ST 601 Bibliology and Theology
West Coast Baptist College
J. Michael Lester, Instructor
IntroductionThe doctrine of the Bible is the foundation for all
that we believe it is the bedrock for Christianity. All that we
know about God, we know from the Bible.If we are not settled at
this point, all other doctrines will be shaky at best. Thus, as we
begin this study we are laying the groundwork for all other
doctrines within the Bible.Bibliology then is to be understood as
fundamental to our faith. It is given the primary place within our
Systematic Theology framework as the source from which all other
doctrines are discovered.
Bibliology . . . is much more than the touchstone of theological
orthodoxy. . . . [I]t assumes the position of cornerstone of the
theological structure; remove it and the superstructure crumbles
and disintegrates. Therefore, the twentieth century battle over the
doctrine of Holy Scripture is no insignificant quibble . . . but it
is a conflict of basic proportions involving the very existence of
theology and Christian faith in the traditional meanings of those
terms.[footnoteRef:1] [1: John A. Witmer, The Twentieth Century
Battleground of Bibliology, Bibliotheca Sacra 111 (April
1954).]
Distinctions to Consider:
1. Revelation concerns the communication of spiritual truth that
was previously unknown and otherwise unknowable.
2. Inspiration concerns the recording of that spiritual
truth.
3. Illumination concerns the understanding of that spiritual
truth.
4. Canonization concerns the recognition of that spiritual
truth.
5. Preservation concerns the extension of that spiritual
truth.
6. Inerrancy concerns the validity of that spiritual truth.
7. Infallibility concerns the authority of that spiritual
truth.
Supernatural Origin of the Bible1. Uploaded at
http://lester.wcbc.edu is an article by Benjamin B. WarfieldThe
article needs to be read The Divine Origin of the BibleWe are not
dealing with a book that is just like any other book1. We do not
approach this book like the liberalWe have certain presuppositions
that we bring to our interpretative tasks.If we approach the Bible
as a divine book, then we must expect divine help in understanding
it. Therefore, when an unbeliever wields his academic prowess
against the Bible, we should understand that with all of his
educational expertise, he is an example of one who professing to be
wise, became a foolLogical Organization of the Bible1. For the Old
Testament1. Torah (The Law)Nebiim (The Prophets)Kethubim (The
Writings) See Luke 24:441. For the New Testament1. The Gospels1.
The Acts1. The EpistlesPastoralPrisonChurchGeneral1. The
RevelationChronological Organization of the Bible1. Civilizations1.
In the OT, there is a progression1. One man becomes two peopleTwo
people become a familyA family becomes a fountain headDescendants
build citiesCities develop cultureThis culture leads to
civilizationsThese civilizations lead to nations, world powers,
wars, etcThe OT tells the story of how a certain family interacted
with all of these civilizations1. From Adam to Noah, evil reigns
and God judges1. Noah has a son named Shem1. Shem has a great
grandson, Eber1. Eber has a great, great grandson, Nahor1. Nahor
begets Terah, who begets Abraham1. To Abraham, a covenant is made
which sets his descendants, and specifically his descendants from
Isaac, apart from all other families.1. It is this special covenant
group that the OT follows through its ups and downs.As the
Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Moabites, etc play a part in
furthering the story of Israels covenant relationship with God,
they are mentioned by the biblical writers.1. Dispensations1.
Innocence
Man was created innocent, not perfect.
Responsibilities included: Being fruitful, having dominion, and
obeying God
Ends in Disobedience and Death
1. Conscience
Their eyes are opened and they feel shame and guilt
Conscience is not enough to govern man
This dispensation ends with the Flood
1. Human Government
Beginning with Noah, God makes a covenant about His future
intentions
God establishes human government, granting to them the right of
capital punishment
They also were able to eat meat
This ends at BABEL
1. Promise
This begins with the Covenant with Abraham
The dispensation of promise established clearly the principle of
divine sovereignty, provided a channel of special divine revelation
to the nation of Israel, continued provision of divine redemption
and blessing, revealed the grace of God, and promised a witness to
the world. Like the other dispensations, however, it ended in
failure as far as bringing conformity to the will of God, and it
laid the ground work for bringing in the law as a schoolmaster to
bring believers to Christ (Gal 3:24) [footnoteRef:2] [2: Lewis
Chafer and John Walvoord, Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1972), 132.]
This ends with the giving of the Law
1. Law
The law should not be viewed as a list of dos and donts
Rather, it should be understood as a covenant relationship based
on shadows, types, and prophesied conditions that would come
It ends with a blind Israel killing her Messiah
1. Grace (Church)
This is sometimes called the Church Age
Its commencement point is difficult to identify: Is it with John
the Baptist, with Jesus calling His disciples; with the Cross, with
the Ascension, or with Pentecost?
There is a responsibility in this age to tell everyone about the
Gospel
It ends with the 2nd Coming (though some will end it with the
Rapture, and just have 7 years of unidentified dispensation)
1. Kingdom
Established with the 2nd Coming
Will last for 1,000 years
Will usher us into the Eternal Kingdom
During this dispensation, we rule and reign with Christ
Revelation General and Special1. General Revelation1. Problem1.
Does every rational being comprehend something of God? If so, how
much of God can he understand? Can he come to salvation without the
Word of God?1. Is God only to be revealed through mighty signs,
wonders, and miracles? Or, can He make a disclosure of Himself
through the more ordinary methods of nature and history?1. There is
a distinction that must be made:
10. General Revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in
providential history, and within the moral law in mans heart
(conscience). It is addressed to man as man and can be discovered
by his natural abilities. Intuitively, man feels a responsibility
to God and has an innate consciousness for a supreme being.
10. Special Revelation is Gods self-disclosure through speaking,
through signs and miracles, through utterances (both written and
spoken) of prophets and apostles, and through the deeds / words of
Christ (Heb 1:1-3). The goal of this type of revelation is for
specific people at particular times and places to gain an
understanding of Gods character and a knowledge of His saving
purposes in His Son.
1. Biblical Theology of General Revelation1. Through the
Dispensation of Innocence
Genesis 1:3, 9, 11 God spoke the material reality into existence
(In other words, God communicates)
The Hebrew community understood that Gods creative word was the
same authoritative word by which he brought about the affairs of
human history and the nations.[footnoteRef:3] [3: K. A. Mathews,
Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman
& Holman, 2001), 145.]
Genesis 1:26-27 Humanity is created in the image of God (which
communicates the fact that there is something inherent within man
that speaks of God)
1. Through the Dispensation of Conscience
Genesis 3:8-13 God created man with a conscience (which revealed
itself in the guilt and shame that Adam and Eve experienced).
1. Through the Dispensation of Human Government
Genesis 9:14-16 the rainbow is the only non-verbal symbol of a
verbal promise of God (by the way, this passage begins with a
blessing on the human race)
This covenant, symbolized by the rainbow, is universal (in other
words, it is made with every living creature, even those who did
not hear the covenant).
1. Through the Dispensation of Promise
Genesis 14:18ff How did Melchizedek know about the Most High
God?
1. Through the Dispensation of Law
Consider the nature psalms (8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 148)
Psalm 14:1 a fool is someone who closes his mind to the
evidence
Psalm 19 identifies two realms of revelation (the book of
nature, v1-6, and the book of the law, v7-13)
1. Dispensation of Grace
See Paul at Lystra Acts 14
See Paul at Athens Acts 17
Hear Paul write to Rome (chapter 1-2)
1. What about Church History?
1. Early Church Theologians
a. They argued, based primarily on philosophy, that the mind
knows there is a God.[footnoteRef:4] [4: See, for example,
Theophilus, To Autolychus, 1.5; Clement of Alexandria,
Miscellanies, 5.13; Tertullian, The Apology, 17.6 and Against
Marcion, 1.10; and Origen, On First Principles, 1.1.6.]
b. The Fathers also focused a good deal of attention on Romans
1, arguing that God revealed himself to mankind in creation and in
human rationality.[footnoteRef:5] [5: T. Oden, Without Excuse:
Classic Christian Exegesis of General Revelation, JETS 41 (March
1998): 55-68.]
c. Origen of Alexandria (185-254) concerning Romans 1
Paul says that what can be known about God is plain to them [the
Gentile nations], thereby revealing that there is something about
God which can be known, even if there is much that remains unknown.
. . . It appears here that the wrath of God is revealed not to
those who are ignorant of the truth, but to those who already know
the truth, however imperfectly.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Origen
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.]
d. John Chrysostom (344-407) concerning Romans 1
God has placed the knowledge of himself in human hearts from the
beginning. But this knowledge they unwisely invested in wood and
stone. They thus contaminated the truth, at least as far as they
were able. Meanwhile the truth itself abides unchanged, possessing
its own unchanging glory. . . . How did God reveal himself? By a
voice from heaven? Not at all! God made a panoply which was able to
draw them by more than a voice. He put before them the immense
creation, so that both the wise and the unlearned, the Scythian and
the barbarian, might ascend to God, having learned through sight
the beauty of the things which they had seen.[footnoteRef:7] [7:
Chrysostom Homilies on Romans 3.19.]
Chrysostom also saw this to be an opportunity for salvation,
since it was a legitimate means to come to know God. Werent they
able to hear the heavens speaking more clearly than a trumpet
through the well-ordered harmony of all things? Did you not see the
hours of night and day remaining constant, and the good order of
winter, spring and the other seasons remaining both fixed and
unmoved . . . ? Yet God did not set so vast a system of teaching
before the heathen merely to deprive them of any excuse, but so
that they might voluntarily come to know him. It was by their own
failure to recognize him that they deprived themselves of every
excuse.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans
3.20.]
e. Basil of Caesarea (4th Century)
You will find that the world was not devised at random or to no
purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great
advantage of all beings. The cosmos is truly a training place for
each rational soul, and a school for attaining the knowledge of
God, because through visible and perceptible objects it provides
guidance to the mind for the contemplation of the
invisible.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Basil Hexameron, Homily 1.]
f. Tertullian
For how can the intellect be considered sovereign above the
senses, when it is these senses that educate it for the discovery
of truths? It is a fact that these truths are learned by means of
palpable objects. Invisible things are discovered by the help of
visible ones, even as the Apostle says in his
Epistle.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Tertullian A Treatise of the
Soul.]
2. Thomas Aquinas
a. He distinguished between two realms: Nature and Grace
b. He distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: Natural and
Revealed
c. He stressed two ways of knowing: by means of reason and by
means of faith
d. He had three important presuppositions:
i. Human beings have the power of a rational mind
ii. Intellect was not seriously affected by the Fall
iii. Gods existence is analogous to human existence.
3. Empirical Liberalism (18th and 19th Century)
a. Liberalism taught that knowledge of God obtained by
evaluation of natural and social sciences, since God has not given
us any special revelation. (Rejected belief in inspired Scripture
the Bible was a collection of writings from religious
men.[footnoteRef:11] [11: See Henry P. Van Dusen, The Vindication
of Liberal Theology (New York: Scribner, 1963); L. Harold DeWolf, A
Theology of the Living Church (New York: Harper, 1953).]
b. They believed that insights from modern man are superior to
the biblical writers.
c. Experience can give a considerable knowledge of God
d. Liberal theology routinely refuses to accept special
revelation, usually arguing that a person cannot distinguish
between special revelation and general revelation, between nature
and the Bible on the ground of the more direct, unmediated
character of the latter.[footnoteRef:12] [12: DeWolf, 65.]
4. Existential Liberalism
a. Argued that human beings know God in a mystical,
life-changing experience of grace.
b. Schleiermacher believed that God is not found through
revelation, but through the feeling of absolute dependence and the
uniting of the soul with the Soul of the universe.[footnoteRef:13]
[13: Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1976 reprint).]
c. Paul Tillich proposed a natural theology that would leave God
out.[footnoteRef:14] [14: Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-63).]
d. Karl Rahner, a Roman Catholic, argued that every human
already has an a priori relationship with God and therefore
possesses an experienced knowledge of God; therefore, the entire
world constitutes an anonymous Christianity.[footnoteRef:15] [15:
Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations (New York: Seabury,
1974-76), 5:115-34.]
5. Neo-Orthodoxy
a. Neo-orthodoxy was a reaction to liberalism and its rejection
of the truth of Scripture; however, neo-orthodoxy refused to return
to the clear teaching of Scripture and ended up halfway between
truth and falsehood.
b. Its leaders were Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Rudolph
Bultmann in Germany; it became popular in the United States after
World War 2, but as a movement died an early death.[footnoteRef:16]
It remains an indirect influence on evangelicalism today. [16: See
especially Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. and T.
Clark, 1936-69), Vol. 1, Parts 1 and 2, and Volume 2, Part 1.]
c. Basic Tenets:
i. There is no revelation outside of the Word, Jesus Christ
ii. The Bible is a record of that revelation, but not the
revelation itself.
iii. Hence this statement: The Bible contains the Word of
God.
d. Reasons it rejected natural theology:
i. There is an infinite qualitative difference between God and
humanity; hence, no one can reason from the universe to God.
ii. The Imago Dei (the Image of God) was annihilated in the
fall; therefore, human reason will always lead a person in the
wrong direction.
iii. There is no analogy of being between Creator and creature.
God is so far removed from his creation that no analogy may be
drawn between it and him. (So, accordingly Barth rejected any
concept that Rom 1 teaches that general revelation can bring a man
to some measure of knowledge of GodBased on his view of universal
election, all heathen can know God theoretically.
6. Dutch Reformed Theology
a. Its modern leaders were Abraham Kuyper, G. C. Berkouwer, and
Cornelius Van Til. These men were significant in the American scene
as well.
b. Sin has shut the door to general revelation; only the
regenerate can find God in nature.
c. Knowledge of God as Creator is predicated on knowledge of God
as Redeemer. Unless one knows God as the Redeemer he cannot know
God as Creator.
d. Van Til takes a strong presuppositionalist position:
i. There are two ways of viewing reality: Christian and
non-Christian
ii. The only way to know anything about God is to presuppose the
God revealed in Scripture
iii. Sinful humans, however, are incapable of understanding
general revelation; in fact, the unsaved are epistemological
atheists.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction
to Systematic Theology: In Defense of the Faith (Nutley, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 82.]
7. Orthodox Theology
a. Augustine
By means of general illumination, all men have a rudimentary
knowledge of God. The mind, blessed by common grace, can draw
further conclusions about the character of God. However, general
revelation cannot save.
b. Martin Luther
One can know about God through general revelation, but not fully
or spirituallyOnly special revelation made salvation possible.
c. John Calvin
General revelation is the ability of humans to know God s
Creator by intuition, by moral law, and the image of God.
d. General observations
Most evangelical scholars allow for a limited knowledge about
God through general revelation.[footnoteRef:18]. [18: Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint),
21-25; Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge:
Judson, 1907), 26-27; Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and
Authority (Waco: Word, 1976-1983), 1:399-402; 2:69-90; Henry C.
Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979), 7-10; Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1981), 57-77; 276-77; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998), 177ff.]
Systematic Theological Formulation1. What is our basis?1. Based
on creation (Ps 19; Rom 1)1. Based on conscience (Rom 2:15; 2 Cor
4.2)1. Based on providential history (Acts 14:17; 17:24ff)1. What
are the means?1. Comes by perception, not communication1. It is
reasonable to assume that the Designer placed pictures of himself
in His design1. It is reasonable to conclude that God involves
Himself in the lives of His people1. What is its content?1. God is
one (one source Acts 17:26; one sustainer Psalm 19; Rom 1)1. God is
creator, the source of life (Acts 17:25; John 1:4)1. God is eternal
and independent (Ps 93.2; Rom 1.20; Acts 17.25)1. God is invisible
and powerful (Rom 1.20)1. God is personal and wise (Ps 104.24)1. He
is distinct from universe but active within it (Acts 17:24ff)1.
What are the evidences?1. There is a universal human consciousness
of dependence on a higher being. This forms the basis for all of
the worlds religions.1. There is a universal sense of obligation
for right and wrong1. There is a universal understanding of the
intelligibility of life1. There is a universal understanding about
history and mans part in it.1. What is our response1. Human
perception1. Human accountability1. The conscienceApologetic
Interaction concerning General Revelation1. Atheistic Suppression1.
Pantheistic Distortion1. Liberalisms Inflation1. Neo-orthodoxys
DenialSpecial Revelation1. Introductory comments1. A working
definition1. Revelation vs Inspiration1. Revelation vs
Illumination1. Revelation vs RationalizationIntroductory
Characteristics1. Divine revelation is Christocentric1. Divine
revelation is progressive1. Divine revelation is varied in its
means1. Dreams1. Visions1. Miracles1. Theophanies /
Christophanies
1. Divine revelation is accurate1. Divine revelation ceases with
close of canon
1. Problems to solve1. How does a man, woman, or child, created
and loved by God, come to know the Lord of the universe in a
personal, saving relationship?If general revelation does not save
but serves only to condemn, has the sovereign God moved to
communicate further dimensions of his person and redemptive plan,
and if so, how has he done so? How can a Christian determine by
what means God has made known his saving purposes? How can finite,
alienated persons identify and appropriate the several modes of
special revelation?Is God still giving further special
revelation?Special revelation is important because it constitutes
the prerequisite for the formulation of a theology that is properly
Christian. Moreover, it forms the basis whereby a person comes to
know God savingly, to worship him, and to serve him meaningfully in
life.1. Biblical Theology of Special Revelation
18. Dispensation of Innocence
1. God used specific language to create Genesis 1.3, 6, 9
etc
1. God spoke to man in a language they understood Gen
2:16-17
1. God spoke on a regular basis to them as implied by Genesis
3:8-9
18. Dispensation of Conscience
2. Gen 3.15 Part of the first revelation of God after the Fall
revealed the person and mission of Christ
2. Gen 5.24 Does this imply that God and Enoch had an ongoing
conversation?
2. Gen 6.13 God spoke to Noah and told him His plan of
destruction
18. Dispensation of Human Government
3. God speaks to Noah about the rainbow
18. Dispensation of Promise
4. God was speaking directly to Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17)
4. God revealed truths to Joseph via dreams (Genesis 37ff)
18. Dispensation of the Law
5. Exo 20God gave to Moses the Law / God wrote with His very
finger
5. Joshua 4, et al God revealed Himself as Captain of the Lords
HostHe also states, The Lord said unto Joshua
5. Daniel 6Again, God wrote with His finger
18. Dispensation of Grace
6. Acts God used visions often
6. 2 Cor 12 Paul received visions
18. Dispensation of the Kingdom
Apologetic Interaction1. Is there still continuing revelation
today?1. Consider the OTa. When the Old Testament was completed, no
more prophets appearedi. The people of the inter-testamental period
understood that there was no prophet available to them.1 Maccabees
4:46 And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a
convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what
should be done with them.
1 Maccabees 9:27 So was there a great affliction in Israel, the
like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen
among them.b. The current successor to the prophets is the Old
Testament itself which still carries the message of the prophets to
Gods people.
2. Consider the NT Apostles:a. There is no wording in the New
Testament that conveys the teaching of apostolic succession as
taught by the Church of England and Episcopalian Church. b. The
office of apostleship was a unique office given to those who were
eyewitnesses of the incarnate and risen Christ. c. There is no
further revelation given to man today. Instead, all men are
responsible to take that which God has revealed and apply it to
their lives. d. None of the claimed new revelation of today can
legitimately add anything to the message of redemption that God has
already given.
What is the Peculiarity with Special Revelation?
1. General revelation is for all men it reveals that there is a
God. Special revelation underscores what we deserve as mankind
(eternal punishment) but focuses on grace and mercy.
a. It may seem unfair in the minds of men that God would give
special revelation to only a few and not to all of mankind (Jews in
the Old Testament; Jews and Greeks in the New Testament).
b. However, with the special revelation that God has given comes
the responsibility to proclaim it to others.
c. God did not give his revelation so that a particular person
or nation could brag about what they had received.
d. God did give his special revelation to specific individuals
in order that the whole world might receive it. This is now become
the responsibility that Christians have today.
2. Special Revelation: Personal and Propositional
a. Personal: God revealed Himself directly to mankind through
various forms of communication
b. Propositional: reveals truth about who God is and how man can
relate to Him.
Verbal, Plenary Inspiration1. Definitions
From the biblical description of the process of inspiration, the
necessary constituents of a theological definition of inspiration
may be derived. There are three:
1.Divine causality. The prime mover in inspiration is God: No
prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by
the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:21). In other words, God
moved, and the prophet mouthed the truths; God revealed, and man
recorded His word. The Bible is Gods word in the sense that it
originates with Him and is authorized by Him, even though it is
articulated by men. God speaks in their written records.
2.Prophetic agency. The prophets played an important role in the
overall process of inspiration; they were the means by which God
spoke. The word of God was written by men of God. God used persons
to convey His propositions. In other words, as J.I. Packer
perceptively observes, there God exercised concursive operation in,
with and through the free working of mans own
mind.[footnoteRef:19]7 He amplifies the concept further saying,
[19: 7 James I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, p. 82;
J.I. Packer, God Has Spoken, esp. pp. 45124. Also see I. Howard
Marshall, Biblical Inspiration, pp. 4043.]
We are to think of the Spirits inspiring activity, and, for that
matter, of all His regular operations in and upon human
personality, as (to use an old but valuable technical term)
concursive; that is, as exercised in, through and by means of the
writers own activity, in such a way that their thinking and writing
was both free and spontaneous on their part and divinely elicited
and controlled, and what they wrote was not only their own work but
also Gods work.[footnoteRef:20]8 [20: 8 Packer, Fundamentalism , p.
80.]
God prepared the prophets by training, experience, gifts of
grace, and, if need be, by direct revelation to utter His word. By
it [inspiration], the Spirit of God, flowing confluently with the
providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously
producing under the Divine directions the writings appointed them,
gives the product a Divine quality unattainable by human powers
alone.[footnoteRef:21]9 In inspiration, then, God is the primary
cause, and the prophets are the secondary causes. Thus the divine
influence did not restrict human activity but rather enabled the
human authors to communicate the divine message accurately. [21: 9
Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,
pp. 15460.]
3.Scriptural authority is the final product of Gods causality
and the prophetic agency. Hence, the Bible is a divinely
authoritative book. God moved the prophets in such a way as to
breathe out (literally, spirate) their writings. In other words,
God spoke to the prophets and is speaking in their writings.
Although some might argue that the prophetic model of inspiration
is inadequate,1[footnoteRef:22]0 in order to shift the basis of the
believers authority from Scripture to some other locus, Carl F. H.
Henry rightly observes that the church is neither the locus of
divine revelation, nor the source of divine inspiration, nor the
seat of infallibility. Rather, the church has the task of
transmitting, translating, and expounding the prophetic-apostolic
Scriptures.1[footnoteRef:23]1 The cause of inspiration is God, the
means is the men of God, and the end result is the word of God in
the language of men. [22: 10 Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of
Scripture: Problems and Proposals, pp. 293, 7475, 99100, 12223, and
elsewhere. Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, uncritically
accepts this notion, stating, The Bible is more than prophecy, and
although direct divine speech is part of the record, there are many
other kinds of communication as well, some of them more indirect
and ambiguous (p. 63), and indicating that Paul J. Achtemeier has
called attention to the inadequacy of the prophetic model for
representing the biblical category of inspiration in its fulness
(p. 234 n. 8).] [23: 11 Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and
Authority, vol. 2: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part
One, pp. 1315.]
NOTE: suggested definition: Inspiration is that mysterious
process by which the divine causality worked through the human
prophets without destroying their individual personalities and
styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant
writings.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Norman L. Geisler and William E.
Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 38-39.]
Concepts1. Infallibility1. New Evangelicals make a distinction
between infallibility and inerrancyOriginally, the two terms were
interchangeable.Today, infallibility usually refers to the
assertion that the Bible will not make any misleading statements.
(There may be some historical data that is incorrect, but it will
not mislead anyone in search of salvation and biblical doctrine)We
define it as absolute truth that it, the Bible is truthful in all
its assertions.
1. Inerrancy1. The writers accurately recorded their stories1.
As a product of supernatural inspiration, the information affirmed
by the sentences of the original autographs of the 66 Canonical
books is true.1. Truth is logically non-contradictory, factually
reliable, and experientially viable.1. Hence, the Bible is a
reliable guide for physical, mental, moral, and spiritual realities
that people face.1. Plenarily
21. All of the Canon is equally inspired equally Gods Word
21. Yet, not all of the Bible is not as equally important for
answering any given question. (Example: the list of genealogies may
not be much guidance for finding Gods will for your life!)
1. Verbally
22. Inspiration is not limited to the concepts or ideas of the
Bible
22. Inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture that is
found in the autographs.
1. Ipsissima Vox
23. What is it?
1. ASSIGNMENT: Read: Donald Green, Evangelicals and Ipsissima
Vox, The Masters Seminary Journal 12:1 (Spring 2001): 49-68
1. A Definition
2. Latin: Ipsissima = the veryVOX= voice
1. A Description
3. Ipsissima Vox states that we have the very voice of Jesus in
the Scriptures.
3. His words have been paraphrased.
3. There are two lines used to defend this position:
3. His words were recorded in Greekthe assumption is he spoke
Aramaic
3. There are some alleged discrepancies in the Synoptics
2. EX: Matt 7:11 and Luke 11:13
2. Does Jesus promise good things or the Holy Spirit?
2. Are these identical occasions or did Jesus use similar
language / illustrations as He preached?
1. Ipsissima Verba
24. What is it?
1. ASSIGNMENT: Read Robert L. Thomas, Historical Criticism and
the Evangelical: Another View, Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000): 97-111
1. A Definition
2. Latin: Ipsissima the very Verba words
2. This position argues that we have the very words Christ
spoke
2. Verba = verbatim
1. A Description
3. When we hear a writer say something like, And Jesus said unto
them are these the very words or just a paraphrase, a summary of
what He said?
3. The difference between these two options is the difference
between Vox and Verba
3. People who take a strong stand on inerrancy fall into both
positions. (In other words, a belief in inerrancy doesnt dictate /
mandate that you fall into a specific position)
Objections
1. It cannot be a divine book when it contains so many
errors.
1. Inerrancy only applies to those Scriptures which deal with
salvation.
1. Everyone has a different definition of inerrancy.
Considerations1. Some hypothesis to test1. The Bible is errant1.
Those who hold this position usually argue in this manner:1. God is
holy. Man is sinful. Therefore, Scripture cannot be inerrant.1.
Errors found in Scripture are due to mans sinfulness1. Truth that
is contained in Scripture can only be verified through other
disciplines such as archeology, psychology, science, etc1. The
Bible is partially errant and partially inerrant1. There must be a
differentiation between those parts that are errant and inerrant.1.
This is determined by the leading of the Holy Spirit and mans
faith1. Where Scripture deals with faith and practice (doctrine),
it is assumed to be inerrant.1. When the Bible delves into other
areas, it may contain falsehoods or misleading statements.1. The
Bible is plenarily inerrant1. This position asserts that the Bible
is truthful in all that it affirms1. All Scripture originates from
God and the Holy Spirit uses only truth to lead people away from
idols and to Himself.1. It is necessary for a person to discover
what the Scripture is teaching.
1. Some probabilities to consider1. None of these hypotheses can
be proven in a completely intellectual sense.1. The issue is: Which
hypothesis provides the most probable (coherent and viable) account
of the relevant lines of evidence with the fewest difficulties?1.
Seven Major Lines of Evidence given as relevant evidence:1. Jesus
Christs view of Scripture1. The claims of the prophets1. The claims
of the apostlesDominant view of Scriptures throughout history of
the churchHumanness of the writers (fallible, finite, and
fallen)Problem phenomena: difficulties of apparent historical,
chronological, and scientific discrepanciesPositive phenomena:
standard Christian evidences of fulfilled prophecies and miracles
confirming the office and messages of divine spokesmen.Only the
view that Scripture is inerrant lines up with all seven strands of
evidence.
Dual Authorship1. Holy Spirit Agency1. Human Agency1.
Languages1. Cultural Allusions1. Historical ReferencesFalse
TheoriesCanonicity and Authority1. ASSIGNMENT: Read Benjamin B.
Warfield The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament Access at:
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/bible/warfield_canon.html
With the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Maachi, the latter
prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased ouit of Israel (Tos. Sotah 13:2;
baraita in Bab. Yoma 9b, Bab. Sotah 48b and Bab. Sanhedrin
11a)....
Until then [the coming of Alexander the Great and the end of the
empire of the Persians] the prophets prophesied through the Holy
Spirit. From then on, incline thine ear and hear the words of the
wise (Seder Olam Rabbah 30, quoting Prov. 22.17).
Rab Samuel bar Inia said, in the name of Rab Aha, The Second
Temple lacked five things which the First Temple possessed, namely,
the fire, the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing and
the Holy Spirit [of prophecy] (Jer.Taanith 2.1; Jer. Makkoth 2.48;
Bab. Yoma 21b).1[footnoteRef:25]0 [25: 10 10. Beckwith, p.
370.]
Rabbi Abdimi of Haifa said, Since the day when the Temple was
destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to
the wise (Bab. Baba Bathra 12a).
Rabbi Johanan said, Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has
been taken from prophets and given to fools and children (Bab. Baba
Bathra 12b).
In each of these five passages, Beckwith notes, an era is in
view, which is variously described as the death of Haggai,
Zechariah and Malachi, the end of the empire of the Persians, the
destruction of the First Temple or the transition from the First
Temple to the Second.1[footnoteRef:26]1 So then, if a book were
written after the prophetic period, it was not considered
canonical. If it were written within the prophetic period, in the
succession of Hebrew prophets, it was canonical. [8 highlights]
[26: 11 ibid.]
In brief, what were later called canonical writings were by the
Jews considered to be those sacred and authoritative writings of
the Hebrew prophets from Moses to Malachi. So sacred were these
holy writings that they were preserved by the Ark of the Covenant
in the Temple. To touch these holy writings was to defile ones
hands; to break them was to defile ones life. The Hebrew canon,
then, was that collection of writings which, because they possessed
divine inspiration and authority, were the norm or rule for the
believers faith and conduct.[footnoteRef:27] [27: Norman L. Geisler
and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and
expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 206-07.]
1. Reasons for recognition
1. Historical Reasons:
1. Marcion
1. 140 ADMarcion is mutilating the text
1. According to Irenaeus, the church had already unofficially
recognized a list of authoritative books.
1. Diocletian 303AD
2. During his reign, he ordered that all Christian books were to
be burned
2. Again, this is before the first official list of Athanasius
(367AD), but it is evident that believers were equipped with a
knowledge of knowing what was worth dying for
1. Biblical Reasons:
2. Man is to live by every word that proceeds from Gods
mouth
2. This implies that the church recognize that which is actually
authoritative
2. Canonicity is determined by God because of inspiration.
2. We could say that canonicity is equivalent to authority.
When the Word of God was written it became Scripture and,
inasmuch as it had been spoken by God, possessed absolute
authority. Since it was the Word of God, it was canonical. That
which determines the canonicity of a book, therefore, is the fact
that the book is inspired by God. Hence a distinction is properly
made between the authority which the Old Testament possesses as
divinely inspired, and the recognition of that authority on the
part of Israel.[footnoteRef:28] [28: Norman L. Geisler and William
E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 211-12.]
1. Requirements for recognition
1. OT
The idea of a "canon" did not originate with the Israelites.
They had a model to go on, one which was in circulation in Egyptian
and Mesopotamian society. Vasholz [Vash.OTOT, 3-4], using the
example of the Poem of Erra and other documents from the 12th to
8th centuries BC, notes these four core (commonsense!) steps:
The deity speaks, and his words are recorded.
The material is faithfully transmitted.
Authenticity is established by means of blessings for honor, and
curses for dishonor, in transcription.
Materials are preserved in a sacred place.
These essential "canon concepts," then, were "there for the
taking" at the time when the OT was being put together and involves
no radical innovation or supposition of historical invention. The
ancient "canonical" concept appears in its earliest form in the OT
in Exodus 17:14 and Deuteronomy 31:24-6, where emphasis is made
upon preservation of material as a memorial and as a witness. This
is the seed from which an OT canon, or set of established books,
grew
1. Was it written by a prophet?
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us,
disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks
have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all
the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; (39) and of
them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the
traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval
of time was little short of three thousand years; (40) but as to
the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king
of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after
Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books.
The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the
conduct of human life. (41) It is true, our history hath been
written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been
esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers,
because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since
that time; (42) and how firmly we have given credit to those books
of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many
ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to
add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any
change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and
from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine
doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly
to die for them[footnoteRef:29] [29: Flavius Josephus and William
Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1987).]
1. Did it have the quality deemed worthy of an inspired
book?
1. NT
2. Apostolicity
2. Authority
2. Consistency
2. Catholicity
1. Disputed Books1. Homologoumena The books accepted by all
These were the books that were received as canonical without
dispute
All but seven of the New Testament fall into this category
1. AntilegoumenaThe books rejected by some
These were the disputed books:
JamesRevelation2 JohnJude
Hebrews2 Peter3 John
1. PseudepigraphaThe books rejected by all
31. The Gospel of Thomas
You judge:
This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing
at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that
flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and
commanded them by his word alone. And having made soft clay, he
fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. . . . Jesus clapped his hands
together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and
the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. (2:14)
Another tells how He cursed a lad to wither like a tree:
And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto
him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and
the waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a
tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. And
straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and
went unto Josephs house.(3:23)
Again, when a child ran and dashed against his shoulder, Jesus
is said to have been provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not
finish thy course (lit., go all thy way). And immediately he fell
down and died. These accounts reflect a dimension of personality in
Jesus that is utterly at variance with that as set forth in the New
Testament gospel accounts.
31. The Gospel of Peter
What does it assert?
1. That Pilate was guiltless; the Jews responsible for Christs
death
1. That Jesus felt no pain during the crucifixion
1. That Jesus referred to the Father as My power, my power, why
hast thou forsaken me?
1. That Jesus brothers and sisters were from a previous marriage
of Joseph
31. Protoevangelium of James
1. Perpetual virginity of Mary
1. Mary born 3 months early; walked at six months
1. Mary was 16 years old during the birth of Christ
1. For lack of better words, a matrix-like miracle
And I looked up at the vault of heaven, and saw it standing
still and the birds of the heaven motionless. And I looked at the
earth, and saw a dish placed there and workmen lying round it, with
their hands in the dish. But those who chewed did not chew, and
those who lifted up anything lifted up nothing, and those who put
something to their mouth put nothing (to their mouth), but all had
their faces turned upwards. And behold, sheep were being driven and
(yet) they did not come forward, but stood still; and the shepherd
raised his hand to strike them with his staff, but his hand
remained up. And I looked at the flow of the river, and saw the
mouths of the kids over it and they did not drink. And then all at
once everything went on its course (again).
31. The Gospel of the Hebrews
1. James, the brother of Christ was at the Last Supper
1. The Holy Spirit is called My mother by Christ
1. Mary was pregnant for only seven months with Jesus
31. The Gospel of Philip
1. Gnostic gospel
1. Narrates the journey of a soul through seven successive
spheres of hostile powers (planetary archons)
31. The Gospel of Judas
1. Judas is a hero
1. He was obeying Christ because someone needed to betray Him to
fulfill Scripture
31. There were additional Acts as well:
1. Acts of John
1. Acts of Peter
1. Acts of Andrew
1. Acts of Thomas
1. Acts of Paul (in which he is described as a short, bald man
with big nose and bowlegged)
1. ApocryphaThe books accepted by some
10. Seven Epistles of Ignatius
10. Epistle to the Corinthians
Dionysius of Corinth (60-80) says that this epistle 1
Corinthians by Clement of Rome, was read publicly at Corinth and
elsewhere, and it is found in Codex Alexandrinus (A) [the
Alexandrian manuscript] of the New Testament (c. 450, see chap.
22). Herbert T. Andrews sums up the situation on this epistle,
saying, Today no one would put in a plea for its recognition as
Scripture, yet from a historical point of view the Epistle has no
little interest for us.... It gives us a very good conception of
the Christian belief at the time. . . . It contains explicit
references to Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians, and gives
several quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and so proves
that these books were widely circulated and recognized before the
close of the first century.
10. Letters of Clement
The letter was occasioned by a dispute in Corinth, which had led
to the removal from office of several presbyters. Since none of the
presbyters were charged with moral offences, Clement charged that
their removal was high-handed and unjustifiable. The letter was
extremely lengthy it was twice as long as the Epistle to the
Hebrews and includes several references to the Old Testament, of
which he demonstrates a knowledge. Clement repeatedly refers to the
Old Testament as Scripture. New Testament references include
Clements admonition to Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the
Apostle (xlvii. 1) which was written to this Corinthian audience; a
reference which seems to imply written documents available at both
Rome and Corinth. Clement also alludes to the epistles of Paul to
the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and the first epistle
to the Corinthians; numerous phrases from the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and possible material from Acts, James, and I Peter. In
several instances, he asks his readers to remember the words of
Jesus, although Clement does not attribute these sayings to a
specific written account. These New Testament allusions are
employed as authoritative sources which strengthen Clements
arguments to the Corinthian church, but Clement never explicitly
refers to them as Scripture
10. Polycarp to the Philippians
In one sense, Polycarp is the most important of the apostolic
Fathers. He was a disciple of the apostle John. He lays no claim to
inspiration for himself, but says that he always taught the things
he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed
down, and which alone are true. There is very little originality in
this epistle, as it borrows both matter and style from the New
Testament, and particularly from Pauls epistle to the Philippians.
Even though it was not considered canonical, it is a valuable
testimony to the existence of most of the New Testament canon,
which he interweaves into his writing.
10. Revelation of Peter
This is perhaps the oldest of the noncanonical New Testament
apocalypses, and it enjoyed great popularity in the early church.
It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, in the table of
contents of Bezae (D), and is quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Its
description of heaven is picturesque, and its pictures of hell are
grotesque, depicting it as a lake of flaming mire or a lake of
pitch and blood and boiling mire. Its imagery had a wide influence
on medieval theology, and was a source from which Dantes Inferno
was derived. As to its authenticity, even the Muratorian Fragment
raised questions, saying that some would not permit it to be read
in the churches. The church in general has agreed with that
conclusion.
10. Shepherd of Hermas
This is the most popular of all the noncanonical books of the
New Testament. It is found in Sinaiticus (), in the table of
contents of Bezae (D), in some Latin Bibles, quoted as inspired
Scripture by Irenaeus and Origen, and Eusebius recognized that it
was publicly read in the churches and deemed most necessary for
those who have need of elementary instruction. The Shepherd has
been aptly called the Pilgrims Progress of the early church. Like
Bunyans great allegory, it ranks second only to the canonical books
in its circulation in the early church and in its dramatization of
spiritual truths. In other words, it is like Ecclesiasticus
(Sirach) of the Old Testament Apocryphaethical and devotional, but
not canonical.
10. Didache
Also called the Teaching of the Twelve. The Didache was held in
high regard by the early church. Clement of Alexandria quoted it as
Scripture, and Athanasius listed it among the sacred writings along
with Judith and Tobit. This book is of great importance from the
historical point of view, giving the opinion of the church of the
early second century on the essential truths of Christianity, and
it forms a bridge between the New Testament and the patristic
literature; nevertheless, the verdict of history is at one with
Eusebius, who placed it among the rejected books.
10. Epistle of (Pseudo) Barnabas
(c. 70-79). This widely circulated epistle is found in the Codex
Siniaticus () (c. 340), and mentioned in the table of contents of
Codex Bezae (D) (c. 450 or c. 550, see chap. 22). It was quoted as
Scripture by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. It parallels the
canonical epistle to the Hebrews in style although it is more
allegorical and mystical than Hebrews, and there is some debate as
to whether it is a first or second century document. Nonetheless,
it may be concluded with Brooke Foss Westcott that while the
antiquity of the Epistle is firmly established, its Apostolicity is
more than questionable.
1. Why we believe in the authority of Gods Word1. Apologetic
introduction
33. It bears the marks of divine quality
33. It carries timeless truths
33. It provides a witness to the greatest event in human
history
33. It claims to be the Word of God
1. Internal evidence
34. Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God?
34. Luke 24:44 Jesus delineates the OTwhat about the New?
2. 1 Tim 5:17-18, Paul calls Lukes writing Scripture
2. 2 Peter 3:15-17, Peter calls Pauls epistles Scripture
2. 2 Peter 3:1-2, Peter shows the authority of the apostles and
prophets
2. Jude 17, The words of the apostles were authoritative
2. 2 Timothy 4:11, Mark is profitable for ministry
2. James 1 James is the pastor at Jerusalem (Acts 15)
1. External evidence
11. Archaeology confirms it
11. History confirms it
11. Science confirms it
11. Changed lives confirm it
1. How we received Gods Word1. Languages
36. Hebrew
36. Aramaic
36. Greek
NOTE: All of these languages would have been common to the world
in which it was directed
1. Writings (Chronology)
37. Moses
37. Joshua
37. Samuel
37. Prophets
37. Matthew / James
37. Mark / Luke
37. Jude
37. Pauls letters
37. John
37. 1-3 John
37. Revelation
1. Preservation
12. Through the Jews (Rom 3.2)
12. Through the Church (John 17.17; 1 Tim 3.15)
12. Through translations into languages
3. LXX
3. Syriac Peshitta
3. Italic (Old Latin)
3. Gallic (Old French)
3. European languages during the Reformation
3. Still translating today
1. Interpretative issues to consider
1. Dispensationalism
2. Covenantalism
3. These topics are covered in Advanced Hermeneutics, but
suffice it to say here that how one approaches the Bible greatly
influences how he understands it.
Theology
1. Introduction1. How do we define God?
1. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his
being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
1. God is an eternal personal Being, of absolute knowledge,
power and goodness.
1. What are the sources of our knowledge?
1. Intuition
1. Tradition
1. Reason
1. Revelation
1. How do we know God exists?
1. Cosmological
Logically speaking the cosmological argument for the existence
of God is inductive and a posteriori: the evidence is examined, and
based on it a conclusion is drawn that God exists. The term
cosmological comes from the Greek word cosmos, meaning world. This
argument is based on the fact that a cosmos, or world, exists.
Because something cannot come from nothing, there must be an
original cause that is the reason for the worlds existence. A man
wears a Bulova wristwatch. Although he has never seen a watchmaker,
the fact of the existence of the wristwatch suggests there is a
Swiss watchmaker who made the watch. The cosmological argument says
that every effect must have a cause[footnoteRef:30] [30: Paul P.
Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press,
1989), 183.]
1. Teleological
As in the previous case, the teleological argument is inductive
and a posteriori. Teleological comes from the Greek word telos,
meaning end. The teleological argument may be defined thus: Order
and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose
in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and
useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and
free cause.[footnoteRef:31]2 The world everywhere evidences
intelligence, purpose, and harmony; there must be a master
architect behind all this evidence. The psalmist sees the
magnificence of Gods creation in the universe and recognizes that
it testifies to His existence (Ps. 8:34; 19:14). Gods harmony is
observed throughout the universe and world: the sun being
ninety-three million miles distant is precisely right for an
adequate climate on earth; the moons distance of two hundred forty
thousand miles provides tides at a proper level; the earths tilt
provides the seasons. A conclusion is clear that God, the Master
Designer, has created this magnificent universe. The alternative,
that the world happened by chance, is no more possible than a
monkeys being able to create a work of Shakespeare on a typewriter
by haphazard play on the keys.[footnoteRef:32] [31: 2 H. C.
Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev Vernon D. Doerksen
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 28.] [32: Paul P. Enns, The Moody
Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 183-84.]
1. Anthropological
The anthropological argument, which is also inductive and a
posteriori, is based on the Greek word anthropos, meaning man.
Contrary to the secular humanist who sees man simply as a
biological being, the biblicist sees man as created in the image of
God (Gen. 1:2628). The image of God in man is spiritual, not
physical (cf. Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Man is not simply a physical
being, but also a moral being with a conscience, intellect,
emotion, and will. Chafer states: There are philosophical and moral
features in mans constitution which may be traced back to find
their origin in God A blind force could never produce a man with
intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a
Creator.[footnoteRef:33] [33: Ibid., 184.]
1. Moral
The moral argument is related to the anthropological argument
(some combine the two) and can be seen as a further consideration
of that argument. The moral argument acknowledges that man has an
awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality. Where did this
sense of moral justice come from? If man is only a biological
creature why does he have a sense of moral obligation? Recognition
of moral standards and concepts cannot be attributed to any
evolutionary process. The biblicist recognizes that God has placed
a sense of moral justice within the human race in contradistinction
to all other creation. Romans 2:1415 indicates that Gentiles who
have had no revelation of the law have an inner, moral witness
placed there by God.[footnoteRef:34] [34: Ibid., 184.]
1. Ontological
The ontological argument, distinct from the preceding arguments,
is deductive and a priori; it begins with an assumption and then
attempts to prove that assumption. It is less significant than the
preceding arguments. The term ontological comes from the Greek
present participle ontos (from the verb eimi) and means being or
existence. The ontological argument is philosophical rather than
inductive. The argument reasons: If man could conceive of a Perfect
God who does not exist, then he could conceive of someone greater
than God himself which is impossible. Therefore God exists. The
argument rests on the fact that all men have an awareness of God.
Because the concept of God is universal, God must have placed the
idea within man. Anselm (1033?1109) was the first proponent of this
view. In the thinking of some, this argument has limited value, and
few would affirm the usefulness of the ontological
argument.[footnoteRef:35] [35: Ibid., 184-85.]
1. How does God exist?
1. Biblical view of Trinitarianism
1. God is a personal being
1. God is a spiritual being
1. God is a tri-unity
1. Hints of this are found:
4. Genesis 1.26 (possible allusion)
4. Deuteronomy 6.4
2. Genesis 2.24
2. Exo 24.3
2. Ezra 2.64
4. Ecclesiastes 12.1
4. Matthew 28.19
4. Acts 17.29
4. Romans 1.20
4. 2 Corinthians 13.14
4. Colossians 2.9
4. 1 Peter 1.2
1. Historical view of Trinitarianism
2. Church Fathers
i. Belief in the Trinity is affirmed; Clement sets forth the
equality of the triune God in his statement: For as God liveth, and
the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the
faith and the hope of the elect (Cor. 58). Clement acknowledged God
as Creator and Master of the universe (Cor. 33).[footnoteRef:36]
[36: Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL:
Moody Press, 1989), 410.]
ii. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both
Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before
me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach,
according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the
same substance in an indivisible equality;[footnoteRef:37]3 and
therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the
Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not
the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is
the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the
Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the
Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and
pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity
was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate,
and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven,
but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the
form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized;[footnoteRef:38]4
nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord,
when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty
wind,[footnoteRef:39]5 the same Trinity sat upon each of them with
cloven tongues like as of fire, but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet
that this Trinity said from heaven, Thou art my
Son,[footnoteRef:40]6 whether when He was baptized by John, or when
the three disciples were with Him in the mount,[footnoteRef:41]7 or
when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will
glorify it again;[footnoteRef:42]8 but that it was a word of the
Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work
indivisibly[footnoteRef:43] [37: 3 [Augustin teaches the Nicene
doctrine of a numerical unity of essence in distinction from a
specific unity. The latter is that of mankind. In this case there
is division of substancepart after part of the specific nature
being separated and formed, by propagation, into individuals. No
human individual contains the whole specific nature. But in the
case of the numerical unity of the Trinity, there is no division of
essence. The whole divine nature is in each divine person. The
three divine persons do not constitute a speciesthat is, three
divine individuals made by the division and distribution of one
common divine naturebut are three modes or forms (Phil. 2:6) of one
undivided substance, numerically and identically the same in
each.W. G. T. S.].] [38: 4 Matt. 3:16.] [39: 5 Acts. 2:2, Acts
2:4.] [40: 6 Mark 1:11.] [41: 7 Matt. 17:5.] [42: 8 John 12:28.]
[43: Augustine of Hippo, "On the Trinity", trans. Arthur West
Haddan In , in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume III: St.
Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral
Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Company, 1887), 20.]
iii. Church Councils
a. Nicea 325 AD Affirmed Deity of Christ
b. Constantinople 381 AD Affirmed Deity of Spirit
Although the doctrine of the Trinity itself was not discussed,
the doctrine of the deity of Christ was confirmed. In attendance
were approximately 300 bishops, many of whom were divided over the
issue. Arius with his supporters, Theonas, Secundus, and Eusebius
of Nicomedia, held the view that Jesus was an inferior creature to
God the Father. The orthodox camp was led by Bishops Hosius,
Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Athanasius who
argued that Jesus is God. After hours of debate, the council
concluded the following in their creed:
"We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is from the substance
of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true
God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the
Father. . . ."
While the deity of Christ--a crucial aspect of the doctrine of
the Trinity--was affirmed, Arius nevertheless continued to teach
his doctrine of Christ's inferiority, and Arianism came back into
favor for a short time. Fifty years later, in 381 A.D., the Council
of Constantinople was called by Emperor Theodosius. Here the Nicene
Creed was reaffirmed and further clarified. It is at this council
that the Holy Spirit was declared equal in divinity with the Father
and the Son.
The councils of Nicea and Constantinople did not establish a new
creed. The councils clarified and formalized the belief in the
deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, views already held by the
apostles and church fathers.
ILLUSTRATION: TD JAKES, Christianity Today, January 27, 2012
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/01/td_jakes_embrac.html
Jakes -- who once made the cover of Time magazine, which asked
if he might be the next Billy Graham -- said he was saved in a
Oneness Pentecostal church. Oneness Pentecostalism denies the
Trinity and claims that instead of God being three persons, He is
one person. In Oneness Pentecostalism, there is no distinction
between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is also called
"modalism," and it is embraced by the United Pentecostal Church
International.
"I began to realize that there are some things that could be
said about the Father that could not be said about the Son," Jakes
said. "There are distinctives between the working of the Holy
Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the
redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that." [See
the transcript of Jakes' comments at the end of this story.]
The doctrine of the Trinity -- embraced by all three historical
branches of Christianity -- holds that God is three persons, each
person is distinct, each person is fully God, and that there is one
God.
Several key Bible passages, Jakes said, impacted his
transition.
"Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, for example, coming up
out of the water [and] the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the
Father speaks from heaven -- and we see all three of them on one
occasion," he said, "or in Genesis [where God said,] 'let us make
man in our own likeness' or Elohim -- He is the one God who
manifests Himself in a plurality of ways. Or what Jesus says, 'I am
with the Father, and the Father is in me.'"
Jakes added: "That began to make me rethink some of my ideas and
some of the things that I was taught. I got kind of quiet about it
for a while. Because when you are a leader and you are in a
position of authority, sometimes you have to back up and ponder for
a minute, and really think things through."
1. Formulated Doctrinal statement
The Bible asserts that within the Godhead exists three distinct
Persons within this one essence. The Father, the Son, and the
Spirit are seen to be co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent.
1. Heresies to combat:
4. Tritheism
1. This is the belief that there are three separate GodsThree
Persons / Three Essences
1. This is the charge leveled against the Orthodox by Jehovahs
Witnesses
4. Modalism
2. This is a belief that God manifests Himself in three
different persons(One person, three manifestations)
2. This is the belief that has worked its way into Unitarianism
and Oneness Pentecostalism.
2. Consider the testimony of Jakes there were Bible verses that
hindered his belief in the Oneness teaching.
4. Arianism
3. This is a belief that teaches that Jesus was a created being,
a lesser god.
3. This belief has worked its way into the teaching of the
Jehovahs Witness movement
3. One need only ask, Does the Bible teach the Deity of Christ
to understand why Arianism was banned as heretical in the 4th
Century (the Council of Nicea, 325)
1. What is God doing?
A. Does God have a plan?
3. It appears from Scripture that God, indeed, has a plan. There
is an order, a design in the grand scheme of things.
3. From Isaiah 46.10 and Acts 2.23, we notice that His plan
(counsel) is singular.
3. That is, God is not orchestrating multiple plans to see which
one works best. He has one plan, with multiple steps, layers, and
phases, but all working toward that good pleasure based on the
counsel of His own will (Eph 1.1-14)
B. What is His plan?
1. Is this plan the redemption of man?
1. Is this plan the inauguration of the kingdom?
2. While each of these is important, they reveal only a part of
Gods plan.
2. Gods ultimate plan is His glory. Consider the following
verses:
2. Matthew 6.13
2. Luke 2.14
2. Acts 12.23
2. Romans 1.23
2. Romans 3.23
2. Romans 9.23
2. 1 Corinthians 1.29
2. 1 Corinthians 10.31
2. Ephesians 1.6
2. Revelation 4.11
C. What is the purpose of His plan?
The ultimate purpose of Gods plan is the praise and
manifestation of the glory of God (Eph. 1:6, 11, 12, 14; 3:21; Rom.
11:36; 16:27; Rev. 4:11; 5:13). It is essential to the very Being
of God and by the very nature of God that His glory be manifested
and appreciated because of what Gods glory is and does within the
universe. This is not the action of some pompous person who wants
to be seen to feel good about himself. Not for a moment. Rather,
this is more like the blessing, the joy, and the awe we may
experience when we see some highly-skilled acrobat, athlete, actor,
musician, or some majestic part of creation. Because of the beauty,
grace and skill, it needs to be seen and appreciated by others.
When we view a glorious mountain in its beautiful setting or see an
athlete perform in an outstanding way, we often think, how awful it
would be if such talent or beauty were never seen and appreciated,
not for the ego of the person, but for the joy and thrill it gives
to the viewers.
So Gods plan is designed to manifest the various facets of His
glory or perfections. How? By allowing sin through the creature,
Gods plan brought out all aspects of Gods glory much like sparkling
diamonds against the backdrop of black velvet. The presence of sin
and rebellion manifests Gods love, patience, holiness, mercy, and
grace to a magnificent degree.[footnoteRef:44] [44: Hampton
Keathley, Theology Proper: the Doctrine of God. Bible.org]
1. What is God like?
A. Non-Communicable Attributes[footnoteRef:45] [45: Any
delineation of these attributes into categories is soon shown to be
insufficient. Some of the attributes that are listed as
non-communicable, some would argue are not. Some of the attributes
listed in the communicable section would be argued against as well.
This is not black and white however, it provides a framework for
discussion.]
1. Self-existence (John 5.26)
2. Immutability (Ps 102:25-27; Ex 3.14; James 1.17)
3. Infinity
a. Eternality infinite in time (Ps 90.2)
b. Omnipresence infinite in space (Ps 139:7-11)
4. Holiness
B. Communicable Attributes
1. Attributes of Intellect
a. Omniscience God knows all things actual and potential (Ps
139.16; Matt 11.21)
i. Of course, omniscience itself is non-communicable. But
knowledge itself can be communicated in a limited way to man.
ii. The dilemma of this attribute is between omniscience and
free will
iii. In this generation, more books are being written on the
Open View of God
1. If God already knows the future as if it were accomplished,
then nothing we can do can change what will happen.
2. If we can do nothing to bring about a foreseeable change,
then man does not have free will.
3. At stake are the following issues:
a. Ones definition of omniscience
b. Ones definition of free will
c. Whether or not these two terms are compatible
d. Has every event been predetermined?
e. Where does prayer fit into this equation?
b. Omnisapience God acts upon His knowledge to always do what is
infinitely best (Rom 11.33-36).
i. Since God is all-wise (and not just all-knowing), His plan is
always best.
ii. Wisdom is the right use of knowledge.
2. Attributes of Emotion
a. God is love incomprehensibly active for our good (1 Jn
4.8)
b. Grace unmerited favor (Eph 2.8-9)
c. Mercy concern, compassion (James 5.11)
d. Longsuffering self-restrained when provoked (2 Pet 3.9,
15)
e. Just He is perfectly righteous and exact in His dealings with
man (Ps 19.9)
3. Attributes of Will
a. Omnipotence God is able to do anything that He wills. He will
not do anything against His nature (sin) or anything that is
logically self-contradictory. (Job 42.2)
b. Sovereignty God is the final authority, the ruler over all
the affairs of the universe. He may choose to let some things
happen according to natural laws He put in place. (2 Chron
29.11-12)