Bookstore Events | Panel Discussion on the Incarnation
November 26, 2024
Jim Hamilton:
Wonderful. Thank you all for coming. This is a panel discussion of Dr. Mohler’s new book, Recapturing the Glory of Christmas. Before I ask Dr. Schreiner to open us with a word of prayer, I have a few announcements from the bookstore that I want to make now so that I don’t forget. This book is, I think, 40% off. You can get the book, a Christmas ornament, and a mug—the bundle is $33. There’s another event that the bookstore asked me to mention, which will take place on December the third at 7:00 PM. It says, “Kids’ pajamas, Dr. and Mrs. Mohler.” I think that means Dr. and Mrs. Mohler will be here in pajamas. I’m just kidding… The kids can wear pajamas, and there will be cookies, hot cocoa, and Christmas readings on December 3rd at 7:00 PM. Before I introduce the panel tonight, Dr. Schreiner, if you would open us with prayer.
Thomas Schreiner:
We give thanks for this time in which we can share together. We praise you for our Christ, who is the glory of God. We pray, Lord, that you would guide our conversation in Jesus’ name. Amen.
Jim Hamilton:
Amen. I trust you all know Dr. Tom Schreiner. He served for a long time as the preaching pastor at Clifton Baptist Church. He is a professor of New Testament here at Southern Seminary. He was my PhD supervisor, and I’m thrilled and blessed to know him. Next to him is Dr. Steve Wellum. When I was a member of Clifton Baptist Church in the PhD program years ago, Dr. Wellum was also a member of Clifton, and he is a professor of Christian theology here at Southern. Then, of course, Dr. Mohler, our president. He’s been here for over 30 years, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that we are here because he is here. It is a miracle what took place when the Lord turned the direction of the denomination and the school and brought Dr. Mohler here. We are so thankful for you, sir.
Albert Mohler:
Well, trust me, I am very thankful you brothers are here, and all of you are here.
Jim Hamilton:
Amen.
Albert Mohler:
It’s a sign of God’s pleasure. I’m very thankful.
Jim Hamilton:
Hallelujah. Dr. Mohler, I’m thrilled to have this opportunity to ask you all these questions that I have. My first question: I trust that many of these folks are interested in the writing process, and I’d be interested to know—maybe they would be too—when you wrote this book, for instance, in seasons or years. Did you do a little bit every year at Christmas, or was it done at different times? Is there a time of day when you write best? How long ago were you actually working on this book? Sometimes there’s a time lag between the actual production and its appearance.
Albert Mohler:
Well, I think we’re all idiosyncratic. If you write, you write idiosyncratically. Every one of us has a different way of doing it. The origin of all this material comes from preaching, particularly with the incarnation at the center and with Christmas as often the theme, but there’s more. In other words, that project emerges from more than Christmas. It was just timed for Christmas. The other interesting thing about this project is that I didn’t intend it to be broken up into daily sections as it ended up. The publisher said this is something people found very helpful; would you consider doing that? The material lent itself to that. That’s how it ended up in that form. I want to say that was not my idea originally. It would’ve been seven or eight chapters, maybe ten. But the publisher suggested it be broken up in this way. I appreciate that because it would thrill me if families could use this in preparation for Christmas and family devotions. When I write is almost always late at night. I’m a night person. That’s when that part of me just seems to work; I think better at night. I feel very alive and able to write. That is not prescriptive in any way, but I think that’s honest about where I am. I do have to write sometimes during the day, and I’m glad to say I don’t think I can tell a difference between what I write in the day and what I write at night, but I feel like it comes more freely and flows more naturally at night.
Jim Hamilton:
Dr. Schreiner and Wellum, do you have a rhythm that you fall into in terms of your composition?
Thomas Schreiner:
I don’t know if I really have a rhythm. I write when I can. That’s what I’d say.
Albert Mohler:
Can I jump in here? When you had children in the home, you wrote with children in the room. That is a gift I do not have. How did you do that?
Thomas Schreiner:
To be honest, I don’t recall. That was a long time ago. My oldest son is 42 now.
Albert Mohler:
I was told, mind you, you could sit in a chair with an improvised desk in front of you and write brilliant New Testament commentaries with a football game on with your boys.
Thomas Schreiner:
I think that’s rather apocryphal.
Albert Mohler:
That doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means it’s not canonical.
Thomas Schreiner:
I mainly write all over the place. I bring my computer; I write outside, I write on my bed, I write in a chair, I move around.
Albert Mohler:
You prove my point. I’m in amazement.
Stephen Wellum:
In terms of writing?
Jim Hamilton:
Yes.
Stephen Wellum:
I don’t do what he does, that’s for sure. I need concentrated time. I need desks everywhere, books everywhere. I don’t know how you do it just sitting on your lap writing. I’ve got to have piles of things. Concentrated time, mostly in the daytime, not nighttime. I try to get some sleep at night.
Jim Hamilton:
Dr. Mohler, I was wondering, as I only got this book a few days ago, if you have a particular chapter that was your favorite to think through, to work through, to produce—something that really spoke to you as you were working on it?
Albert Mohler:
The opening chapter of John’s Gospel has captured my imagination and heart from the time I was a boy. I was first captured by the image, the declaration of the Word made flesh, and then, even as a boy, detecting the parallel between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. The rest of my life, in one sense, has been helping to fill in more knowledge and appreciation for the glory of Christ in John’s Gospel, particularly in John chapter one. But the Synoptics and the infancy narratives are also incredibly precious to me. The prophetic texts are very precious to me. The Hebrews Christological texts, Colossians. I do go back to the fact that this project really emerges out of energy that comes from John chapter one.
Jim Hamilton:
If I could extend that question, and I want to ask the two of you this as well: of all that you’ve written—on leadership, the Apostles’ Creed, the parables, the Lord’s Prayer, preaching, cultural commentary, editing the Grace and Truth Study Bible—do you have a favorite book that you’ve written or something that resonates from your heart from everything you’ve produced to this point?
Albert Mohler:
I don’t hate the question, maybe slightly. I hope I would never write something that was not, at that moment, the consuming passion. I’m thinking about the project that consumes me. To my surprise, in some ways, the best-selling thing I’ve written is the book on leadership, and that’s what I hear from pastors and others perhaps more than anything else. I also think, from pastors, what I hear from them is appreciation for the commentary on Hebrews and things like that because that’s where they live. Thematically, I divide my thinking about what I write into three categories: biblical expositional, deeply theological, and cultural. Because of what I end up doing a great deal of time in The Briefing and all the rest, the cultural ends up in books that are themed. I’m working on a big one right now in that theme, but I don’t think I have a favorite. In terms of timing, The Gathering Storm was an incredibly well-timed book. The book I wrote on the sexual and gender revolution, We Cannot Be Silent, I think when I look at it now, I realize I believe every word I wrote, and I’m thankful that it had an impact. But you look at where those issues are now, it’s like we need a second edition real fast because, when I wrote that book, we were not yet at the point where we would have to make some of the arguments we have to make today. It is a humbling thing to recognize that when we write a book, it’s dated when we write it, generally about a year later when it’s released. I think my brothers here, who write systematic theology and New Testament theology and commentaries, I think those works will last a long time. But we also need some books timed for the season that won’t last as long in terms of impact.
Jim Hamilton:
Dr. Schreiner and Wellum, do you have a book that you feel is representative of what you’ve produced or maybe the favorite thing you’ve written?
Thomas Schreiner:
I agree with Dr. Mohler. Any project I was working on, I enjoyed doing it. I would say The King in His Beauty. I enjoyed writing about the whole Bible. That was really fun, and I learned so much. When I write, I learn, and I learned so much about the Old Testament in writing that book. I was able to read so many things that I had not read previously.
Stephen Wellum:
I would say the most favorite would be working on Christology. The whole goal of writing systematics is to give an entire worldview to understand the Bible’s worldview, to understand Christ and how the whole Bible presents Him. Christology ties into the doctrine of God, humanity, everything. It’s helped me bring clarity to hermeneutics, Old Testament to New Testament biblical theology. I sort of got famous with Peter Gentry with covenants, but that was just at that time when I wrote that; it was simply getting me to do Christology. Everything, in some sense, has been written to work on the person and work of Christ. Once you do that, it ties to every area of theology, and then the grounding of it—you have to defend truth, you have to defend the Christian worldview, and it all spills out from there. Working on Christology has been a dream come true.
Albert Mohler:
May I offer something here? I’m proud to be with all three of the colleagues up here. When I think of you, Jim, you’ve written several things, but what I really love is your commentary on the Psalms, Praise the Lord. I find it devotional and theologically encouraging. For Tom, I begin with Romans and want to thank you, brother, for all that you’ve written in a straight line of helping the church. For Steve, it’s the Christology book. I talked to you about this a few months ago when I was teaching the Ten Great Battles class, looking at the battle for the doctrine of Christ and the Trinity. I was amazed at how well you encapsulated all of that in that book. I’m looking forward to seeing it now in the context of a systematic, so keep at it. I’m 65; I want to see the whole thing…
Stephen Wellum:
They want it a lot faster than that.
Albert Mohler:
Alright.
Jim Hamilton:
Dr. Mohler, I’m always interested in the arrangement of a book. You mentioned that you had a series of sermons that the publisher broke up, but is there a flow of thought or maybe a chiastic structure to the contents of this book?
Albert Mohler:
I would say there is not a chiastic structure that was visible to the author. It began largely as messages but also as Christological writings. It was gathering all that together and trying to put it into an accessible, thematic, chapter-by-chapter work. The publisher had a different idea, and I like the idea. I’m thankful for it. I did not teach, preach, or write the material as 25 different pieces. I think it all holds together, like I say, in about seven or eight in my mind. It divided up in a way that I hope will be helpful to people. It reminds me that if we’re writing, we want to write for readers. I’m thankful that, by this format, it’s likely to reach readers it otherwise wouldn’t reach. The exciting thing to me is it’s a little subversive in that it can be theological, biblical, even at times, if you know what I’m doing, polemical, and put it in the context of the glory of Christ that we focus on, I think quite rightly, at Christmas.
Jim Hamilton:
One of the things I appreciate about being around you and hearing from you often is how instructive you are and how you can speak so smoothly to so many different issues. I’d love to take some time now and think together about the big ideas related to Christology. I understand I didn’t have time to read through the whole book, but I’d love to hear how, for instance, the definition of Chalcedon and the big ideas that the two natures are not confused, not changed, not divisible, not separable—how those big ideas factor into the contents of this book, if you could comment on those terms.
Albert Mohler:
When I teach, I try to make this point: at times, the great creedal and confessional history of the church, such as the formulas of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc., reminds you that the church has had to come to a Holy Spirit-guided, scripturally established understanding of how this can be said rightly and to expose how it has been said wrongly. I do not believe that heresy precedes orthodoxy in ontology. I do believe that it often precedes orthodoxy in formulation. It’s actually faithful Christians hearing errors misrepresent Christ that led the church to say, no, we must declare what it means for Jesus to be not with the Father. The two natures—it’s interesting when you look at, say, the first seven councils of the church, they found a lot of wrong ways to describe the two natures of Christ.
And so, by the time you get to the later, more highly defined confessions and creeds, and I would put in there also, just out of that sequence but in this family, the Athanasian Creed, there’s clearly a wrong way to say this, and you have to work as the church to the right way to say it. I find this true also in preaching, where if people aren’t aware of this creedal and confessional history and how, say, the two natures of Christ came to be, I believe biblically understood, then the average preacher’s going to mess this up from the pulpit, and that’s what we must not do.
Jim Hamilton:
If I could press in on those four terms again and maybe ask you, Dr. Wellum, about some of these terms: without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The last two almost sound redundant if we don’t know the context of the discussion, and the “without change” seems particularly difficult with reference to the incarnation because there seems to be a change there. Could you help us think through?
Stephen Wellum:
You’re dealing with profound realities. You’re working within a biblical worldview, not within pantheism or panentheism. You’re working with a Creator-creature distinction. God is God. You have to lay out your whole doctrine of God: the assumption of the Son of God, who shares the divine nature with the Father and the Spirit, which is the entire divine nature, assumes a human nature. The human nature, even though we’re made in God’s image, is not deity. You can’t have a blend, right? That’s where the idea comes that they’re not joined, not confused.
Jim Hamilton:
Confused, yeah.
Stephen Wellum:
If you have confusion, you do not have Genesis 1:1, you do not have the God of the Bible and creation. A Creator-creature distinction means the two natures cannot be mixed. This is monism. You have to have a full human nature that is human, and then you wrestle with what that is. You have to have a proper person-nature distinction. The “who”—the Word becomes flesh, not the Father, not the Spirit, not the divine nature. That’s the Son of God, the Word who has that divine nature, but there is a person-nature distinction. He takes to Himself a human nature. In that human nature, that human nature remains human; the divine nature always remains what it is in itself. There’s not a change to the divine nature as the triune God. The Son, with the Father and the Spirit, continues to uphold the universe. He’s able to act outside of that human nature but acts through that human nature. He is fully human. He knows as a human, acts as a human, obeys as a human. That’s crucial for our salvation. Yet that divine nature is not changed. The divine Son takes that human nature to Himself. There are two natures in the person of Christ. They’re not divided, so they’re not just two natures side by side; they’re united in the subject, in the person of the Son. The one subject, the Son, now has two natures. He acts in both natures simultaneously. He doesn’t turn one off and then the other. That’s more of the kenosis views. He’s able to continue to sustain the universe, but he does that in His divine nature. In His human nature, He is not sustaining the universe. You keep working through the biblical material, keep the parameters, and the creeds are helpful in keeping those parameters. You say, well, I don’t fully understand. Yep, that’s right. There’s proper mystery. You can’t look at something human and say, oh, this is just like it is in me. You don’t have two natures. You’re not Christ, the divine Son with two natures.
Jim Hamilton:
Those last two terms, Dr. Mohler, feel free to chime in: indivisible and inseparable. It seems those are speaking—they don’t mean the same thing, right?
Albert Mohler:
Divisible means that thing cannot be broken down. Inseparable means they all have to belong together. Those are two different conceptions. It reminds us that all these creeds, all these statements, came out of a particular context where they heard things said wrongly and wanted to say things rightly. We live in a time where the great Christological struggle is between the liberal Jesus and liberal Christologies that separate the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history, which is quite different from what was going on in the early church. But what was true and rightly confessed and defined by the church in the early centuries remains true. Those definitions still continue. The Christological issues become rediscussed in the Trinitarian controversies. An entire council was called not because they said, maybe we can improve this Trinitarian understanding, but because they were hearing teachings that were so false and unbiblical that they endangered the integrity of the teaching and preaching of the church and the integrity of the gospel. One of the things said at Nicaea—people forget—is that the Christ you present is interesting, but He’s not the Christ of Scripture. He also cannot save.
Jim Hamilton:
Dr. Schreiner, I told you I was going to save the hard questions for you. I’m thinking of John 14:28, where Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” How should we think through what’s being said there?
Thomas Schreiner:
It’s been a long time since I read the Gospel of John. I’d love to hear what Dr. Wellum and Dr. Mohler would say. I would take Jesus to be speaking there in terms of His humanity, not His deity. We have many other places, right, from John 1:1, where Jesus shares fully in the divine nature: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Before Abraham was, John 8:58, “I am.” We have such clear statements: “I and the Father are one,” John 10:30. So we have many clear statements of the full deity of the Son in John’s Gospel. That’s the hardest question I want from you.
Stephen Wellum:
There are two ways that I think are perfectly fine to go. I do think probably Jesus is speaking in terms of His humanity there, yet He could easily be speaking of the eternal relation with the Father in the sense that—so John 5, “I can do nothing on my own, but do all that the Father does.” He’s speaking of the relations of Father and Son. I’m not speaking in terms of subordinationism or even eternal authority relations. The Father is first, not in terms of higher authority or greater deity, but He is the one who is the Father of the Son. The Son is from the Father. He could be speaking of that Father-Son relation: the Father is greater than I. He’s the one who sent me. Or it can be speaking of the Son, who’s in that same relation, now in His humanity, spoken of in terms of the economy, in terms of His humanity. Both of those are orthodox and certainly not speaking of the Arian notion that He’s now a creature and inferior ontologically to the Father and thus He is not God.
Thomas Schreiner:
So, “greater,” in the other understanding, would be greater in terms of priority in some sense. What does “greater” mean in that text?
Stephen Wellum:
It would be “greater” in the sense that He’s the Father, I’m the Son. He is greater in that priority sense. John 5 is similar: “I can do nothing on my own.” He’s not saying that He does not have equal power or authority, because He says, “Whatever the Father does, I do.” He creates universes, judges all things, sustains all things. Those are acts of deity, yet He never acts independently because of Trinitarian relations. It could be referring to the Trinitarian relations. I do think probably it’s referring to His work in terms of His humanity, but it could go either way.
Jim Hamilton:
Do you want to add to that at all, Dr. Mohler?
Albert Mohler:
I feel like Steve’s first option is safer theologically. I don’t feel like the second is wrong. I just feel like the first is safer. Let’s stop there.
Jim Hamilton:
A minute ago, you mentioned the Athanasian Creed, and there’s a line in there that says, “equal to the Father as touching His Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” So this would be what you said was the right answer that Dr. Wellum gave. No offense…
Albert Mohler:
Say that one more time.
Jim Hamilton:
You said his first answer was safer that He’s speaking out of His humanity. That’s right, what you were saying, and it’s not that the second answer is wrong, but it’s the safer answer, and that seems to be what’s in line with the Athanasian Creed there. That’s what I was saying.
Albert Mohler:
Yep. Got it. Thank you.
Stephen Wellum:
Thank you. But you still have to, even as humanity, tie His relation to the Father as well.
Jim Hamilton:
It seems that what we’re doing—what you guys are doing here, speaking of how Christ sometimes speaks out of His manhood, sometimes out of His deity—is referred to by some people today as partitive exegesis of Jesus’ words. I think this goes back to the ancient move that Augustine makes in On the Trinity, when he’s developing Philippians 2, and he says some things Jesus says as a servant, and some things He says as the Son, as equal with God. Other things He says out of His servanthood, having taken on flesh. Dr. Wellum, would you like to add anything to that discussion?
Stephen Wellum:
Partitive exegesis—it’s a fancy term used today. There’s nothing new about this. Once you have the Son of God who takes on our humanity, you have to have something of deity, humanity. When He says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” He’s referring to the very name of God, so He’s speaking of eternity. That’s not tied to His birth certificate. He was conceived, born in the manger, and so on. When He says, “I thirst,” or “I die,” you’re not going to say God dies or thirsts. That’s not possible. You have to have some kind of partitive sense. Now you have to be careful, I think, in that the presentation of Jesus in the Gospels is of an individual, and that individual—my book puts it this way—He’s God the Son incarnate. The person who speaks is the Son of God. When He says, “I thirst,” it’s the Son of God who thirsts. When He says, “I am,” it’s the Son of God who speaks. That Son is the divine Son. It’s not a human person, yet He speaks; He has two natures. That’s where the partitive comes in. You don’t want to have, oh, that’s part humanity. He’s a unified whole individual. I would then say, in the language of Chalcedon, He’s one person, two natures that make up His individuality, His whole being. Jesus of Nazareth is truly God, truly man, one person, two natures. When we look at Scripture, because of two natures, we can then do partitive exegesis. We have to do partitive exegesis.
Albert Mohler:
May I make a statement? I want to hold up Calvin as an example here. There’s a danger that we can enter into metaphysical speculation. I appreciate the way Tom and Steve responded to this, but there’s a warning to us that we probably don’t have 1900 pages to write on this question simply because the biblical material, rightly considered, has to be proclaimed in terms of affirming everything that God teaches us in Scripture. We need to be restrained from answering questions in a conclusive sense that I don’t believe we have biblical warrant for. When you look at Calvin’s presentation of the Trinity and Christology in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and what was available in the theological literature of the time, this is an enormous recovery of the simplicity of biblical truth. I hope that makes sense. Right now, among some evangelicals, there is way too much speculation on these things. On the other hand, I hear way too much declarative statement that this is exactly what Nicaea should have said. Wait for my next book.
Jim Hamilton:
You’re actually moving in the direction I was hoping we would go. I’d love to hear the three of you comment on the retrieval movement among evangelicals and maybe what seems to be a revived interest in Thomas Aquinas and any thoughts you may have on the relationship between Roman Catholic formulations of Mary as the God-bearer and Orthodox formulations of this and how we should think about these things as we think about Christmas and the incarnation.
Stephen Wellum:
There’s a lot there, Jim. In terms of the retrieval movement, everybody is dependent on historical theology. If that’s what you mean by retrieval, we inevitably stand on the shoulders of those who’ve gone before us. With that said, you have to stand carefully. Not everything in church history is legitimate. With the lapse of time, we often gain better insight—Nicaea, Chalcedon, and so on. There was greater insight as time went on regarding the person and work of Christ, particularly the Trinity. There wasn’t as much clarity on justification. The reformers clarified that. The push towards retrieval now seems to be recovering the Patristic era, the medieval era, particularly Aquinas. Sometimes you get the impression that they’re forgetting the insights of the Reformation and building on them. I want to take all of history and ask, what did the reformers teach us that corrected earlier times? I’m appreciative of the Patristics, Nicaea, and Chalcedon. I think those confessions accurately reflect Scripture. I don’t agree with all the exegesis of the Patristics. I don’t agree with some of their dependence on Platonic material, or even Aristotelian as that comes in the Middle Ages. We’ve learned throughout history, but I learn from the Reformation, particularly the Reformed, that we need to be eclectic. Scripture is first. If we can take something from Aristotle that is consistent with Scripture—not necessarily consistent with Aristotle—we don’t take his view as a view, but he can say things as an image-bearer that are true. This is how we deal with philosophy, but we have a standard by which we critique that. The push today is, well, we need the metaphysics of Christian Platonism, we need the metaphysics of Neoplatonism. I say no. The Bible itself, even though it’s not giving us a whole philosophical view, gives us a basic metaphysics, theory of knowledge, epistemology, and so on. In the early church, in my Christology volume, when the church had to distinguish hypostasis from ousia, so you have the person-nature distinction, those two words were synonyms. They stipulated different meanings. Why? Because of Scripture, not because of Plato or Aristotle. They had to say God is three in terms of Father, Son, and Spirit, and one in a different sense. They didn’t have, in Greek thought and philosophy, the language to do it, so they created it. They used Greek terms but filled them with Christian meaning. When you get to Aquinas, I’m concerned with Aquinas. He says many good things about the Trinity and the person of Christ. But there’s a whole nature-grace understanding in terms of humanity, the image of God, what we are before the fall, after the fact. It affects his understanding, even in Christology, of the humanity of Christ. I’d be cautious, learn from Scripture first, and see things through the Reformation and post-Reformation era.
Thomas Schreiner:
That was an excellent answer. I think it feeds into what Dr. Mohler said about simplicity. The retrieval movement has value, but there can be an inclination to depend on our ancestors—for whom we’re very thankful—in a way that begins to diminish the practical authority and clarity of Scripture. Scripture is clear. That’s what worries me. People can become so entranced with the retrieval that, in practice, it can shove out the primacy of Scripture. Calvin is a great example. As Dr. Mohler said, Scripture is the authority.
Albert Mohler:
What a great question Jim. To be honest, the retrieval movement began as something that greatly encouraged me and has become something that greatly concerns me. There isn’t a week that goes by that I am not in conversation with others who share this concerns concern. When I was in my first week of seminary classes here, back in 1980—a different age—
Jim Hamilton:
What year did you start?
Albert Mohler:
So, 45 years ago, roughly. On a Friday afternoon at two o’clock, I had a lecture by Dr. Timothy George, a professor of historical theology. He got up and said, “Hello, my name’s Timothy’s George, and I’m here to convince you that there is someone between your grandmother and Jesus, and it matters.” That’s a brilliant way to introduce church history. I wasn’t sure there was someone between my grandmother and Jesus, but I knew what he meant. It’s a phenomenal lecture. I believe we need to understand the historic development of Christian doctrine. That’s extremely important. Much of my life has been spent on this. If someone asks me about the most formative books in my life, I’d put Augustine way up there. If I describe my theology, it’s Baptist, Reformed, Reformation, and Augustinian. But I think Augustine says absolutely something nuts on some issues where he departs from scriptural simplicity. Let me just state it: obviously, I don’t agree with Augustine on sex. I’m married. I don’t believe that celibacy is a greater gift. I also don’t believe his mythopoetic depiction of human sexuality is helpful. That’s a subset of this massively and monumentally important work, The City of God, in which I think, in truth, we don’t understand the church apart from Augustine more than anyone else post-Scripture in terms of the context of the church in the world. The second thing I want to say is that I cut my teeth in understanding the evangelical movement when that movement was shaped by people who basically had their doctorates among liberals. Very few of them did doctorates in theology. They’re almost all like scholars—Carl F.H. Henry and his Boston University doctorate in philosophy, Kenneth Kantzer at Harvard, in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, I think, not Old Testament. You look at Gleason Archer and others; they were doing these humanities doctorates. Harvard doesn’t care about theology, but it does care about Reformation history, so you could do that. A part of me sees some of what’s going on in the retrieval movement—I hope this clarifies why I spoke of these things, which appear disconnected. Let me connect them. I think at least a part of what I fear in the retrieval movement is that it’s a way to avoid having to deal with questions like: Do you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Do you believe in justification by faith alone? Do you believe that biological sex and gender are the same thing in terms of male and female? If you’re an evangelical and want to be well thought of in the academy, you can write about some monk in the 13th century contemplating the Proverbs, and you can write a dissertation at Harvard without getting into trouble on theological issues because you’re not dealing with them. I’ve seen several waves of this kind of evangelical temptation. I’m not saying all the people in this movement are doing that. I just want to hire people who are declared on these issues in a comprehensive way. To go back to what Steve said, I fear that this movement is attempting to leapfrog over the Reformation. The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation were clear statements of absolute disagreement over, for example, justification by faith. The Roman Catholic Church says it believes in justification by faith. Benedict XVI said he believed in it. They just don’t believe in justification by faith alone. I don’t think Luther was wrong to say the distinction between that is the Gospel and losing or denying the Gospel. I hope I’m making sense. I’m thrilled to see the average seminary student at Southern Seminary now has, I don’t know, 10, 20, 30 times the historical understanding of the Christian faith than would’ve been true 30 or 40 years ago. I just want to make sure that is not— you mentioned Aquinas, and I’m fascinated with Aquinas, truly. But on the nature-grace issue, I recognize this is tied to everything. I can argue that Calvin in the Institutes deliberately rejects the Thomistic understanding of nature and grace, and I think righteously and biblically. The other issue here is that evangelicals—and we’re not alone in this—Christians in this post-Christian age are trying to find a more neutral vocabulary and moral discourse to use in dealing with many issues. I do believe in natural law. I do not believe that natural law is as compelling as Thomas thinks it is. I think it’s as real as he thinks it is; I just don’t think it’s as intelligible or compelling as he thinks.
Jim Hamilton:
Amen. If we have time in just a moment, I’d love to receive questions from the audience, but I’d like to ask you guys: if you could give us a pastoral word as we approach the holiday season for our own personal worship and devotion, for teaching these great truths in our churches and to our children, and for evangelizing unbelievers—if maybe the three of you could pick one of those topics and speak to them. Our own personal worship and devotion, teaching our churches and children, and evangelizing unbelievers during the holiday season in particular.
Thomas Schreiner:
If we think of the incarnation, the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. I think it covers all three. If we think devotionally, pastorally, personally, for our kids, our churches, what is the incarnation about? It’s that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son. It’s an amazing demonstration of the love of God. We’d all agree we understand a thimbleful of it; it’s hard to comprehend. The miracle of the incarnation is the miracle of all miracles. To think of God sending His Son and loving us in this way and Him giving His life for our sake—that’s staggering. For me, it’s easy to forget that. It’s the amazing truth of God’s love. I think it applies to all those contexts.
Stephen Wellum:
I agree with Tom. When you think of the reality of the incarnation and all the way through Christ’s work—that He becomes incarnate in order to die and be raised—we’re dealing with apologetics. To unbelievers, this sets the Christian view over against everything else. The reality of this is true; other things are false. We have to communicate the Jesus of the Bible, not the Jesus of their imagination. This Jesus is utterly unique. Apart from Him, there is no salvation. We live in a day where people say, “Why, you bigots? You think there’s only salvation in Christ? What about all these other religions?” When you unpack the Christian doctrine of God, the incarnation, why He comes—we cannot save ourselves. You have the message of humbling yourself: I cannot save myself; I have a Redeemer. That’s the first place to start with non-Christians Christians. This is truth over against their viewpoint. You have no hope other than Him. He is the Lord. He is coming again; you’ll stand before Him. This is not the Jesus that’s lowly and weak. He’s the sovereign Lord of the universe. Christmas is a time to rejoice in such a glorious Redeemer and think about how He’s come to redeem—that we’re sinners, we’re fallen, and we need a Savior.
Albert Mohler:
For the sake of time, I’m mentioning one verse: John 1:14—And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. You ever notice that’s never been made into a praise song? It’s not even in a hymn. This struck me when I researched it. The verse is so massive in my heart. It’s something I teach and preach, but I’ll never fully comprehend or understand it. That’s the glory of Christmas. There’s an already and a not yet. There was an already and a not yet when the prophets foretold the coming of the Promised One. John 1:14 declares, we have seen His glory. It’s more than the prophets saw—Glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. There’s also an already and not yet. One day, we will see no longer through a glass darkly, but we’ll see Him face to face. I’m not surprised that, in those words, it hasn’t been made into something reducible because you can’t reduce it. But we do get to believe it, and we get to preach it. Christmas is an inescapable, precious privilege to do just that.