- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/28)
- Next Post »A La Carte (6/29)
Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe
- 06/28/10
- 45
Mark Driscoll must be a busy guy. As if his ministry at Mars Hill isn’t enough to keep him busy every hour of the day, he has also written a long line of books, the most recent of which is titled simply Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Like several of his previous volumes, this one is co-authored with his friend and theological mentor Gerry Breshears. While using the term “systematic theology” may not be entirely helpful in describing this book, it at least gives an idea of its contents. Doctrine exists to provide an overview of what Christians ought to believe.
As theological tomes go, this one is particularly interesting, particularly effective, in its structure. Each chapter introduces a topic through a single word and then shows how that topic is really all about God. The first chapter is “Trinity: God Is” while the second is “Revelation: God Speaks.” That sets that pattern that continues through each of the book’s thirteen chapters (the last of which, not surprisingly, is “Kingdom: God Reigns.” This beautifully takes doctrine out of the abstract and applies it directly to God himself. It takes a noun and matches it with a verb, showing for example how the doctrine of the church is not about us, but about God, about his desire to send his Word into all the world (the chapter is titled “Church: God Sends”).
Also effective is the pattern of asking questions through each of the chapters’ subheadings. So as we begin to read the chapter titled “Fall: God Judges” we have subheadings that ask questions like “What Is the Fall?,” “What Is Sin” and “Where Did Sin Originate?” In each case the topics are explained in a way that is clear and concise but in way that does not depend on obscure theological terms. It is a very useful structure and one that differentiates it from so many other similar books, most of which are systematic theologies. It sets it apart in a very good way.
So much for the book’s structure. What matters far more, in the end analysis, is the book’s content. And here Driscoll and Breshears have presented a lengthy look at Christian doctrine that is accurate, biblical and even worshipful.
Endorsed by the likes of Carl Trueman, Wayne Grudem and John Frame, each prominent theologians in their own right, Doctrine aptly defends the historic doctrines of the faith. That is not to say that each of these theologians would necessarily agree with everything the authors write. There will be clear unity on the foundations of the faith but some disagreement on the finer points of doctrine. Areas where some readers will disagree will include the authors’ understanding of Creation (they come down on the side of the Gap Theory), their view of unlimited limited atonement, their view of covenant and baptism (they are firmly baptistic) and their view of the continuation of some kind of special revelation and miraculous gifts. Yet while I myself disagree with them on several of the issues (actually, I think I disagree with them to varying degrees on all of the issues I listed here) I am glad they were willing to not just list the options but also to take a stand. That increases rather than diminishes the value of the book.
Particularly effective are the sections discussing the incarnation as the model for the church’s mission and their defense of the important of celebrating and joining with the local church. Throughout they consistently do a superb job of showing why all this theology matters and how it must work itself out in the life of the Christian. Again, this is not abstract theology, but theology in motion, theology in practice.
I’ve heard it said that Mark Driscoll put far more work into this book than any of his others. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he put more effort into this book than he put into the rest of them combined. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe is probably his best book so far (and I think I’ve read just about all of them). Though it may not be the most exciting to many readers, at least on the face of it, its content is biblical and its way of presenting that content superb. It is a good book to read through and then to keep on-hand for reference purposes.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (45)
Are you saying that Driscoll doesn’t believe in limited atonement?
I love hearing him, but I dislike reading him. Check out his views on Avatar “THE MOST SATANIC MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN”http://pastorleoacosta.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1171&action=…
I think it’s that he more or less does but he doesn’t want to call it that…
Looks like a very good book, and being structured around who God is should make for rich and worship-focussed doctrine.
How refreshing to read a review which disagrees with a book’s arguments on some level, but nonetheless endorses the book for its quality, thought, and provocation. Many reviewers (this one included, sorry to say) spend so much time nit-picking fine points and angels-on-the-heads-of-pins disagreements that we may miss larger, more important truths. Has the Discerning Reader or Challies reviewed “The Naked Gospel” (the 2009 publication, not the 1690 one)?
Great review. Yes, Mark’s a busy guy, but like many pastors, he’s simply adapting a series he has done previously (one we have heard on podcasts). Plus he has the added input of coauthor Brashears. Thanks for clarifying his position on key areas. In an age of ignoring the finer points of doctrine, it helps to have clarity wherever possible. Will pick this one up.
I was interested in this when I first heard of it but after reading a few free preview chapters it just sounds derivative of what I already have . Plus I just don’t seem to like Driscoll’s writing style , that is just a personal preference because I like Piper but know people who do not.However if it gets the younger crowd interested in doctrine that is a good thing . Heres hoping they read others that perhaps offer a bit of a better understanding of the teachings you pointed out, in a different light.My money is resting till Micheal Horton’s Systematic is released this October.
Martin Downes critiques this book on its view of the eternal Trinity, and how Driscoll/Brashears reject a certain view held by all the historic confessions and creeds.
http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2010/06/begotten-before-all-worlds-…
Why is there a serpent on the cover?
Just curious; I haven’t read the book.
I agree with the post. It’s a great book for normal people. Granted I don’t agree with every single point, but that’s okay. There’s no need to avoid someone just because you disagree with a few aspects of secondary doctrine.
The book is essentially a print version, with some minor updates and elaboration, of the 13-part series, of the same name, Driscoll taught in early 2008. That series, video available at the Mars Hill web site, is required watching by new members of the church.
Thank you for the heads up. It’s often easier for me to watch a video than read a book (as weird as that sounds). I’ll check them out.
About the review: Thank you for sharing. I love the structure. I wish authors did this more often.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Sounds like an interesting book. I wonder to what extent the Gap theory is put forth vs. information on other positions.
Kudos, Tim, for writing a very respectful review for a book that you didn’t completely agree with.
The world at large, and the church in particular, need much more of this.
If you read Death by Love, it seems pretty clear that he does not. The view he holds is one defended by Bruce Ware, and while they seem to want to differentiate it from Amyrauldianism, I have a hard time seeing the difference.
It wouldn’t surprise me, if we were to ask them, to learn that they are following suggestions by John Frame, who suggests in The Doctrine of God that “eternal generation” isn’t really helpful because it doesn’t really tell us anything (pp. 707-714 in the edition on my shelf).
Here’s a question I’ve often asked and have yet to really find a solid answer as it pertains to the Trinity, specifically the personhood of the Holy Spirit:
Can you explain why the Holy Spirit never once appears in any of the epistle greetings. Paul standardly greets each church with something like: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Why not the Holy Spirit? Even once?
Also, at the end of time when the kingdom is finally established on the earth, we see this statement by John:
“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” Rev 21.
Why is the Holy Spirit omitted in these instances?
Do you have your own theory that you would like to share?
Paul,
I don’t think your questions and observations raise any concerns regarding the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
What I mean by this is, we have solid Scriptural evidence that the Holy Spirit is a person; the fact that we do not have additional evidence where someone may think it ought to exist doesn’t negate the evidence which does.
So while the absences you noted might be interesting to think about and consider, they really have no bearing on the reality of the Holy Spirit’s personhood.
Before anyone accuses me of being JW or something, I’m not. Just a Christian. :)
Denis, I appreciate what you’re saying. In light of your comment, you might expect that in some (or even just one) epistles, Paul might have included the Holy Spirit in the opening greeting. Just one.
Pick any epistle you like: authored by Paul, James, Peter, John or Jude. Notice that each of them has an opening greeting toward the church. If indeed the Holy Spirit was regarded by them as a person, is it not odd that the Holy Spirit does not appear in even one of the opening remarks?
Without trying to prove a point dogmatically, can you reasonably provide an answer as to why this might be the case?
Here’s something from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholics were responsible for ordaining the Trinity, formally, as a doctrine):
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
I believe in the power, presence and need of the Holy Spirit, but as John makes known, the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” (John 15:26).
I realize the sensitivity of this subject and am not trying to do anything other than discuss it maturely.
I’ve not read the book so my comment is based solely on the review, the comments made here and the title of the book. It’s interesting to me that a book titled, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, is being met with so many “I don’t completely agree with everything…” comments. Can there really be a book that defines what every Christian should believe?
Paul, you said: Pick any epistle you like: authored by Paul, James, Peter, John or Jude. Notice that each of them has an opening greeting toward the church. If indeed the Holy Spirit was regarded by them as a person, is it not odd that the Holy Spirit does not appear in even one of the opening remarks?
To be accurate, the Holy Spirit does appear in one of the opening remarks, by Peter to be specific:
“To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” (1 Peter 1:1-2 ESV)
Does this change things in your view?
Does anyone know if there is a preview of this online somewhere?I would be interested in this as a resource to share, if it’s not terribly dogmatic about some of the more debatable issues.So many believers are afraid of the words “theology” and “doctrine,” viewing them as the intellectual, unspiritual source of division in the church.They don’t realize that we all have theology, for better or for worse. Our theology (what we believe about God) is a major factor in the functionality of our relationship with Him. It is what we cling to in difficult times and where we turn to understand the world around us. It enables us to give a defense for the faith, when called upon to do so.It would be good to have a theology book that didn’t rely on a lot of technical vocabulary and was reader-friendly. Thanks for the great review!
Crystal, the sermons which the book is apparently based on can be viewed here : http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/doctrine
You can view a few pages of the book at ChristainBook.com, but not too much: http://bit.ly/cWMWfE
Paul,
Relax, you’re among friends here. Or better said perhaps, you’re among fellow Christians!
Your question: “Can you explain why the Holy Spirit never once appears in any of the epistle greetings.”
We know from scripture that the Holy Spirit is active throughout the OT and the NT. Remember that the entire Bible (the inspired Word) is “God breathed” e.g. it is the work of the Holy Spirit speaking through sinful men.
I believe that the correct answer (or the best answer I can come up with) is that it is all about the roles and activities of the Persons of the Trinity. If you think about it we are taught in scripture to address all our prayers and petitions directly to the Father; in the Name of the Son; as we are prompted to do so by the Holy Spirit.
If you think about the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being respectively: Leader/Head, Savior/Intercessor, and Messenger/Prompter I think you’ll agree that a greeting that includes the Holy Spirit is a bit awkward since the Holy Spirit is wholly understood by the Apostles to be the motivator for the whole message in the first place.
With this in mind, I suppose Paul could have said (from your example) something like: ” by the power of the Holy Spirit, I wish you grace and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ… (my edit)”
I hope this makes sense to you. Once I got a better understanding of the roles and activities of the Persons of the Trinity, I always see the Holy Spirit prompting the voices of the bible. I’ve also heard an old podcast where Dr. Bruce Ware said (while discussing the Trinity) that the Holy Spirit is “thrilled” to be the Third Person of the Trinity. And (my paraphrase) that He is fully satisfied to essentially be the biblical “town crier” announcing the coming of the Messiah in the OT and the work and Person of Christ in the NT among other activities.
There are smarter people who monitor this blog that will correct me and perhaps provide a better answer. But this offering is my best answer to your question.
By the gift of the Holy Spirit, In the name of Christ, and in full praise and all glory to the Father,
Dan…
For those interested in the best treatise on the Trinity that I’ve ever heard, go here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConferen…
At the very top of the list you’ll see “The Trinity of Persons” by Dr. Bruce Ware. I thought the speech that I listened to was from an earlier conference. However, this one sounds very similar.
Dan…
Denis,
do you agree then that that is the one and only time the third person of the trinity (the Holy Spirit) appears in any of the epistles? And when it comes to personage this passage doesn’t hint at all to identity. Remember, no one is disputing that there is a Holy Spirit. I fully believe that there is.
But to claim that single verse’s vague reference perhaps does more to bolster what I’m saying (especially when you read 2 Peter 1: “Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” Did Peter forget this time? Not trying to be cheeky, but hopefully you get my point).
Dan,
Thanks for the warm greetings! Again, I tread lightly as it is one of the most sensitive subjects I’ve come across.
I do understand what you’re trying to get at, but to be honest, if the Holy Spirit were a person - a member of the Godhead - it wouldn’t have been “awkward” at all.
In fact, I’m willing to gander that most Christians (at least in my interactions) are somewhat surprised when they go to each and every epistle written and discover that indeed the Holy Spirit is mysteriously missing.
I’ve heard people say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t appear in Rev 21 (just the Father and Son) because he’s too humble and refrains from detracting from the Father and Son. But these are stretches. Again, I point to the reference from the New Catholic Encyclopedia.
Remember, the Council of Nicea instituted the doctrine (after vigorous debate). The very next council (in 431 AD) instituted Mary Veneration. I don’t put much confidence in politically led councils.
I would agree that all scripture is God-breathed and that we are quickened by the Spirit.
Paul C, I don’t quite understand your point about the various epistle greetings. You asked for one evidence and it was granted; does Peter forget who the Spirit is just because he may not mention him in a second letter? The first chapter of 1 Peter gives a good look at some of the ways that he believed the Spirit operated (not counting the sanctification of v2). The Spirit interprets the predictions about Christ (1:11) and enables the preaching of the gospel (1:12). Peter also gives a brief characterization of the Spirit here: It is “the Spirit of Christ” and “the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”, both things that Jesus affirmed (John 14-16 and elsewhere). 1 Corinthians 2 gives a strong case for the supremacy of the Holy Spirit also. Romans 8 and 15 also go a little beyond Peter’s “vague reference” to the sanctifying nature of the Spirit. I don’t have time to go into passages like Ephesians 1:3-14 or 1 Tim 3:16.
I echo Dan in that there are much smarter, wiser people than me in these parts who can give much better statements, but I hope this is sufficient for you to reconsider whether “indeed the Holy Spirit is mysteriously missing”. Praise to God, who has given us a spirit that we may seek after Him and His glory!
Amazing review….makes me wanna read it now!
Paul C,
Could we cut to the chase here? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a person? Do you believe He is a distinct person from the Father and the Son?
Alan
Paul, you said: But to claim that single verse’s vague reference perhaps does more to bolster what I’m saying (especially when you read 2 Peter 1: “Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” Did Peter forget this time? Not trying to be cheeky, but hopefully you get my point).
The problem I have is that earlier you said: Pick any epistle you like: authored by Paul, James, Peter, John or Jude. Notice that each of them has an opening greeting toward the church. If indeed the Holy Spirit was regarded by them as a person, is it not odd that the Holy Spirit does not appear in even one of the opening remarks?
So earlier you said just one mention would make sense and now that I say such a mention does exist, you turn around and argue that such a mention actually helps your case.
I am left with 2 options. Either you didn’t really study this before and are now dodging around trying to keep your pet thesis intact, or you actually did know about 1 Peter and were assuming no one would actually check your facts.
In either case, I can’t come to any other conclusion than you are being disingenuous in your arguments.
That said, we know the Holy Spirit is a person based on, in part at least, the fact he can be grieved (Eph 4:30), resisted (Acts 7:51), insulted (Heb 10:29), lied to (Acts 5:3) … this is also why Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “he” not “it” (John 14:17,26; 16:7-14).
As I said in my first post, we cannot invalidate this clear evidence based on your supposition that something different should also exist.
p.s. I actually cracked my copy of Doctrine for the first time figuring it would be a concise source for most of these references … I was correct (see p.15).
Sorry, just to be clear the last “Anonymous” post was me.
Also, I must’ve missed this on my other readings, but Paul you said: do you agree then that that is the one and only time the third person of the trinity (the Holy Spirit) appears in any of the epistles?
No, I certainly do not. It is the only time (if memory serves) that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the first line or two of an epistle, but it most certainly is not the only time he is mentioned in any epistle.
Unless you’ve managed to go all Thomas Jefferson on the copy, I can definitely find the Holy Spirit specifically mentioned in many of the epistles.
For example. we could start with 2 Corinthians 13:14 perhaps, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” And then maybe go to Ephesians 4:30 “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”
But, this would again cause problems with your thesis since it really doesn’t make sense to fellowship with or grieve something which is not a person, but is rather some impersonal force.
Denis, some good points. I want to emphasize that in no way am I being disingenuous - not in the least.
You mentioned the scripture in 1 Peter. My follow-up question should have been more explicit: “do you agree then that that is the one and only time the third person of the trinity (the Holy Spirit) appears in the opening greetings of any of the epistles?”
Up until now, I am still waiting for a reasoned response as to why the apostle Paul, for example, would have not included the 3rd person of the trinity when he greets the churches (or Timothy/Titus) in the name of the Godhead.
Furthermore, throughout almost every chapter of the epistles, the personage of both the Father and the Son is explicit. Not so, the Holy Spirit.
Finally, when the kingdom of God is physically established on the earth (Rev 21) John writes:
“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.”
Where is the 3rd person of the trinity?
In fact, Romans 8 refers numerous times to the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Christ” interchangeably. I assume that’s because (as John 15 tells us) the Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” (it is the “issue” of the Father).
Certainly someone can resist the Spirit of God (or the Spirit of Christ), as well as grieve/frustrate what the Spirit is attempting to do in one’s life.
What I am arguing is this: there are 2 entities (God the Father and the Son) in the Godhead. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is what was given, because of Christ’s sacrifice, to unite/adopt us into the family of God. It is that necessary and active force operating in the world. Of course, men can resist, frustrate/grieve it, etc to their own detriment.
I would also point you back to my earlier comment which you managed to ignore, quoting from the New Catholic Encylopedia (remembering that the RCC sanctioned the Trinity at Nicea; and also managed to sanction Mary Veneration at the next Council in Ephesus, 431AD):
“From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. The formulation ‘one God in threepersons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth century. But it is precisely thisformulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality orperspective.”
I’m finishing a doctrine class and I certainly don’t agree with all of what the author writes in the book we’ve been using. To me it’s helpful that he has a different position since it requires more thought on my part as to why I believe differently.
While this book, as has been noted, is based upon the Doctrine series Driscoll taught, the book is more thorough and provides hundreds of footnotes that you’ll obviously not find in the series. Footnotes are always helpful to me, especially on topics that I disagree on. I like to see what’s being referenced, if anything.
James
Dearest Paul,
As politely and gently as I can say it; the following quote is heretical:
“What I am arguing is this: there are 2 entities (God the Father and the Son) in the Godhead.”
No, No, respectfully no… The Holy Trinity (Tri-Unity), the three “persons” that make up the Trinity are wholly ONE in essence. There is NO delineation between them whatsoever. It is a bit crude but I think accurate when some describe God as “One What and three Whos.” In other words, one “what” in essence and three “whos” in roles and activities.
To clarify, our Holy God is Triune (in person) and a single entity (in essence); Who has chosen to be externally presented as three Persons from eternity to eternity. Even the use of the word “person” is not optimal but it is considered to be the best word we humans can come up with according to St. Augustine. He called the term “person” as being the “least worst” term when addressing the person-hood of our Triune Creator.
Please take the time to listen to the Bruce Ware podcast I mentioned earlier. I think you’ll find it enlightening.
In Christ,
Dan…
Paul,
You are ignoring the clear testimony of Scripture. You are ignoring that Jesus refereed to him as a person. You are ignoring that Paul and others ascribed personal attributes to him.
All because the writers of the epistles didn’t write things the way you assume they would have (this is ultimately the answer to your question … the introductions are not formed they way you assume they would because your assumptions are flawed). This is your choice but it runs afoul of logic and sound hermeneutic principals.
What you are arguing is this: heresy.
Finally, I didn’t address your quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia because it has no bearing on the discussion, it is simply a thinly veiled attempt to poison the well. Your statement that the “RCC sanctioned the Trinity at Nicea” further confirms this suspicion and shows you have either the complete lack of intellectual integrity or historic ignorance of the Da Vinci code crowd.
Paul C.,
Why are Paul’s greetings the ultimate test of his theology? Why not interact more with other passages? Your logic is the sort of logic that leads to heresy.
Paul
While others have said some very valid things; I would like to add one more thing to the discussion.One of the things that Christians have always stressed down through the centuries is that the Trinity is one of the essentials of the faith. Meaning that in order to be considered “Christian”, one must believe in it. Now we do not say that one necessarily needs to understand the Trinity to be a Christian. However right from the get go in Christianity we see many heresies entering the Church and one of them was against the Trinity. I believe it was in the second century that a heretic by the name of Montanus came along questioning the Churches understanding of who God is. His view is known as Modelism and if I remember correctly Jehovah Witnesses claim Montanus as the forerunner to The Watch Tower Society, otherwise known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Another cult that claims as its founder Montanus is Oneness Pentecostals.Although Montanus only heresy wasn’t just being against the Orthodox view of the Trinity, it is in my view one of the most dangerous views.It is because of movements like Montanism creeds such as the Nicene Creed were written in order to try to establish in a more concrete manner doctrine to oppose these heretical views. This is mainly why the word Trinity was not used up until that time, because although the understanding of the Trinity was taught, up until that time it wasn’t necessary to clearly state in specific terms what the Church believed about God.
Overall, I agree that it is a very readable book - I had concerns over the covenant section - not sure how one can truly make sense of God’s covenant purposes without including the Adamic covenant.
I was also not sold on the unlimited/limited atonement paradigm - if you peel back the covers, it doesn’t seem much different than common grace/salvific grace repackaged.
Paul, your question is perfectly in order.
With all due respect, I can’t imagine any answer that will be Holy Spirit inspired that will do better than what Dan our fellow brother in Christ has brought to the table.
” If you think about it we are taught in scripture to address all our prayers and petitions directly to the Father; in the Name of the Son; as we are prompted to do so by the Holy Spirit.
If you think about the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being respectively: Leader/Head, Savior/Intercessor, and Messenger/Prompter I think you’ll agree that a greeting that includes the Holy Spirit is a bit awkward since the Holy Spirit is wholly understood by the Apostles to be the motivator for the whole message in the first place”.
Its about role and not subordination. Role within a PERFECT UNION.
Its good food. Not junk and twisted food. Maybe I should add “so I think” to achieve being religiously correct and humble.
May the Lord increase us with the wisdom and grace to reason His word together without acrimony.
Shalom to you by brother in Christ.
Jesus said that if He did not leave, the father will not send the Holy Spirit.
After Jesus ascension, no one could stand on their feet for God from then till the end of time without the Holy Spirit. Even those loving greetings was inspired by the Spirit.
So the Spirit did not need to greet himself.
The father and Spirit testifies about the son, the son testifies about the father and Spirit and the Spirit testifies/exalt the father and son.
With regards to revelation you mentioned, it is important to note that all that was said in that book, was gotten by John because the Spirit carried him to see and hear what the father wanted (Rev 1: 10, ” It was the Lord’s Day, and I was worshiping in the Spirit….. .” God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”So the Spirit is mentioned (John 4:24)
I am sure we all agree that the Holy Spirit and Christ proceed from God (John 15:26) And all other spirits were created- the angels and Lucifer though he fell with some of the angels.
The point is this: Let US (Father, Son and Spirit) make man (Gen 1:26; Col 1:16 and Gen 2:7) clearly show their presence.
I hope this sheds some light.
Shalom
Tim,
I think you misrepresent Driscoll with the idea that he falls in the Gap Theory of Creation. That is one of the views he poses in the book but he actually comes down on the position that Sailhamer and Piper have advocated. That view states that v. 1 of Genesis is the creation of all things. The rest of the chapter is God’s specific work in six days sometime after the event of verse 1 (whether long or short, we don’t know) to prepare a “land” and a place for his people on earth.
The Gap Theory supposes a long period of time between v. 1 and v. 2 and that this is where evil entered the world. From my reading of Doctrine that was not the view Driscoll advocated.
It might be wise to look at that again and correct yourself if necessary. One further place to look is the Doctrine summaries for Creation that are posted on Mars Hill’s website. Here is the one on Creation Creation: God Makes.
Thanks!
All,
I sincerely hope and pray that we see our brother Paul here again soon, although this chain is now almost 5 days old. An eternity in cyberspace…
I was mistaken about the earlier link to the Bruce Ware talk on the Trinity as the link that I provided earlier was to a 2005 presentation on the same subject. However, the recording that I’ve thoroughly studied, and wanted to endorse, share, and offer a link to was actually from the 2006 - Sovereign Grace Ministries’ WorshipGod06 conference. It (the talk) is entitled: “Worshiping the Triune God” and is available free for download here:
http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=A2246-19-51
I doubt that Dr. Ware says anything significantly different from year to year, so perhaps both would be useful and an encouragement to Paul and others.
Brother Pedro, Your kind words are greatly appreciated and I hope deserved in some small way. Your use of the word “subordination” is troublesome to many who still look at our God as three in anything other than in person. Our prideful human nature tends to look for some form of rank or echelon in all relationships. However, within this Holy and “perfect UNION” (your words) of three faultless personalities there is no pride, no need for a command structure. Being “ONE” in essence manifests a solidarity, a supreme unity that would cause any of us to weep should we even come close to understanding it, were we able to do so. I think that this is part of what Isaiah saw when he gazed upon the “Throne of the Lord” and immediately declared a curse upon himself: Isaiah 6:5 (NIV) 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
May it all be for the glory of God,
Dan…
DanI thought that perhaps I would get clarification on the problem you have with the word “subordination”. Are you for or against the word in connection with the Trinity?
My understanding is that God is a God of order and because of that roles are given; as in relation to the family, the Church and the Trinity.The husband is head over the wife, however this does not have the connotation of him being superior, as woman was created as equal. (See Genesis 18-25)Elders to be only men. (See 1Timothy chapter 3) 1Tim. 2:9-15 shows that the authority that a man has over a woman is a creation ordinance, not cultural.The Son & the Holy Spirit, do the will of the Father, yet are all equal. As indicated by Jesus in His prayer in Matt. 26:39 “…never the less not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Those of egalitarian leanings will try to explain away these passages and other relates passages, saying things like: “If women are not allowed to do things like be an elder, one can not escape the fact that they are not equal with man. The main reason that some passages having man over the woman is because of the culture of that day would not allow it.”Yet if that were true, then the writers of Scripture would be guilty of bowing to culture.
As someone who holds to a complimentarian understanding of men and women and indeed the Trinity. I have no problem with the fact that roles do not mean “unequal”.This might be contrary to how people in their fallen nature view things, but not in how God designed us.
Dan, I am not saying you have a problem with what I am saying; I just need clarification as to exactly what you were saying. Perhaps the problem is with me not reading what you said in context?
Tom,
I’m sorry for the confusion. When it comes to the trinity, I’m for the word absolutely!
Here’s what I said in response to Pedro, who I think agrees with my thoughts and understandings on and of the relationships within the Trinity:
“Your use of the word “subordination” is troublesome to many who still look at our God as three in anything other than in person.”
I was referring to the word being “troublesome” for those who don’t have a proper understanding of the roles and activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
After carefully re-reading your post I’d have to say that you and I have precisely the same understanding of what the Bible says about relationships, both in Trinitarian terms, in the family, and within the Body of Christ. I too am a complimentarian through and through. Differing roles and activities does not necessarily mean inequality as you stated clearly.
Regarding those of “egalitarian leanings” I very much agree that they are quick to assert that the infiltration of culture is to blame for such archaic Biblical rules regarding the roles of men and women in the family and in the church. Do they realize that by saying these things, they are derogating the very Word of God? God’s Holy Word transcends human feelings of fairness, and stands like a rock against the ebb and flow of cultural mores.
But why should this surprise us? Is it not the same mind-set that says that current cultural norms should override what the Bible clearly says about behaviors that are explicitly forbidden!
Like our Triune God Himself, His Word is immutable and everlasting.
In Christ,
Dan…
We don’t hold the gap theory. We do survey it and most other options as fairly as possible. We affirm the veiw that Genesis 1 and 2 speak of God, who created all things in the beginnin, preparing Eden for human habitation.