Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies JBTSVOLUME 4 | ISSUE 2 207 Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account Paul R. Hinlicky 215 Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics Steven J. Duby 224 Response to Steven J. Duby Paul R. Hinlicky 228 Response to Paul R. Hinlicky Steven J. Duby 232 Idolatry: A Rhetorical-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 4:15–16, 23 Joshua K. Smith 243 “If Christ be not Raised”; If Peter was not the First Pope: Parallel Cases of Indispensable Doctrinal Foundations Jerry L. Walls 264 Early Christian Liturgy: A Reconstruction of All Known Liturgical Components and Their Respective Order Andrew Messmer 280 Reforming Credobaptism: A Westminster Alternative for Reformed Baptist Identity Jordan L. Steffaniak 301 “It’s the Wrath of God”: Reflections on Inferring Divine Punishment James S. Spiegel 317 Comparative Ecclesiology: Roger Haight’s Christian Community in History for Evangelical Resourcement Justin L. McLendon 334 Book Reviews Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies JBTS is published online at www.jbtsonline.org and in print through Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 West 8th Avenue, Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401, USA Print ISSN 2572-2832 Online ISSN 2572-2859 Copyright © 2019 Grand Canyon University, College of Theology. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 West 8th Avenue, Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401, USA The Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies (JBTS) is a peer reviewed academic journal focused on the fields of Bible and Theology from an inter-denominational point of view. The journal is comprised of an editorial board of scholars that represent several academic institutions throughout the world. JBTS is concerned with presenting high level original scholarship in an approachable way. Academic journals are often written by scholars for other scholars. They are technical in nature, assuming a robust knowledge of the field. There are fewer journals that seek to introduce biblical and theological scholarship that is also accessible to students. JBTS seeks to provide high-level scholarship and research to both scholars and students, which results in original scholarship that is readable and accessible. As an inter-denominational journal, JBTS is broadly evangelical. We accept contributions in all theological disciplines from any evangelical perspective. In particular, we encourage articles and book reviews within the fields of Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical Theology, Church History, Systematic Theology, Practical Theology, Philosophical Theology, Philosophy, and Ethics. Please see the guidelines for submission at jbtsonline.org. Since JBTS is a broadly evangelical journal there will often be a variety of views that are represented that align with the evangelical Christian faith within each journal issue. The views expressed by contributors are not necessarily the views of the editors or the institutions that they represent. Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies EDITORS General Editor: Daniel S. Diffey (Grand Canyon University) Managing Editor: Ryan A. Brandt (Grand Canyon University) Managing Editor: Justin L. McLendon (Grand Canyon University) Senior Editor: Paul Raabe (Grand Canyon University) ASSOCIATE EDITORS Old Testament: Adam Howell (Boyce College) New Testament: Channing Crisler (Anderson University) Philosophical and Theological Studies: Joshua Farris (Houston Baptist University) BOOK REVIEW EDITORS Historical Theology: Chad Brand (Oklahoma Baptist University) History of Christianity: Amber Thomas Reynolds (Wheaton College) Christianity and Culture: Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III (LABI College) Ministry and Pastoral Theology: Adam Wyatt (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) New Testament: Luke Hoselton (Grand Canyon University) Old Testament: Adam Howell (Boyce College) Philosophy, Ethics, and Apologetics: Roger Turner (Walters State Community College) Philosophy of Religion and Analytic Theology: J. T. Turner (Fuller Theological Seminary) Systematic and Philosophical Theology: Joanna Leidenhag (University of Edinburgh) PRODUCTION AND DESIGN Production Editor: Dawn Juhas Production Editor: Kelsey Kowacz Graphic Designer: Jason Boesel EDITORIAL BOARD Paul Allen (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada) Uche Anizor (Talbot School of Theology, Biola University) Benjamin Blackwell (Houston Baptist University) Simon Burton (University of Warsaw) Byron G. Curtis (Geneva College) Dan DeWitt (Cedarville University) Matthew Emerson (Oklahoma Baptist University) Kevin Giles (Retired Scholar, Melbourne, Australia) J. R. Gilhooly (Cedarville University) Greg Lanier (Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL) David R. Maxwell (Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO) Clinton Ohlers (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) John Mark N. Reynolds (The Saint Constantine School and King’s College) Bethany Sollereder (University of Oxford) Owen Strachan (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) Brad D. Strawn (Fuller Theological Seminary) Daniel von Wachter (International Academy of Philosophy, Gamprin, Liechtenstein) Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby A Brief Editorial Note The editors invited Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby to review one another’s books on the topic of divine simplicity. The following presents their respective review articles and then their responses to one another’s review. The order is as follows: 1. Paul R. Hinlicky’s review article of Duby’s book, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account 2. Steven J. Duby’s review article of Hinlicky’s book, Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics 3. Paul R. Hinlicky’s response to Duby 4. Steven J. Duby’s response to Hinlicky The editors would like to thank both Paul and Steve for participating in this friendly engagement. We believe that Christian scholarship is strengthen by dialogue across different Christian traditions. Paul and Steve exemplify this dialogue well between themselves. The editors would also like to thank Mark R. Kreitzer for initially suggesting that this dialogue take place in JBTS. Ryan A. Brandt Managing Editor [JBTS 4.2 (2019): 207–214] Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account PAUL R. HINLICKY Paul R. Hinlicky is Tise Professor of Lutheran Studies, Roanoke College and Graduate Faculty, Institute of Lutheran Theology Steven J. Duby, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account. London and New York: T & T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, 2016. Steven J. Duby has written an excellent work of theological scholarship in support of what is, to my mind, a dubious cause. He writes as a restorationist of Reformed scholastic orthodoxy (pp. 3, 122), and in “dogmatics” he deploys a pre-critical method of garnering and systematizing propositions found in Scripture (Lindbeck’s “propositionalism”1). This restorationism hinges upon two special commitments which recur regularly throughout the work: first, the interpretation of Trinitarian persons as modalities of the single deity-person (pp. 24, 121, 155, 158, 218, 227-8), a move which, following Augustine, confounds the crucial distinction between ousia and hypostasis worked out by the Cappadocians between Nicea and Constantinople; and second, also following Augustine, the corresponding assignment of God taken “absolutely” to the category of “nature” or “essence,” treating, then, Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the same divine substance taken “relatively” (e.g., p. 222). Referencing the Athanasian Creed, Duby writes in conclusion: “With the distinctio modalis in hand, one can identify each of the persons as the one God and then, given that each person is not identical with God absolutely or exhaustively but just as a certain modus subsistendi and is thus distinct from God taken absolutely as modus rei a re, one can affirm that each of the persons is each modally and relatively distinct from the other persons as modi subsistendi” (p. 224). This conclusion yields what may be described as a psychological model of the Trinity as opposed to the social model given to us in Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17:20-26). God is thought 1. George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Post-Liberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984). With respect to theological method I make the same critique of neo-scholastic Lutheran restorationists. See my “Prima Scriptura: Saving Sola Scriptura from Itself,” Dialog 55/3 (Fall 2016): 223-30. 207 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.2 to be one as mind subsisting in the modalities of thinking, thinking itself and willing itself in splendid, timeless and thus simple self-identity, hence as “divine simplicity.” By contrast, I have written about the Western doctrine of divine simplicity from the perspective of the criticisms of it, notably first by Karl Barth (on its tendency to quaternity, p. 32), Jürgen Moltmann (on its tendency to Sabellianism, pp. 40, 208- 9), followed by Colin Gunton, Eberhard Jüngel and especially Robert Jenson (who pioneered “patrology” as a retrieval of the Eastern pater est fons divinitatis, p. 170). These sources of mine (which Duby discusses only to reject) betray a specific level of disagreement between the author and myself on the basis of confession—the