The Heart of the Matter is Your Heart

We use the phrase, “the heart of the matter,” to identify what is truly central. But what is the heart of the matter for every human being? From an eternal perspective, the heart of the matter for every human person, no matter their current situation, is the state of their own heart. The heart of the matter is the heart.

The “heart,” according to Scripture, refers not only to the central physical organ in our human body but to the center of a person’s psychical life. The heart refers to one’s emotions, will, and mind. The heart both determines and reflects upon the state of our moral relationship with God and with other people. Your heart is a big deal. 

The innermost purposes of your heart determine your spiritual state. Your heart can be for good, or it can be for evil. How do we know what the state of our heart is? Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there will be your heart, too” (Matt 6:21). So, what do you want? 

Where is your heart? You can either have a heart which is “after God’s own heart,” like David (1 Sam 13:14). Or you can have a heart that seeks after idols, or false gods. We call for judgment upon ourselves when our hearts seek something other than the one true God (Ezek 14:1-8). 

God knows that our hearts are weak and prone to pride and to evil (Gen 6:5; 2 Chron 26:16). Our hearts become insensitive and hard when we turn away from him. This invites God to judge us (Ps 119:70; Zech 7:12). 

God gives us a conscience to remind our hearts that we are called to something better and that he will hold us to account in the final judgment (Rom 2:15-16). God is, moreover, merciful and wants to open our hearts to his free offer of salvation (Acts 16:14-15).

Please take a moment. and consider the state of your own heart. Are you right with God where it really counts, in your heart? Is there any tinge of rebellion against him? Are you beingswayed to trust in or desire something other than him? 

You know the wayward bent of your heart is true. But do not despair. You can ask God for his help. He truly wants to change your heart. Perhaps you might pray this prayer written by John Kettlewell:

I give you my heart, and I humbly pray that you would always keep it in your hands, since it is so unfaithful in loving what is good. When it is in my control, it is prone to follow all sorts of evils. Oh Father, keep my heart steadfast and unalterable in your ways. Let it not be inclined to any evil thing nor lean toward any of my former vanities. Keep my eyes from looking upon and my ears from listening to any sort of wickedness. Do not let my lips utter anything that is ungodly or my feet move even a step in any of the paths of death, but hold my whole spirit, soul, and body in a righteous fear of you. Keep me comfortable in the hope of your favor, through Jesus Christ, my blessed Lord and only Savior. Amen. (Cloud of Witnesses, 95)

As we pray for God to cleanse our hearts, he will send his Holy Spirit to change our hearts and give us righteous purposes. If you will pray like David did, when he fell into great sin, God will hear you and change you. “God, create a clean heart for me and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (Ps 51:10).

Ultimately, the heart of the matter is your own heart. Will you ask him to change your heart to want him and his purposes for your life? He loves you and wants you to become a person after his own heart. He will forgive you and transform you. Just pray.

The Ontology of Jesus Christ: A Lament for Modernity

The widespread effort in modern biblical scholarship to downplay the ontological and metaphysical claims of the New Testament terms, and thus their Trinitarian and Christological implications, is particularly frustrating and damaging to orthodoxy, in the academy and the church.

Take, for instance, Jesus’s self-referential uses of ἥκω (“I have come”) and of ἐγώ εἰμι (“I am”) in John’s Gospel. The first “denotes the coming of the deity to men” in the Greek world (Schneider), while the second explicates the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. Both invariably reveal Jesus is the eternal God.

However, because of the downgrade in modern commentary on John in particular, as seen for instance in the highly influential New Testament Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, scholars are checked in their full-throated affirmation and inhibited from a deep appreciation of Christ as God.

Instead, the modern commentaries focus upon the function of Jesus rather than the ontology and metaphysics of Jesus. Let us be clear: Jesus was pursued to death by the Israelite religious leaders precisely because of his ontological claims, his theological self-identification.

And if Jesus was willing to state his deity so clearly, then his followers must state his deity clearly, not merely as a datum but as a thoroughgoing identification.

Christ does not merely function as the means to our salvation. Christ is God, the theological end of salvation!

Is Nicene Trinitarianism Biblical and Necessary?

The question of both the biblical basis and the necessity of affirming the theology affiliated with the Council of Nicaea has again become a matter of discussion.

Having spent some time studying this issue, and having published my examinations in both monograph and essay form, I wish to go on record, again, of affirming Nicene Trinitarianism is both biblically grounded and necessary for Christian teachers who wish to be recognized as orthodox. (Michael A.G. Haykin, a longtime colleague of mine in historical theology, today corroborated my thoughts.)

While I have interacted only somewhat formally with the modern theology known as Eternal Functional Subordination, it seems increasingly likely the churches and their responsible theologians will be required to address these teachings more formally. May the humility of the Lord Jesus Christ, who participates without any limit whatsoever in the divine nature, will, and authority equally with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, guide his people as they do so.

The following works trace my understanding of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and of various historic responses:

• Malcolm B. Yarnell III, God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits, especially the Epilogue
• Malcolm Yarnell and Karen Yarnell, “Trinity and Authority” (5 part blog series), especially Part 5
• Keith S. Whitfield, ed., Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Applications, chapter 2 is my proposal, chapter 5 is my response to Ware on the one hand and to Emerson and Stamps on the other
• Matthew Y. Emerson et al, ed., Baptists and the Christian Tradition: Toward an Evangelical Baptist Catholicity, chapter 3, “Baptists, Classic Trinitarianism, and the Christian Tradition”
• Stephen Copson, ed., Trinity, Creed and Confusion: The Salters’ Hall Debates of 1719, chapter 6, “The Point in Question at Salters’ Hall: Baptists Contending for Trinity, Scripture and Freedom”

If you wish to see my lectures on the matter, please feel free to sign up for the Master's elective and/or research doctoral seminar which I teach on “God the Trinity” at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The PhD seminar will next be offered in Spring 2022.

The Holy Spirit is God Intimate

II. Intimate

At the deepest place in every single human heart is the need for intimacy with a person totally safe, entirely powerful, incredibly close—A confidant, a protector, a hero. Alas, many of us carry indescribable wounds, because we trusted a friend, a relative, a lover—We gave somebody our heart, and we were betrayed. We need intimacy; we fear treachery.

When men and women became friends with Jesus, they found one upon whom they could really rely. He was trustworthy in his intentions, and he had the power to meet their every need. John, the artistic apostle, knew Jesus as beauty itself. He self-identified as “the one whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23). He also leaned against his very breast. Mary Magdalene knew Jesus as the only man who ever spoke to her with purity. He also healed her soul with power. Lazarus was the friend for whom Jesus wept. And Jesus also raised Lazarus from death. Jesus healed people, fed people, gave them the all-fulfilling words of life.

The powerful, faithful intimacy of Jesus is why his disciples, his friends, were distraught when he told them he must leave. He encouraged them in John 14, “Let not your heart be troubled” (v 1). Christ promised them that he was going to prepare a place for them in God the Father’s eternal mansion. And, at some point, he was coming back to get them. He also told them he would soon be with them in a way they never imagined.

True friendship is deep intimacy, oneness with another which cannot let go. Sometimes, when Karen is out of my sight, even if only feet away in another room, I miss her terribly. Jesus frankly told them he was leaving the world, leaving their sight. He was leaving them in one way, but coming to them in another way. 

Indeed, he promised that he would come in a way not unlike the relationship God the Father has with his Son. The Father and the Son are so intertwined that to see one is to see the other. “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:11). The words and the works of the Son are the words and works of the Father! “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father!” (John 14:9).

And there is a third Person just as intimately bound with the Godhead as the Father and the Son. Jesus promised his distraught disciples, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you” (John 14:16-18).

In Romans 8, Paul used the same language to describe the union of Christ with the believer and the union of the Spirit with the believer. If the Spirit of God is in you, then Christ also is in you. The indwelling of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit are coterminous personal relationships. To have “Christ in you” (Rom 8:10) is to be “in the Spirit” (Rom 8:9) and to have the Spirit reside “in you” (Rom 8:11). The Holy Spirit who indwells us is “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9). 

The Spirit is distinct from Christ; but the Spirit is also one with Christ. “The Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17). Therefore, although Jesus departed in body, he came through the presence of his Spirit to be, in an even more intimate way, present to his followers: To John, the apostle whom he loved, Jesus came in the Spirit. To Mary, who could not let go of him when she saw he had risen from death itself, Jesus dwelt in the Spirit. To Peter, the one friend who had horribly betrayed him in his hour of greatest need, not once but three times, Jesus resided by the Spirit.

Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ came to live “in” and “with” John and Mary and Peter. But this promise of intimacy with the divine is not only for them then. For even now the all-powerful Spirit of God offers to live in us, to heal us of every affliction, to feed us forever, to ensure us of eternal life. The Spirit offers you intimacy with the eternal Christ himself. If Christ is “God incarnate,” then the Spirit is “God intimate.” Have you been born again by faith in Christ? If so, the Spirit desires to fill your life with his immediate, powerful, saving presence.

(This is the second in a four-part short series on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. For part one, concerning the Spirit as Love, click here. For part three, concerning the Spirt as the Giver of Life, click here.)

A Prayer for People Facing the Coronavirus Pandemic (Psalm 46)

Our Lord God, we beg you to grant us soundness in mind, health in body, and vigor in spiritual witness during this worldwide epidemic of the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019. 

Father God, we have watched and prayed as our human brothers and sisters in Asia have suffered the initial spread of this disease, bringing disruption, sickness, even death.

Lord Jesus Christ, we are concerned for our own nation as we watch this disease take a devastating toll among the elderly and the infirm in Europe.

Holy Spirit, we now appeal to you to make your presence felt here as the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, has halted flights from infected nations and continents, declared a National Emergency, and called us to a National Day of Prayer.

With the Choirmaster, we pray, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore, we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah”

Lord, we pray for the protection of humanity from the spread and severity of this disease. May you lead our people to act wisely for the health of others as well as for themselves. May you provide us with social unity, communal harmony, and economic welfare in this time of crisis. We know you are our only “refuge and strength.”

With the Sons of Korah, we sing, “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns. The nations rage, the kingdoms totter; he utters his voice, the earth melts. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah”

Lord, we pray also for the progress of the Good News of your Son, Jesus Christ, through the voices of your people accompanied by the sweet sacrifices of their own hearts and hands. According to the request of the President of our Southern Baptist Convention, J. D. Greear, and the Presidents of our seminaries and entities, we pray that you stop this pandemic, lead our government leaders to lead us, help us witness to our neighbors, and protect our missionaries.

With the Musical Instruments, we proclaim, “Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth. He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire. ‘Be still and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations. I will be exalted in the earth!’ The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah”

With true faith we pray in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Teaching Pastor

Lakeside Baptist Church, Granbury, Texas

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Trinity and Authority (Part One of Five)

The throne [θρόνος] of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and His slaves [δοῦλοι] will serve Him. (John 22:3b; HCSB)

My wife, Karen, is a close and careful reader of Scripture, and some of our greatest joys occur when we discuss the proper interpretation of the authoritative Word of God. Karen is also a close reader of Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the Trinity, since she is writing a thesis on that subject under the supervision of Gerardo Alfaro. Bonhoeffer's innovative if incomplete ruminations on the Trinity have shaped the contemporary discussion in a profound, if largely unrecognized, way.

One particular question with which we have been struggling is exactly how creation in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) is to be seen in our marriage. What does it mean that there is an analogia relationis (Bonhoeffer's term) between the triune God and his image in humanity, especially in the relation of a man and his wife? Little were we to realize that a conversation with parallels to our own questions about Trinity and relation would explode in controversy on the web in recent weeks.

We bring forward this essay as a small contribution to that huge and fruitful, if sometimes tense, discussion. Before beginning, please allow a few caveats.

First, this is not intended to be an academic presentation, though it draws on academic work we performed together and individually. We have opted to speak freely in summary rather than with scholastic detail in order to allow the general reader some access to this discussion.

Second, the issue of authority is not our foremost concern with regard to the Trinity. Malcolm recently wrote a book, God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits, in which he lightly touches on the current issue. His foremost concern, demonstrated at length there, is knowing who God is through his revelation so we might worship him truly. Likewise, Karen studies the Trinity, not for speculative anthropological reasons but to help her lead women and children to worship God in mind, heart, and deed.

Third, determining the exact method one should follow in moving from theology (including the doctrine of the Trinity) to anthropology (including the relations between man and wife) requires contemplation. We only touch upon aspects of that movement here and refer the reader to Malcolm's contribution to a forthcoming book edited by Keith Whitfield. B&H Academic plans to publish Whitfield's Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application in time for the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in November of this year. Malcolm's essay stresses that the direction of theological anthropology moves from theology to anthropology with utmost care and eschatological openness.

Finally, to extend our second point, we again note that Trinity and gender is not our primary concern. Worshiping God truly and with joyous hearts is our primary concern. Because we believed entering this conversation might detract from that service, we have been reluctant to enter it. We fear a reader's hasty preconceptions will categorize us as being "with them," whoever "they" are. Evangelicals have divided between egalitarians and complementarians, and the conversation has been so heated that whole agendas appear at work to build up one position or tear down the other. Moreover, these two major parties have further divided among themselves, with accusations of going beyond orthodoxy. We lament all unnecessary divisions and ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to treat each other with the love and generosity our Lord exemplified and commanded (John 13:34-35).

With those caveats, we now turn to an explication of the Trinity in light of some of the recent conversations online.

The Two Primary Complementarian Positions

Both Wayne Grudem and Mark Jones have summarily cited Malcolm as supporting their respective yet opposite positions in the recent internet controversy. Actually, we find positive aspects in both of the complementarian positions. Our hope is to help provide a positive way forward. In order to reach that goal, we must summarize the two major positions as we perceive them. If we have not represented your position correctly, we beg your forbearance and would gladly stand corrected.

The Eternal Relations of Authority Position

Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, and Mike Ovey are among the primary proponents of what has been variously called Eternal Functional Subordination, Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission, Eternal Submission of the Son, etc. We will classify these under the name of Eternal Relations of Authority (ERA). We offer four summative statements to characterize the positive position of this accomplished set of conservative evangelical theologians:

1.     Their primary method is to construct an understanding of the Trinity from the biblical ground up.
2.     The primary analogy they have chosen to organize the complex biblical witness about the immanent relations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the biblical text is a relational analogy, that of personal "relations of authority."
3.     The ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) of the Nicene tradition is affirmed. God the Father and God the Son, along with the Holy Spirit, share the same nature.
4.     Most ERA proponents seem to operate from a modern Calvinist perspective.

The Other Complementarian Position

The initiating proponents of this position include such theologians as Liam Goligher and Carl Trueman, but many others have weighed in. (From inside conservative evangelical circles, still other complementarians have joined in the critique of the ERA position, but without condemnations. Egalitarian evangelicals such as Scot McKnight and Michael Bird have also stepped forward with comments. Beyond evangelicalism, patristic scholars such as Lewis Ayres and Michel Rene Barnes have supported this other position.) We tossed around different terms to classify this second position, but settled on the primary descriptive term, "other," though "classical" could be used with justification. We offer four summative statements to characterize the positive position of this accomplished set of conservative evangelical theologians:

1.     These theologians seek to construct a biblical theology of the Trinity, but with an ear sensitive to the theological exegesis of the classical tradition.
2.     The primary analogy they have chosen to organize the complex witness of the biblical text regarding the immanent Trinity is the Cappadocian and Augustinian language of "eternal generation" with regard to the Son and "eternal procession" with regard to the Holy Spirit. This theological analogy is relational, but differs from that of the ERA theologians. Where the ERA theologians stress relations of authority, the others use the ontological language of "relations of origin" and "modes of subsistence" or simply "ordered relations" (τάξις, taxis).
3.     The ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) of the Nicene tradition is affirmed. God the Father and God the Son, along with God the Holy Spirit, share the same nature. Also receiving major emphasis is the divine attribute of simplicity.
4.     Many of these proponents also operate from a modern Calvinist perspective. Some follow B.B. Warfield's disjunction between the immanent Trinity and economic Trinity, while others lean toward a modified version of Karl Rahner's identification between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. Some appeal to the Augustinian presentation of the Trinity with its psychological analogy or love analogy. Some appeal to the Reformed covenant of redemption. Others appeal to Calvin's origination of the Son from himself as God (αὐτόθεοϛ, autotheos). In various ways, the traditional emphasis on the unity of the three persons is thus emphasized.

From these descriptions of the opposing positions, it should be evident that, alongside their obvious agreement regarding gender complementarianism, there is much agreement regarding the presentation of their doctrine of the Trinity. Both the ERA complementarians and the other complementarians agree there is a threeness and oneness in the biblical witness to God. Both affirm the Nicene tradition's appeal to the one οὐσία (ousia, often translated as "essence," "nature," "substance," or "being") of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Both positions appear to affirm there are three persons (ὑπόστασεις, hypostaseis) in the Godhead, though this has been typically implied. Next, we turn to the crisis between the two groups, which we believe is focused upon whether describing the relations between the three persons, and particularly between the Father and the Son, as eternal relations of authority is orthodox.

Malcolm and Karen Yarnell

Fort Worth, Texas

June 2016

God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits (Book Excerpt)

Evangelicalism in America has amalgamated for scholars in the organization known as the Evangelical Theological Society. The two parts of its “doctrinal basis” concern the Bible’s truthfulness and God the Trinity. While some evangelicals have addressed the Trinity in terms of systematic theology and others have employed the Trinity in debates over gender relations, few monographs are dedicated to evaluating the biblical source material for the Trinity. This is an odd oversight for a people whose confession centers on only the Bible and the Trinity.

Anecdotal evidence, moreover, suggests such work should begin in earnest, for if a recent survey is correct, most evangelical Christians in the United States are not necessarily Trinitarian. One-fifth of American evangelicals claimed Jesus is the first creature created by God, and more than half claimed the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being. That survey gives some credence to Curtis Freeman’s controversial claim that “most Baptists are Unitarians that simply have not yet gotten around to denying the Trinity.” If evangelical scholars are Trinitarian, the people in the churches may not be.

In addition, there is some diversity among Christian scholars regarding whether the Trinity is a necessary doctrine. One well-known evangelical theologian, Roger E. Olson of Baylor University, says the doctrine of the Trinity is a true conclusion, but belief in the Trinity is neither necessary nor part of gospel proclamation. Another, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, to the contrary classifies the doctrine of the Trinity as “fundamental and essential to the Christian faith.” Leaving to the side the issue of “theological triage,” which both theologians affirm, an evangelical equivocation regarding the Trinity remains.

In writing this book, we set out to answer these two questions: Is the doctrine that God is Trinity a biblical doctrine? Is it, moreover, a doctrine that is necessary to believe? The eight chapters in this book contribute toward the answers.

In the midst of engaging in the close theological exegesis of eight important biblical texts, it became evident that a Trinitarian reading of Scripture also required an evaluation of Protestant hermeneutics. The method of Bible study many evangelicals are taught to use must be substantially revised if the Trinity and the Bible are to coalesce. As a result, there arose the need to wrestle with interpretive method as much as Trinitarian exegesis. Indeed, we almost adopted the subtitle, “The Trinitarian Revision of Biblical Hermeneutics.”

Karl Barth observed this difficulty and opted to diminish hermeneutics out of concern that any interpretive criterion beyond the text necessarily distorts exegesis. While there is much to learn from Barth, and his call to enter “the strange new world of the Bible” warms the heart of this free churchman in his own friendly remonstration toward Protestant evangelicalism, we have opted to revise rather than repress evangelical hermeneutical method.

In the following study, comparison is made with the art of painting as a helping metaphor. This was deemed helpful on several accounts. First, it allows for a focused consideration of the various texts, treating each according to its own authorship, genre, and context. From a modern critical perspective, this properly takes the history and grammar of any text as a distinct phenomenon with utmost solemnity. Second, the appeal to art helps construct a bridge from the rationalism endemic among the practitioners of my own discipline in theology to the more holistic approach of the biblical writers. The critique of any work of literature requires both reason and imagination, but the theological interpretation of Scripture especially requires the graces of both logos and pneuma.

Third, the art metaphor allows this author to function as an appreciative if critical commentator upon each text as a great work of theological literature. Avoiding the extremes of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, we sought to weave a middle way through the judicious employment of both modern and premodern methods. Finally, the meticulous treatment of each text on its own later permits the epilogue to pursue a distinct canonical approach, as when art is gathered thematically for review in contemporary art galleries.

Order God the Trinity at LifeWay, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Christianbook.com.

(This post originally appeared in a slightly different format at my publisher's website, B&H Academic.)

Two Exchanges: The Swap and the Cross

The news is shocking. One Army sergeant apparently walks away from his post; 6 soldiers were apparently killed trying to find him; 5 hardened terrorist leaders were released for him; and one US President may have violated a law for him. Twelve lives affected--this is indeed a high price for one man's freedom. I pray this one man understands how grateful he should be for all those who have paid and may yet pay a price for his fleshly freedom.

More than that, I pray he perceives that the Creator of the universe paid an even higher price to offer him free redemption. When the Son of God, entirely divine, became a man, He emptied Himself. When the Son of God, supremely holy, took our sin upon Himself and received our death, He humbled Himself even further.

Is Bowe Bergdahl unworthy of the lives lost and the law broken and the future lives endangered to win his release? That is ultimately for others to decide. However, more poignantly personal, are each of us as sinful human beings unworthy of the sacrifice made by a sovereign, holy God on our behalf? Yes, we are more unworthy of that perfect sacrifice, which works our spiritual freedom, than Bergdahl is of these high human sacrifices, which have worked his fleshly freedom.

And this God, this man, this one we know as Jesus Christ, He made this perfect sacrifice for all of us unworthy human beings. Would that we were more indignant, not about the question of Bergdahl's freedom and worthiness, but about the eternal crisis regarding our freedom and unworthiness--for none of us are worthy of God's love and yet love us He did. This is the most pertinent question facing us today.

Even as we rejoice at one man's freedom yet mourn at the apparently terrible price, let us rejoice more about the freedom offered to all human beings at the greatest ontological cost of that perfect God-man's life. Let this be an opportunity for us to exalt the crucified God, who is also the risen Savior. This should cause us to tremble at how great a love God has for us--the Father sent His Son to become our brother that He might give His life for our lives.

From the perspective of what it cost God, the cross is the greatest injustice;
from the perspective of His character, this is the greatest justice;
from the perspective of our unworthiness, this is the greatest love;
from the perspective of our attitude, the cross ought to invoke wonder and worship for the God who embodies love and justice in perfection.