Articles Archives - Page 2 of 1521

Sane New World?

By Carl R. Trueman — 1 day ago

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Thursday, April 3, 2025

Our morality is not the function of a vibe. Our truths are not the expression of cultural taste. We must heed Paul’s call to meditate upon things that are above… Only then can we act with discernment and with Christian fortitude, wisdom, and love in the context God has placed us.

With the second coming of Donald Trump, the phrase “vibe shift” has become a staple of current cultural commentary. The expression captures not so much the shift in the kind of policies that the Trump administration will implement as a shift in the ethos of America. The hectoring scolds of the progressive left have dominated public rhetoric for years. Now suddenly conservatives once despised as either stupid, evil, or both are starting to feel that this age might belong to them.
As a cultural conservative, I find much to welcome here. And as somebody who has spent much time speaking about, and talking to, the victims of transgender ideology, I rejoice that the political tide might finally be turning. Perhaps gender sanity is not the last vestige of a bygone era but the vanguard of a world about to be born. If the vibe shift carries society toward laws that protect innocent children from the hormonal and genital mutilation demanded by the political tastes of their parents’ generation, that is surely a matter for rejoicing.
Read More

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 2

Was God Crucified?

By Wyatt Graham — 1 day ago

We may say that God was crucified, even that God shed his blood, only when we speak of the flesh that God the Son made his very own.

Orthodox Christians sometimes accuse Protestants of Nestorianism because of how theologians like John Calvin speak of the cross. We instinctively want to say that only the humanity of Christ died on the cross because divinity is immortal by nature. And after all, if we say God died on the cross, we imply that the Father and Spirit died too—but that sounds too close to Modalism, a teaching that claims that the Father died on the cross because Father and Son are one subject.
Even so, Paul does say, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The phrase “his own blood” (τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου) refers back to God. Given this and other biblical passages, theologians like Cyril of Alexandria were bold to say that the Lord of Glory made human flesh his very own, and thus God the Son died.
The distinction of making flesh one’s own matters. Nestorius taught that God was impassible (unable to suffer) by nature, and so what died at the cross was the man assumed by the impassible Logos. Cyril disagreed. If the Logos made flesh his very own, he experienced death precisely in that created flesh.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 3

What Is Partitive Exegesis?

By Jacob Trotter — 1 day ago

If we do not interpret Scriptures concerning Christ correctly—in light of the reality they describe—we end up with a God who thirsts, sleeps, suffers, submits, and lacks knowledge. We also end up with a man who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. If we fail to retain the properties of each nature to themselves, we blend them and start on the short road to heresy.

“You just had to be there!”
We fall back on this excuse when words fail to capture the precise reality of an experience—often a comedic interaction or visual beauty. The reality is that reality itself is often hard to describe. We do our best to describe it with words, but we’ve all experienced the frustration of falling short.
This is especially true when we use our words to describe God. Herman Bavinck asks, “The moment we dare to speak about God the question arises: How can we?”[1] The same question can be asked of the person of Christ: When we dare to speak about the One who is both infinite God and finite man, how can we?
Scripture tells us Jesus slept, ate, walked, and learned new things. But it also tells us He created the universe, sustains it, and is omniscient. You can see the dilemma—how do we accurately describe Jesus when He has these seemingly contradictory categories?
We can navigate this difficulty through a practice known as partitive exegesis. Partitive exegesis presupposes that Christ’s two natures are unified in His person without confusion, change, division, or separation. Therefore, we must recognize and maintain the distinction between Christ’s two natures when we read the Bible.[2] While that may sound complicated, this practice arises from Scripture itself—it is an inspired way of describing the reality of the incarnation.
A Biblical Pattern
As we read through the New Testament, we see passages variously emphasize attributes of both Christ’s humanity and His divinity. Consider these five ways that the Bible makes statements about Christ.

When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” the person is the subject, but the attribute (eternality) is only appropriate for the divine nature (John 8:58).
When Jesus said, “I thirst,” the person is the subject, but thirst is only appropriate for the human nature (John 19:28).
Titles like “Redeemer” or “King” are applied to Christ and is appropriate for both natures (Psalm 10:16; Luke 1:32–33).

So far, so good. But Scripture also contains more complicated statements about Christ.

Some things are ascribed to Christ that are appropriate to the human nature but predicated on Christ as divine. In Revelation 1:17–18, Christ identifies Himself as “the first and the last” (a divine title), then He says He “was dead” (something only possible for a human). A human quality (death) is applied to the person even though the Son as God is emphasized in this passage.
On the other hand, some things are ascribed to Christ that are appropriate to the divine nature but predicated on Christ as human. John 6:62 refers to “the Son of Man ascending to where He was before.” “Son of Man” emphasizes Christ’s humanity, but ascending to “where He was before” can only be truly said of Christ as divine.[3]

In each of these instances, Scripture applies a property true of one or both natures to the person. It is our job as interpreters to discern which attributes are appropriate for each nature.
While some people may object that we read too strong of a distinction between the natures, the Bible itself uses this logic as well. Romans 1:3 says that Christ “was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh.” Christ is not descended from David according to the divinity. This is logically obvious, but Paul makes it verbally explicit.[4]
Partitive exegesis is an attempt to apply this same inspired logic to every biblical statement about Christ. Some things are true of Christ according to His humanity and some things are true of Christ according to His divinity.
This way of thinking was worked out in the early church. As Chalcedon states, “The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person.” Because the two natures are unified in the person of Christ, anything said of either nature is true of the person (“concurring in one Person”) while remaining untrue of the other nature (“the property of each nature being preserved”).
Yet, some confusion may arise in light of examples 4–5 above. How do we interpret those verses that apply the property of one nature to the other?
The Communication of Properties
The properties of both natures are predicated on the person. However, because both natures are united in the one person, Scripture seemingly attributes properties of one nature to the other. This biblical way of speaking has become known as the “communication of idioms” or “communication of properties.”
This is described in the 1689 London Baptist Confession, 8.7: “Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”
Consider these verses:

Acts 20:28, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

1 Corinthians 2:8, “The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
Zechariah 12:10, [Yahweh says] “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”

In each example, something human (blood, crucifixion, and death) is predicated of divinity (God, the Lord of Glory, and Yahweh). Does God, who is spirit (John 4:24) have blood? Can the Lord, who has life in Himself (John 5:26), be crucified? Can Yahweh be “pierced?”
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 2

Cultural Christianity

By Thiago M. Silva — 1 day ago

Written by Thiago M. Silva |
Thursday, April 3, 2025
For Christ’s followers, cultural affirmations of Christianity present both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to avoid settling for cultural acceptance or admiration. To be a Christian isn’t to align yourself with a set of traditions or ethical teachings. It’s to belong to Christ.

In recent years, some of the most unlikely voices have publicly acknowledged Christianity’s positive influence. Richard Dawkins, Elon Musk, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Tom Holland—figures once aligned with skepticism toward Christianity—have made striking statements affirming its cultural and moral value. Dawkins, one of the foremost critics of religion, has described himself as a “cultural Christian,” admiring the Christian ethos and traditions like hymns and carols. Similarly, Musk recently called the teachings of Jesus “good and wise.”
While these acknowledgments are surprising and even encouraging, they raise an important question: Is cultural Christianity enough? As believers, how should we respond to those who admire Christianity’s legacy but stop short of embracing the gospel?
The Good: Christianity’s Cultural Legacy
Cultural Christianity, at its best, recognizes the faith’s profound influence on the world. Holland has described how Western civilization owes much of its moral and ethical framework to Christianity. Concepts like human dignity, equality, and care for the vulnerable are rooted in Scripture. Holland has pointed out how slavery’s abolition, care for the poor, and the establishment of universal human rights all find their foundation in Christian theology.
This cultural legacy remains even in the secular West. When skeptics like Dawkins affirm that Christianity has been “fundamentally decent” compared to other belief systems, they acknowledge the fruit of a faith that has shaped societies for millennia. Such statements point to the truth that biblical teachings transcend individual belief and have the power to transform entire cultures.
In a time when secular ideologies increasingly challenge basic Christian values—like the sanctity of life, the reality of biological sex, and the institution of marriage—these acknowledgments of Christianity’s cultural influence remind us of the enduring relevance of our faith. The gospel has deeply shaped what we often take for granted in the Western world.
The Bad: Cultural Christianity’s Failure
But while cultural Christianity has merits, it ultimately falls short. Reducing Christianity to a set of values or traditions strips the gospel of its power. It acknowledges the fruit of Christian faith without embracing the root—Jesus Christ.
Scripture warns against a superficial association with faith. Writing to Timothy, Paul describes those who have “the appearance of godliness, but [deny] its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). Cultural Christianity can produce a sense of moral or social alignment with Christian values, but it can’t address the deepest human problem: sin. It offers no hope for humanity’s ultimate need for reconciliation with God.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 0

Will the ERLC Divide Southern Baptists for Evermore?

By Jon Whitehead — 1 day ago

It is a fair time to ask if the “modern” ERLC experiment is working. If our political theology remains divided, letting a few voices set policy only deepens the rift. If our political theology is unified, letting our outliers frustrate progress will bring division, too.

Having grown up as the child of an Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) staffer and having served as an ERLC Trustee for eight years, I’ve witnessed the Commission’s transition from a Nashville-based ethics group to a Southern Baptists’ public policy voice.
While the ERLC has notable achievements—such as its role in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) and the Nashville Statement (2017)—recent trends suggest its controversies are growing. At the 2024 SBC Annual Meeting, nearly 40% of messengers voted to abolish the ERLC.
No SBC entity has ever lost so much messenger support and survived without fundamental reorganization or reform.
Have we, the Convention, given the ERLC an assignment that produces division and anger? Can it produce unity for a Cooperative Program missions and education effort? I have spent my time as an ERLC Trustee seeking to uphold the best possible version of the Messengers’ assignments. But it is time for a fresh assessment of the modern experiment.
I see three recurring issues at the heart of messenger anger:

Unbiblical Political Theology: The legacy of Russell Moore’s ‘Kingdom consensus’ has fostered a vague political inclusiveness that undermines clear doctrinal distinctions, resulting in division rather than unity.
Uncertainty About Success: Without clear metrics, it is difficult for Trustees to distinguish between active engagement and effectiveness. Whenever success is unclear, so is failure.
Unauthorized Statements: The ERLC often speaks to the public beyond its mandate, representing positions the SBC has not adopted, which further fractures unity.

1. Unbiblical Political Theology
A key issue today is the problem of unbiblical political theology in the SBC—a legacy of former ERLC President Russell Moore. Moore’s attempt to craft a ‘Kingdom consensus’ failed because it avoided taking a clear stand on policy matters that required one. The result only deepens our divisions by imposing a vague, muddied, politically inclusive program in search of an “evangelical witness.”
Until this ‘Kingdom consensus’ is rejected, this unbiblical political theology will divide us.
A key to understanding today’s mess is Moore’s doctoral thesis, published in 2004 as The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. In it, Moore claimed that a new “Kingdom consensus” among evangelicals offered “a renewed theological foundation for evangelical engagement in the social and political realms.”[1] “Gospel centrality” was a kind of glue that could overcome divergent views of almost any kind—whether cultural, political, or denominational.
In hindsight, the idea was a ruinous failure. Moore failed to develop the necessary theological tools for assessing political outcomes. In the conclusion to the book, he asserts that the “emerging evangelical consensus” would succeed where Progressivism had failed, because the new evangelicals recognized that “the disparate traditions are based on partial truths,” and “unlike Rauschenbusch…evangelical theology did not start with a social or political agenda, and then seek to find a theology to fit it.”[2]
A conservative reader might assume that a gospel foundation would have avoided the Social Gospel entirely. But Moore was stating that Rauschenbusch’s politics might have succeeded with better theological foundation.
Instead of contradicting the Social Gospel, Moore’s Kingdom was a roadmap to Social Gospel 2.0.
Without critical theological foundations, Moore’s project collapsed. It made “good progressives”—those on the political left—a necessary part of a “gospel witness,” even at the expense of concrete results wherein success could be measured. Under such a system, the value of, say, the fall of Roe v. Wade is hard to quantify, since it was mostly a victory for all Evangelicals. In contrast, for Moore, a movement without evangelical progressives was obvious ‘proof’ of “politics” above “gospel witness.”
Thus, Moore and his disciples continually hunt for imaginary “orthodox evangelicals” with modern liberal politics. They venerate Jimmy Carter, a Democrat who claimed Baptist faith but refused to use his role to counter Roe v. Wade, so called gay marriage, and female pastors. They praise “evangelical” scientist Francis Collins who does not affirm a historical Adam. They lament any break with “social justice” proponents who claim a Gospel motivation. A political version of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” became the test for whether a Christian is meets the requirements of a proper “evangelical witness.”
Moore’s political theology is not limited to Moore. It has many disciples in Evangelical institutions.
Andrew Walker recently criticized “Our Confession of Evangelical Conviction” a statement signed by Dr. Moore, Beth Moore, Richard Mouw, and a who’s who of the Evangelical left. Walker observed:
This statement seems to assume that the gospel is the solution to political fracture. It is and isn’t. That sounds controversial, but stay with me….Yes, I need my political foe to ultimately understand that Christ is Lord. But I also need my political foe defeated if they’re wrong with regard to the substance of what politics is and political morality requires: political justice done to procure and advance the institutions of creation order necessary for the common good.
The gospel can unite political foes if and only if the one who has the wrong political morality has his error rectified in light of Christ. Until a political foe stops opposing God’s authority over creation order, he is indeed a political foe, and power should be wielded against him so he can stop doing harm.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 2

Coming Soon to a Presbytery near You?

By Christian M. McShaffrey — 1 day ago

Written by Christian M. McShaffrey |
Thursday, April 3, 2025
Modern Bible versions are no longer being translated only from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is plainly admitted, for example, in the preface to the ESV. Thankfully, this new approach does not result in major changes to the text of scripture, but it does represent a major departure from Reformed bibliology…[and from] the confession’s assertion that it is the Old Testament in Hebrew which remains authentical.

In an effort to maintain the peace, purity, and unity of the church, Reformed and Presbyterian denominations have historically required ministers to “subscribe” to doctrinal standards. In my denomination, that standard is the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
As Bible believers, we acknowledge that our official summaries of doctrine are not infallible and that Christ alone is Lord of the conscience. That is why ministerial candidates are typically able to declare an “exception” or a “scruple” when they are unable to subscribe to a specific point of the confession. Different denominations handle scruples differently and that is certainly theirs to do. That topic is beyond the interest and scope of this article.
Over the past few years, I have noticed that an increasing number of ministers are willing to adopt Old Testament readings that come not from the inspired Hebrew text, but from ancient translations of it. This seems contrary to a prima facie reading our confession:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them [Westminster Confession of Faith, I.8].
This doctrinal formulation is firmly rooted in actual history. Many doctrines were being debated at the time of the Reformation, and the opposing parties both made direct appeals unto scripture, but that only led to a deeper point of debate: Which edition of scripture? The Roman Catholic Church argued for the superiority of its Latin translation and the Reformed insisted that only the Hebrew and Greek texts were authentical.
The word “authentical” essentially means “an accurate reproduction of the original” and the Reformed believed they possessed this in the faithful copies of scripture because of God’s special care and providence. The originally inspired scriptures had been, as the confession says, “kept pure in all ages.”
The Roman Catholic Church disagreed, claiming that the Hebrew and Greek had been corrupted and needed to be corrected by the Latin Vulgate. It still holds the Vulgate as its “official” translation, even though other versions, made from the Hebrew and Greek, have more recently been approved for private use and study. There is even an edition of the English Standard Version that has been granted the Imprimatur by a member of the Pope’s advisory team, the Council of Cardinals.
It is good to see Roman Catholics reading Bibles translated from the Hebrew and Greek—rather than from the Latin—but that also brings us back to the “new exception” that I expect to hear voiced in upcoming meetings of presbytery.
Modern Bible versions are no longer being translated only from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is plainly admitted, for example, in the preface to the ESV:
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 1

Just As Near to Heaven: The Death of Annie Dunn

By Geoff Chang — 1 day ago

Those first few months on the mission field were especially difficult [for Annie]. But when she saw “how great were the darkness and degradation” in China, she was glad she had left her seat at the [Metropolitan] Tabernacle and given her life to proclaim Christ to the perishing. As she lay dying, Arthur asked her, “Are you sorry you ever came to China?” “No, very glad,” was her answer, “it’s just as near to heaven.”

Annie Dunn loved her church. She was the daughter of J. T. Dunn, an elder at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Under Spurgeon’s preaching, it was in the church that she came to hear the gospel of grace and love her Savior. Eventually, she professed her faith in Christ through baptism and joined the church. Now, as a member of the church, she participated in the ministries of the church. She joined a women’s Bible class. She gave generously to the work of the orphanage. And it was in the church prayer meetings that she heard about the growing work of China Inland Mission, under Hudson Taylor. There, she grew in her passion to see Christ’s name glorified among the lost.
Now, as a young woman, she was engaged to be married to a graduate of the Pastors’ College, Arthur Huntley, and together they were accepted to join Hudson Taylor and the work at China Inland Mission. They were commissioned by the church on August 5, 1889. The Sword and the Trowel gives an account of their commissioning service at a Monday night prayer meeting:
China next occupied our thoughts and prayers. In introducing the subject, the Pastor reminded us of Brother Stubbs, of Patna, who asked that, whenever we had rice on the table, we would pray for him; and said that it would be a good thing if we prayed for China every time we drank a cup of tea. He then referred to a letter received that morning from Brother Macoun, who left some months ago for China, and who begged earnestly for many more labourers for that great harvest-field. Mr. George Clarke, who has been labouring there for fourteen years, and who is shortly going back to his loved work, gave us some striking statistics to illustrate the fewness of the missionaries and the vastness of the population amongst which they labour… There was much more said at the meeting, for which we have not space; and, truly, it was good to be there. Before closing, the Pastor shook hands with Mr. and Mrs. Clarke, and their little boy, and Miss Dunn, the daughter of Elder J. T. Dunn, who is going out to labour in connection with the China Inland Mission, and to be married to our Brother Huntley; and after bidding them farewell, in the name of the whole assembly, commended them to the Lord in prayer.[1]
The engaged couple boarded a ship for Chin-kiang, China, with plans to be married after they were settled in China. On their arrival, they began the hard work of learning the language and culture. Arthur used his medical training to build relationships with locals. Annie began a Sunday school for children. In their short time with her, these five students grew to love their teacher.
But soon disaster struck. Annie came down with smallpox. Only eight months after her arrival, she was seriously ill, and there was little the doctors could do for her. Arthur records her last days in his diary.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 1

What Is the Balance Between Financial Responsibility and the Scriptural Imperative to Give Sacrificially?

By Randy Alcorn — 1 day ago

Instead of spending our lives backing into eternity and clinging to our earthly treasures, we can turn around, walk forward and lay up our treasures in our eternal home. Then, instead of moving away from our treasures, we’ll spend our lives moving toward them.

A reader wrote our ministry, “For several years my husband and I have enjoyed giving most of our discretionary income to our church and various missionaries. But lately we have been counseled that we need to be more ‘responsible’ about preparing for our future, especially since retirement is only a few years away. How do we deal with the guilt we would feel about decreasing our giving, since we still desire to meet the needs we see all around us?”
There are two sides to the issue of savings. Scripture tells us that the wise man anticipates future needs, while the foolish man spends and consumes all his resources with no thought for the future. “In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has” (Proverbs 21:20). Even ants store up provisions for the coming winter (Proverbs 6:6-8).
It’s a shortsighted person who fails to store up provisions (money, food, or materials) for upcoming times of predictable need. If you are planning to retire and have no other means of income, then it would be wise to make some plans for how and where you will live after retirement.
On the other hand, Jesus commended the poor widow of Mark 12:41-44 because she did something most of us would consider foolish. She gave her last two pennies to God, having no idea where tomorrow’s provision would come from, except that it would come from her Lord. In 2 Corinthians 8:3-15, the Macedonian Christians gave “beyond their means” to the point of leaving themselves impoverished. Paul commends them for it.
So when it comes to the “retirement dream,” we must ask ourselves, Whose dream is it? Is it God’s dream or the American dream? Consider one man’s plans for retirement: “I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, ‘You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy, eat, drink and be merry’” (Luke 12:18-19).
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 10

A La Carte (April 3)

By Tim Challies — 1 day ago

Good morning. May the Lord be with you and bless you.

You’ll find lots of neat Kindle deals today. There are books on worry, apologetics, miscarriage, and more. I also continue to dig up some great deals in the massive Intervarsity Press sale.

Westminster Books has lowered the price on a resource meant to help you share the story of Jesus this Easter.

(Yesterday on the blog: The Most Pleasant Show on Television)

This is an encouraging article that insists it’s never too late to learn how to pray. It uses the example of Tim Keller who didn’t really learn how to pray until he was in his 50s.

“I have had the opportunity and privilege of walking with many through various forms of loss and trial. It was not until we lost our 18-year-old son, however, that I truly learned that there is a huge difference between knowing about grief and knowing grief. Walking through the death of our son revealed to me that I knew far less about what is actually helpful in supporting others than I thought.”

Jonathan Threlfall does a bit of a deep dive into a subject that is always controversial. “Many people cringe at the teaching that wives are to submit to their husbands. A clear understanding of this teaching will lead us to marvel at the goodness of God’s plan for marriage and society.”

Wendy Alsup asks some interesting questions here. “How did we come to our current cultural understanding of the role of a pastor’s wife? Is it a ministry position? It is a biblical role? Or have our expectations of a pastor’s wife morphed over time to fill the vacuum left in churches and denominations that deny women’s ordination?”

Michael Kruger explains why the New Testament’s understanding of hospitality is probably a bit different from our own.

Does God want some people to go to hell? And is that even the right question to ask?

F.B. Meyer…counsels us on what to do when others attack our character and seek to harm our name. In short: wait on the Lord.

There is no plateau in the Christian life. We are either growing closer to Christ’s likeness or we are falling away.
—Aimee Byrd

Post Views: 22

Impassibility and Christology: Did Jesus Really Suffer?

By Graham Gunden — 2 days ago

God cannot suffer. Or, to use more technical theological jargon, God is impassible. To the contemporary Christian, this seems an odd, if not distasteful claim. Does it not hurt God when His creatures reject Him? Is He not disappointed when we sin against Him? Do not even the scriptures speak of God being grieved in His heart (Gen. 6:6, Is. 63:10)? Furthermore, if God cannot suffer, how can He know me and know what I experience? Can a God incapable of suffering truly love me if He doesn’t suffer when I suffer?

These objections are not silly or unfounded, but neither are they new objections to the classical doctrine of divine impassibility. The Church has dealt with these thorny questions for centuries. Even so, almost all Christian traditions have held that the doctrine of impassibility is vital. James Dolezal points out that, “Historically [impassibility] commanded wide ecumenical backing, being maintained by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and more.”[1] Indeed, the 2nd London Baptist Confession, 39 Articles, and Westminster Confession, all affirm that God is “without body, parts, or passions” (2LBCF 2.1). We would be wise to heed the words of Chesterton to never take down a fence until we know the reason it was put up, and the wisdom of Solomon to, “not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). As we shall see, Divinity cannot suffer, yet in the incarnation God the Son does enter into our human experience and suffer to manifest His love to us, thus bringing us to Himself.

Impassibility

When we say that God is without passions, we are saying that He does not have changeable affections, that the Divine Being cannot suffer (which implies the want or the lack of anything good), and He does not experience emotions the way that human beings do. Certainly, God is love (1Jn. 4:8) and He loves His people (Ps. 36:7), yet He cannot be passively affected in His emotions by His creatures.

There are several biblical and theological arguments in favor of this doctrine. First, the doctrine of impassibility is a corollary to the doctrine of immutability. God does not change (Mal. 3:6, Num. 23:19), therefore neither does He experience emotional flux, at one moment sad, at another moment happy. In considering the doctrine of God’s immutability, some may attempt to argue that, while God does not change in His essence, He does undergo some external and relational changes, i.e. His will and His affections undergo change. This is similar to the way in which we, as humans remain who we are, yet undergo various external changes as we age and grow. In this way, God can remain unchangeably who He is, yet His external affections and His will and His relationship to His creatures can change. But the apostle James would disabuse us of this notion. He says that with God, “there is no variation or shadow due to change” (Ja. 1:17). There is no change in God of any sort, not even a shadow of change. (For a discussion on how we are to understand the scripture passages that refer to God being grieved and regretting His actions, I would refer you to the excellent article in this series by Sam Renihan on Analogy and Simplicity.)

Divinity cannot suffer, yet in the incarnation God the Son does enter into our human experience and suffer to manifest His love to us, thus bringing us to Himself.

The light of nature confirms the necessity of an unchanging God. Turretin says, “[God] can neither be changed for the better (because He is the best) nor for the worse (because he would cease to be the most perfect).”[2] Since God is immutable and unchanging such that there is not even a shadow of change in Him, then it must also be said that He has no passions and that He cannot suffer. He cannot go from a state of perfect blessedness and happiness to a state of grief or sorrow or a state of pleasure to a state of pain.

Second, to say that God can suffer is to reject the omnipotence of God. What creature has the power to harm God? In order to maintain the Creator/creature distinction, we must affirm God’s impassibility, because a failure to do so is to affirm that God can, in some sense, be subject to the actions of His creature. But God is infinite and transcendent. He depends on no one and nothing for His existence, being, and perfect blessedness. As the only truly self-sufficient One, He cannot be moved or acted upon by any of His creatures such that they could harm Him in any way. A creature cannot cause any emotion to arise in God because this would make some aspect of God dependent upon an outside cause. But no creature has the power to give to God anything that He does not already possess, nor to take anything from Him (Rom. 11:34-36). God cannot receive anything good from His creatures which He once lacked (i.e. joy), nor can His creatures take anything good from Him so as to deprive Him of His own perfections.

Third, the scriptures speak directly to God’s impassibility. The apostle Paul identifies God as the impassible One in Acts 14:15. While preaching in the town of Lystra, the inhabitants of the town began to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods. But Paul says to them,

Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. (ESV)

The Greek word that the ESV translates as “like nature” is homoiopatheis, which means ‘like-passions.’ Paul is saying to them, ‘do not worship us as gods. We have passions just like you do, and as such, we cannot be divine.’ For Paul, the proof that he and Barnabas were not divine was the fact that they were not impassible, but rather subject to passions.

Finally, in Romans 1:23, Paul calls God the incorruptible God. This does not merely refer to His moral perfections, it refers to His very being. Nothing in God can be corrupted from one thing into another. His joy cannot be corrupted into sadness, nor His happiness into grief, nor His eternal blessedness into suffering. Rather, His integrity is maintained in every way.

He Suffered in the Flesh

God cannot receive anything good from His creatures which He once lacked, nor can His creatures take anything good from Him so as to deprive Him of His own perfections.

Having established divine impassibility, we now run into a theological quandary. Since God cannot suffer, and since Jesus is God, how can we say that Jesus suffered? Indeed, how do we understand the words of scripture which tell us that He is a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief (Is. 53:3), that He suffered in His temptation and even died (1Pet. 4:1, Heb. 2:14, 18)? The Bible is clear that the Son must suffer in order to atone for the sins of His people (Heb. 2:17-18; 5:7-9; Rom. 6:10). But how can He atone for our sins if He cannot suffer? How can He die for us if He cannot die?

It may be said that God the Son can suffer because He assumed unto Himself a human nature so that He is both God and man. The Symbol of Chalcedon declares that the Son is,

To be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is, the second person of the Trinity, in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4), assumed unto Himself a human nature with a body of flesh and reasonable soul so that in this incarnation there was a union of a divine nature and a human nature within the one Person (a hypostatic union). These two natures are not mixed together into a human/divine hybrid, thus becoming neither human nor divine. Nor are the two natures separated into two subjects as though the single person of the Son split Himself into two separate persons (i.e. a human person and a divine person). As the Athanasian Creed says, “although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.” The human nature does not receive a little bit of divinity and a little bit of immortality, nor does the divine nature receive anything from the human nature, the natures are united, but not mixed.

Sometimes, the Son acts according to His human nature, and sometimes He acts according to His divine nature, but it is always God the Son acting. In addition, that which can be said of His human nature can and must be said of the person of the Son, and that which is said of His divine nature can and must be said of His person. However, that which can be said of His human nature (ignorance, mortality, weakness) cannot be said of His divine nature. Conversely, that which can be said of His divine nature (immortality, omniscience, omnipresence) cannot be said of His human nature. This is what has come to be known among theologians as the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties). The properties of the natures can be predicated of the Person but not of each other.

Thus, the Son could grow in wisdom and in stature (Lk. 2:40) even though an increase in wisdom implies previous ignorance. God is all knowing and cannot grow in wisdom because there is nothing He does not already know. To grow in stature is to change, and as we have already seen, it is impossible for God to change. Yet, the Son of God, grew and learned according to His human nature which is neither immutable nor omniscient. He did not, and could not, learn or grow according to His divine nature. This is also why Jesus could say that the Son does not know the day of the coming of the Son of Man, but only the Father (Mark 13:32). The Son is ignorant of the future according to His human nature while at the same time being omniscient according to the divine nature which He and the Father have in common.

Were the sufferings of the Christ endured by a mere human person they would not have the redemptive value necessary to bring us to God.

It is proper to human nature to be mortal, to suffer, and to die. Therefore, the Son of God, God Himself, can suffer, according to His human nature. Yet, the divine nature cannot die or suffer, and it does not. We see this in Acts 20:28 where Paul says that God purchased the church with His own blood. How is this possible? God does not have blood, He is pure spirit (Jn. 4:24). While the divine nature does not have blood, God does have blood according to the human nature of the Son. So, when the Son suffers to make atonement, He does not take that suffering up into the divine nature as if the two natures were mixed, but He really does suffer truly according to His human nature, which is capable of such suffering. As John of Damascus says,

For when the one Christ, who is composed of divinity and humanity, and exists as both human and divine, suffered, the passible element suffered, as was natural to it, but the impassible element did not suffer along with it.[3]

For Us and For Our Salvation

It is necessary that the Son be impassible according to His divine nature. If He is not impassible, He is not immutable, He is not Omnipotent, He is not Self-Sufficient (a se), He is not transcendent, He is not God. Yet it is also necessary that the Son be capable of suffering so that He might, by His humiliation, sufferings, and death, purchase our salvation. Cyril of Alexandria says it this way,

Since on this account He wished to suffer, even though he was beyond the power of suffering in His nature as God, then he wrapped Himself in flesh that was capable of suffering, and revealed it as His very own, so that even the suffering might be said to be His because it was His own body which suffered and no one else’s.[4]

The atonement that He made in the body of His flesh is efficacious to redeem a lost race because it is the passible body of God Himself. Were the sufferings of the Christ endured by a mere human person they would not have the redemptive value necessary to bring us to God. But the blood which was shed was the blood of a divine person, making it infinite in value and worthy to purchase lost souls. Thus, we see the immense love and wisdom of God, “who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man.”

[1] James E. Dolezal, “Strong Impassibility,” in Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God’s Emotions and Suffering, ed. Robert J. Matz and A. Chadwick Thornhill, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019), 14.

[2] François Turrettini, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publ, 1992), 205.

[3] St John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith: A New Translation of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, trans. Norman Russell (St Vladimirs Seminary Pr, 2022), 225.

[4] Saint Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. Anthony McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Pr, 2005), 118.