Some very useful theological resources to be aware of:
Back in 2010 a new series was launched by Kregel. It was called the 40 Questions About… series. So far there seems to be 30 books in the series, and they are still coming out apace. The first volume was by Schreiner and Merkle on biblical law, and the most recent is the book by Beshears on Mormonism.
I happen to have 23 of these 30 volumes so far, so I know a bit about them and how useful they are. Here I want to simply alert you to this very helpful series by listing all the titles, alphabetically by author. I will then offer a few quotes from just a few of the volumes.
Akin, Danie, Benjamin Merkle and George Robinson – 40 Questions About the Great Commission – 2020
Allison, Gregg – 40 Questions About Roman Catholicism – 2021
Barrett, Matthew – 40 Questions About Salvation – 2018
Bennett, Matthew – 40 Questions About Islam – 2020
Beshears, Kyle – 40 Questions About Mormonism – 2026
Black, Jonathan – 40 Questions About Pentecostalism – 2024
Chase, Mitchell – 40 Questions About Typology and Allegory – 2020
Crisler, Channing – 40 Questions About the Atonement – 2025
DeRouchie, Jason, Oren Martin and Andrew Naselli – 40 Questions About Biblical Theology – 2020
Echevarria, Miguel and Benjamin P. Laird – 40 Questions About the Apostle Paul – 2023
Edwards, Sue and Kelley Mathews – 40 Questions About Women in Ministry – 2023
Emerson, Matthew and R. Lucas Stamps – 40 Questions About the Trinity – 2025
Gilhooly, John – 40 Questions About Angels, Demons, and Spiritual Warfare – 2018
Gomes, Alan – 40 Questions About Heaven and Hell – 2018
Hammett, John – 40 Questions About Baptism and the Lord’s Supper – 2015
Harrod, Joseph – 40 Questions About Prayer – 2022
Keathley, Kenneth and Mark F. Rooker – 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution – 2014
Kimble, Jeremy – 40 Questions About Church Membership and Discipline – 2017
Kirkpatrick, Daniel – 40 Questions About Divine Election – 2025
Merkle, Benjamin – 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons – 2007
Newton, Phil – 40 Questions About Pastoral Ministry – 2021
Pate, C. Marvin – 40 Questions about the Historical Jesus – 2015
Pinson, J. Matthew – 40 Questions about Arminianism – 2022
Plummer, Robert – 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, 2nd ed. – 2010, 2021
Quarles, Charles and L. Scott Kellum – 40 Questions About the Text and Canon of the New Testament – 2023
Schnabel, Eckhard – 40 Questions About the End Times – 2012
Schreiner, Thomas and Benjamin Merkle – 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law – 2010
Strauss, Mark – 40 Questions About Bible Translation – 2023
Welty, Greg – 40 Questions about Suffering and Evil – 2024
Wright, Shawn – 40 Questions About Calvinism – 2019
Quotes
Here I share some quotes from just four of these volumes, to give you a feel for the sorts of things being discussed in them.
Suffering and Evil (pp. 115-116):
In Question 7 we first saw the phenomenon of “two sets of intentions” behind cases of moral evil in the Job, Joseph, and Jesus narratives: the selfish immoral intentions (which are evil), and the divine intentions (which are good). As a matter of fact, quite a few passages of Scripture seem to endorse this kind of distinction, which I will call the “dual-agency” passages. Responsible humans bring about through their agency the very thing God brings about through his agency. Apparently, the first part of the preceding statement does not cancel out the second part, or vice versa.
On the dual-agency model, one and the same event is described from two perspectives: as something (immediately) brought about by humans, and as something (ultimately) brought about by God. In each case, God accomplishes the outcome that the human is said to bring about. If David defeats the enemy, God is said to defeat him. If the king of Assyria is said to destroy Judah or bring her into exile, God is said to destroy Judah or bring her into exile. If Saul kills Saul, God is said to kill Saul. But because the human intentionality is not the divine intentionality, God incurs no blame from doing the same thing that the human does. His intentions are good, even if the human intentions are blameworthy. This is a very important distinction.
In the following we consider fifteen cases of “dual-agency” with respect to victory in war, defeat in war, and death. This is just a small selection of the passages which could be cited, as dual-agency seems to be a pervasive feature of the biblical text. There are examples of innocent human agency fulfilling God’s good intentions (e.g., the death of Ahab, Hazael’s defeat of Israel), followed by examples of murderous humans fulfilling God’s good intentions (e.g., Zimri assassinating Baasha and his descendants, Sennacherib’s sons assassinating him). So, one striking characteristic of these cases is that they range over human agency more generally, rather than being restricted to cases of moral evil more specifically. Dual-agency, it seems, is simply how God governs a universe that has other persons in it.
40 Questions About Suffering and Evilby Welty, Greg (Author)
Prayer (pp. 61-62):
In Eden, Adam and Eve enjoyed relational wholeness with one another, with the world, and with their Creator, such that uncertainty in following God’s will was present yet minimal; God expressed his will immediately and directly (cf. Gen. 2:16-17). Though theologians debate the extent of Adam’s knowledge before the fall, few would hold that humanity’s first parents possessed omniscience, because they were, after all, creatures dependent on a Creator. As vice-regents entrusted with working, protecting, and governing the Creator’s handiwork, humans enjoyed authority (e.g., ruling over creation exhibited in naming the animals), and this authority was exercised through trust in their Creator-King. Even in Eden, obedience was a matter of faith, for Adam and Eve had to believe that (1) God’s commands were true and (2) that God’s commands were best. Such trust emphasized the distinction between Creator and creature, which seems to be the very emphasis targeted by the serpent (cf. Gen. 3:4-5). This trust was a critical component of Adam and Eve’s experience of nearness to God, and once broken requires an act of new creation (e.g., regeneration) to be restored.
After the fall, the noetic effects (weakness in knowing) of sin amplify natural uncertainty and affect every aspect of human existence, including prayer. Beginning with the generation of Enosh, Adam, Eve, and their children “began to call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen. 4:26). This calling is the beginning of prayer. Gone was the normative, immediate experience of God’s nearness; present is the now-normal experience of God’s distance and a longing for him to fulfill his promise to crush the serpent’s head (cf. Gen. 3:15). Thus, humans pray. Though prayer is a gracious condescension on God’s part in giving willful rebels access to him, for humans it is frequently tainted by self-focused motives (cf. James 4:3), doubt, or simply not knowing what we ought to pray for in a given situation. Uncertainty in prayer is a continual reminder that prayer, as gracious a gift as it is, will always be imperfect, for one party in the relationship (us) will continually struggle to communicate well. Though imperfect, prayer is vital, for it is how people commune with God. This fact of prayer’s weakness makes Paul’s promise of the Spirit’s help in prayer found in Romans 8:26-27 so precious.
Heaven and Hell (pp.91-92):
We may summarize the nature of the intermediate state as follows:
1. The intermediate state, both for Christians and for unbelievers, is disembodied.
2. Christians have a direct and glorious communion with Christ and an immediate apprehension of God’s presence—far more so than anything enjoyed in this present life.
3. Believers become morally perfect upon their deaths. All sinful inclinations, attitudes, thoughts, etc., are purged; and these are replaced by perfectly holy desires, thoughts, and actions.’
4. While the intermediate state is one of blessing for believers, they do not yet possess their glorified, resurrected bodies. Therefore, while this is a blessed state, it is not the best state, which is yet to come.
5. Unbelievers go to ‘hell” (i.e., hades) upon their deaths, which entails separation from God’s presence.
6. The hell in which unbelievers reside is one of conscious torment.
7. Unbelievers will also experience a bodily resurrection on the day of judgment, and their punishment will continue in physical (though not glorified) bodies.
Atonement (p. 19):
Tyndale’s use of the word “atonement” to translate reconciliatio, behind which stands katallage, represents an attempt to capture the grandeur of God’s reconciling work in Christ for sixteenth-century English speakers. The term communicated to Tyndale’s readers that God’s work in Christ resulted in sinners “being at one again” (at-onement) with him. The scriptural terms standing behind “atonement” primarily include kaphar, exilaskomai (hilaskomai, hilasmos), and katallage. In the wider contexts of their uses, the common theme that emerges is the need for a prescribed sacrifice that solves the enmity between God and human beings, because the sacrifice removes and counteracts sin in a way that makes God well disposed toward those who sin against him. Paul’s reconciliation language reworks this scriptural theme around the person and work of Jesus. Although the overall meaning of atonement within Christian theology cannot be reduced to the meanings of individual words, the contextual uses of these words clearly establish its primary focus, namely, reconciliation between God and human beings through the life and death of the risen and reigning Jesus.
