deep despondency – that Matheson wrote such comforting lyrics: “O Love that wilt not let me go, I rest my weary soul in Thee. I give Thee back the life I owe, that in Thine ocean depths its flow may richer, fuller be.” Matheson later shared that it took him all of five minutes to write the lyrics, saying that it was almost as if it the words were dictated to him. Of his own admission, he said that he was not gifted with a natural sense of rhythm – again, something I can certainly relate to!
Read More
O Love That Will Not Let Me Go – (Tune: St. Margaret)
O Love That Will Not Let Me Go (Indelible Grace)
O Love That Will Not Let Me Go – Wide Open Spaces by The Sound of Wales
Related Posts:

To know God’s nature and His works are essential to a blessed and full life. As we peer into simplicity and inseparable operations, our creaturely mind collides with divine truth that is so grand that we, like Job, must place our hands over our mouth as we see this simple and magnificent God who is three persons working to glorify His name to bring a wicked people like us to glory. 

It seems like everyone is talking about the doctrine of God these days. Debates surrounding theology proper continue raging on with no end in sight. Overall, I believe this is a good thing. For many in the church, these discussions promote sharper doctrinal formulation, greater awareness of creedal and confessional statements, and clarity in teaching.
Thankfully, these discussions have also revealed the immense value of theological retrieval. As we seek to retrieve the doctrine and teachings of those eminent saints of the past and bring them into current conversation, we find that these issues were already debated and clearly defined. Those things that may seem new to us are not so new after all. Faithful theologians have set the course for us to follow, allowing for a true catholicity as the Holy Spirit continues to work in the school of Christ.
For that reason, I again suggest that we let William Perkins enter the chat, if you will, to briefly comment on two issues currently being hotly debated: Divine Simplicity and Inseparable Operations.
Divine Simplicity
Confessional theologians, both Reformed and Baptist alike, confess the doctrine of divine simplicity. Both the The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession in 2.1 teaches that God is “without body, parts, or passions” and “most absolute.” Similarly, the first article of the Belgic Confession says that “We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God.” To say that God is simple in being is not a controversial statement for confessional Protestants. The question of late though, if I can put it simply, is whether each of the attributes of God are ontologically identical with his essence and with every other one of his attributes.[1] Some critics argue that this view is inconsistent with Scripture, and that it comes exclusively from a Thomistic metaphysic that wasn’t articulated as such until Thomas “baptized Aristotle.”
William Perkins, who no doubt cited Thomas favorably at different times, affirms this classical definition of simplicity. Drawing upon various texts, such as Exodus 3:14, Acts 17:24-25, and several in John, he writes “Hence it is manifest that to have life and to be life, to be in light and to be light in God are all one…Therefore, whatever is in God is His essence; and all that He is, He is by essence.”[2] Perkins first and foremost viewed the doctrine of simplicity as chiefly a biblical doctrine.
After giving a handful of scriptural references, the reformed catholic theologian then cites a major theologian of church history, showing that this doctrine is truly catholic and to be accepted. Yet he doesn’t quote Thomas, but one who precedes Thomas by several centuries.
Read More
Related Posts:

Although we must use discernment when using pagan philosophies, there is no need to fear their usage in the Christian church. Being able to rightly appropriate these things in service to Christian doctrine is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in common grace and the obligation of Christian theologians. This is precisely what theologians in the Great Tradition in the church has sought to do.

The debates surrounding catholicity and theological retrieval do not seem to be slowing down any time soon. With all the back and forth about Thomas, Aristotle, and Van Til, one theological topic seems to be overlooked more often than others—namely, common grace.
Often, the discussion of common grace is relegated to subjects such as marriage, art, government, and science. We think about these as goods not only for Christians, but for all mankind, perhaps recalling that God causes rain to fall on the just and unjust alike (Matt. 5:45). Yet we find common grace at work not only in the actions of unbelievers, but also in their intellect and inner life.
Although clearly different than special grace for the elect, common grace remains a sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit. As John Murray has said, in common grace the Spirit
“…endows men with gifts, talents, and aptitudes; he stimulates them with interest and purpose to the practice of virtues, the pursuance of worthy tasks, and the cultivation of arts and sciences that occupy time, activity and energy of men and that make for the benefit and civilization of the human race.”[1]
Therefore, unbelievers can, by virtue of common grace, come to philosophical conclusions that are helpful and true and can be utilized by the Christian.
This in and of itself is not highly controversial. Though in recent days, when it comes to Aristotle (and Aquinas’s use of Aristotle), there are some who are quick to sound an alarm, typically seeking to eschew these men in favor of claiming “sola scriptura.” This is not, however, how the Reformed have traditionally handled these matters. Rather, Reformed theologians have sought to utilize the insights, metaphysics, and philosophical truths from pagans where it is appropriate, while rejecting that which is antithetical to divine truth. Simply put, the Reformed can affirm the maxim that all truth is indeed God’s truth.
This does not mean that we should uncritically swallow everything that pagan philosophy has to say. Rather, we can claim that which is true as a gift of God, since the Holy Spirit is the fountain of all truth who guides us into all truth (Jn. 16:13). Understanding this allows us to understand philosophy rightly—even that of Aristotle or Plato—and utilize it as the handmaiden of theology.
Read More
Related Posts:

A repentant sinner’s face cannot help but turn red, for “if Christ’s blood were not at the sinner’s heart, there would not so much blood come in the face.” Godly shame recognizes the great punishment that Christ endured as they mocked him, spat upon him, tore his clothes, bloodied him, and put him to wrongful death. No true Christian could look upon the blood-stained, crucified Savior and not feel great shame at their continual sins.

In his classic work, The Doctrine of Repentance, the great Puritan Thomas Watson lists six ingredients necessary for true repentance:

Sight of sin
Sorrow for sin
Confession of sin.
Shame for sin.
Hatred for sin.
Turning from sin.

According to Watson, “if any one is left out it [i.e. repentance] loses its virtue.”[1] If this is true, it’s a good idea to think more deeply about #4. Indeed, it seems many today have failed to rightly understand the vital role that a godly shame for sin plays in true biblical repentance.
What is Godly Shame?
Shame is not the most pleasant of topics to discuss. Most often when discussing shame, we immediately seek to remind ourselves and others that on the cross, Christ took our shame, and we need carry it no longer. Just as God graciously covered the naked Adam and Eve in the garden, He has clothed our nakedness and covered our shame. Just as the second stanza of the beautiful hymn, “Man of Sorrows,” What a Name says:
Bearing shame and scoffing rude,In my place condemned He stood;Sealed my pardon with His blood;Hallelujah! what a Savior!
However, for the Christian, this is not the only category we have for shame. Godly shame is a kind of “holy bashfulness.” A repentant sinner’s face cannot help but turn red, for “if Christ’s blood were not at the sinner’s heart, there would not so much blood come in the face.”[2] Godly shame recognizes the great punishment that Christ endured as they mocked him, spat upon him, tore his clothes, bloodied him, and put him to wrongful death. No true Christian could look upon the blood-stained, crucified Savior and not feel great shame at their continual sins.
Reminding ourselves of this fact not only points us to truth of the Gospel, but also promotes holiness so that we may live a life that is pleasing to God (2 Cor. 5:9). Therefore, godly shame is a gift of grace from God, given in order that we would live out our new lives in Christ as new creatures (Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:17).
Read More
[1] Thomas Watson, The Doctrine of Repentance (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, repr. 2002), 18.
[2] Ibid., 39.
Related Posts:

According to Perkins, a Reformed Catholic is “anyone that holds to the same necessary heads of religion with the Roman Church; yet so as he pares off and rejects all errors in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted.”[4] For Perkins, doctrines such as justification, sanctification, and the sacraments are clear points for paring, yet there are many other issues (e.g. the Trinity, the two natures of Christ) that we can find true agreement on. These are doctrines that have not been wrecked by Trent’s touch.

Reformed Catholicity. Depending on where you are in the Reformed-Evangelical world, this label may prompt songs of joy or cries of disdain. Those who adopt the term for themselves wish to retrieve the best of the catholic tradition, or perhaps seek to confess doctrinal truths with the Great Tradition. Against this view, some have begun to adopt the label of “Reformed Biblicism.” A Reformed Biblicist is typically suspicious of the Great Tradition and of men like Thomas Aquinas. To them, the theology of Thomas led to the Council of Trent, and therefore he must be rejected. Among those who count themselves as reformed Biblicists, there is a growing concern over the loss of sola scriptura and a fear of losing the truths recovered during the Reformation.[1]
How should we approach Aquinas (and others like him) in light of Trent? It’s a fair question, and to answer it we need look no further than the father of Puritanism, William Perkins.
Perkins himself wrote polemically against Trent, recognizing just how much corruption had seeped into the Catholic church. Writing to Sir William Bowes, Perkins states that “it is a notable policy of the devil” to have men think that the church of Rome and the Protestant faith “are all one for substance; and that they may be reunited.”[2] All throughout his works, Perkins goes to great lengths to show the various blasphemies and errors of Tridentine theology. This Puritan pulled no punches, declaring that the church of Rome had turned Jesus into a “pseudo-Christ and an idol of their own brain.”[3]
Yet the purpose of his treatise was not just to show the errors of Rome, but also to show where there may be agreement.
Read More
Related Posts:

Substitute LGBTQ+ with the words “white supremacy” or “pedophilia.” Does it still work?  Of course not! To attempt to be a part of a culture or community that is directly opposed to nature and has at its root a fundamental misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit is dangerous. At that point you are not merely a part of some kind of subculture, but diving deeper into the quicksand of heinous sin. As Thomas Watson so aptly quipped, “We pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation,’ but do we lead ourselves into temptation?

At the 2002 General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) adopted what is deemed as “good faith subscription.” This gives each presbytery the right to determine whether a candidate for gospel ministry has stated differences with the doctrinal standards of the PCA that are acceptable or not, so long as the differences do not “strike at the vitals” (BCO 21.4). As a result, it has become common practice for candidates to take two exceptions to the Westminster Standards: (1) recreation on the Lord’s Day and (2) what constitutes a violation of the Second Commandment. These are so common that it’s rare in many cases to see any pushback from the presbytery floor during an examination on these exceptions. Whether or not adopting this practice was the right decision by the Assembly is beyond the purpose or scope of this article. Like it or not, that ship has sailed.
However, with the advent of Revoice and Side B Christianity, it seems a new exception has come to our presbyteries, at least in practice—an exception to the teaching that some sins are more heinous than others. Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 83 asks, “Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?” I would venture to say that many evangelicals—and dare I say many Presbyterians—would answer with something like, “Yes! All sins are equal in the sight of God. We all need grace.” Obviously, we all need the grace of God. We are all justly deserving of damnation, even for the smallest of sins. But that’s not the answer to the question. Divines give the following answer: “Some sins, in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.”
Expanding on this teaching, the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 151, gives numerous aggravations that make a sin more heinous. The list is extensive and includes many things worthy of note (e.g., sins on the Lord’s Day). Among those aggravations listed that make some sins more heinous are those against the Holy Spirit (including His witness and workings), those that harm the weaker brother, those that are of continuance, and those that are against the light of nature.
As the PCA affirms, homosexuality is condemned as a sin against nature in Romans 1. However, Side B theology states (at least in a loud majority) that sexuality is not something you choose but part of your overall personhood, or said another way, sexuality along with gender, nationality and ethnicity are all features that make up ones composite identity.[1] This was the main point of contention at the 2019 PCA General Assembly as Greg Johnson took issue with Article 7 of the Nashville Statement, which denies that “adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation.”[2] Not only that, but according to some proponents of Side B theology, orientation and desires don’t (normally) change.[3] Even if we were to grant this as the case, a proper Reformed understanding of concupiscence would lead us to see that this is a sin of constancy that denies the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, as we are essentially being told that sexuality is something that the Holy Spirit either can’t or won’t change.
Read More

[1] https://revoice.us/about/our-beliefs/statements-of-conviction/statement-on-sexual-ethics-and-christian-obedience/. See also Rosaria Butterfield’s quick and helpful definitions of both Side A and Side B:
https://rosariabutterfield.com/new-blog/2018/2/14/what-is-wrong-with-gay-christianity-what-is-side-a-and-side-b-anyway
[2] https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/
[3] Note Greg Johnson’s speech on the floor of the 48th General Assembly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWdMBQyVkc

The local church is where we commune with Christ in means of grace, but it’s also the primary context where the fellowship of the communion of saints takes place. It’s not enough to sit on the sidelines or watch a livestream; we need the community of believers that stirs us up “to love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:24) and offers encouragement as we await the day of judgement (Heb. 10:25).

Several years ago, I went hiking in the Smokies with a group of friends. This wasn’t a trail I was familiar with, and I wasn’t in the best of shape at the time. I soon began to lag behind the group. They would always return for me to try and encourage me and walk with me. My pride would always reject their help because, “I know what I’m doing. I don’t need your help. I can go at it alone.” Soon they got so far away I could no longer hear them, nor did I know exactly where I was headed. I had no idea of the impending dangers that were awaiting me.
It wasn’t long until I came upon a long stretch of brush and weeds that were waist high. As I hacked my way through as best I could—stubborn and defiant as ever—I was greeted by an unmistakable sound: a rattle. I look up to see a large rattlesnake laying across the trail. Thankfully, my friends were standing-by; they had stayed back in order to guide me past the pain I would have otherwise suffered.
Unfortunately, there are many who are ignorant of the danger that they’ve placed themselves in by trying to make their heavenly pilgrimage apart from the local church. We face a far greater threat than a rattlesnake; we stand against the smooth-talking serpent of Genesis 3, one who “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).[1] Surely Satan lies in wait for those Christians who think they can go through this life on their own resolve. As George Swinnock once said, “Satan watches for those vessels that sail without a convoy.”
There’s a reason that the writer to the Hebrews sounds the alarm to warn those who are struggling not to forsake “assembling together, as is the habit of some…” (Heb. 10:25).  Why? Because neglect of the gathering is a step down the slippery slope to apostasy. A Christian who is purposefully isolated from the context of a local church is foreign concept to the New Testament.
Read More