“theology 101: what we really believe about god” · 2012. 2. 1. · “theology 101: what we...

“Theology 101: What We Really

Believe about God”

Logos Academy Objective —

”Our Bible instruction transforms students by teaching them to apply the Word to their lives.”

Course Objectives —

• To identify, remember, and articulate a Biblical based understanding of God, a systematic theology as it were.

• To identify, remember, and articulate the implications of this understanding for a day to day walk with the Lord God Jehovah.

• To appreciate the value of the Bible which we use as our standard of truth and Truth. • To appreciate the systemic nature of Holy Spirit as He wove His will through our class,

both in terms of the faith, as well as Christianity in general. Readings & Homework – • Each week I may provide a brief “theological problem” which will serve to illustrate

part of next week’s key issues. You will need to read this document before class in order to discuss its implications for the church.

• Periodically I will provide a short quiz—not to test you per se, but to test me. Are we achieving the objectives noted above? Am I meeting your intellectual and spiritual needs for understanding “Just who is God?”

Instructor: D. Thomas Porter, Ph.D., Associate Pastor 813.728.5713Mobile or 813.792.0924Home or 813.949.5516Office [email protected] Course Website: http://DThomasPorter.com/LogosAcademy (case‐sensitive)

Home: 813.728.5713 or 813.962.5758 [email protected]

Theology 101: What We Really Believe and Why “As for me and my mouse, we will serve the Lord.”

Page 1

AN OVERVIEW OF THEOLOGY 101

Do you have answers for these questions? You should.

Question: Difficult to Answer Importance for Believers

1. How would you describe “God?” That is, what is your theology? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2. How can Jesus of Nazareth be God, the Christ, and also be human? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3. Why is there a construct called “Trinity?” 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 4. Do Father God, the Son of God, and Holy Spirit have similar or identical

substance? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

5. What is the nature of salvation? Faith? The church? Sin? Redemption? Atonement?

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

6. Does it matter whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or a young girl? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 7. What must I do to be saved? And, from what am I saved? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Why is having a clear understanding of these questions important? ℵ For teaching? How so? ℵ For learning? How so? ℵ For evangelism? How so? ℵ For rearing children and grandchildren? How so?

All of these questions and more will be discovered over the next several weeks. We will begin with a study of theology proper; i.e., just who is God and then progress to a theology of the Son, Holy Spirit, salvation, church, and other topics as we see fit to explore. Why a course on “theology?” Is it really useful for the Deacon? Teacher? Pastor? “Everyday” member?

ℵ Part of being ___________‐ _____________ ℵ Meeting the needs of many varied people—we all need our theology sharpened. ℵ Broader categories from which illustrations, evidence and rhetoric can be derived ℵ Skills learned translate well to Scriptural __________—getting beyond “itʹs what I’ve

always been taught” ℵ Since we all have a theology, it is very critical that that theology correspond to ______ _____________ _____ _________________.



Page 2

Common Teaching Problems Requiring Solid, Biblically‐based Theology: What is your answer to the student who asks…

1. Why did God kill all those people outside of Noah’s ark? 2. Why does God let evil things happen to good people? 3. Can I do something that goes against God’s will? 4. Why is the church so divided? How can the church be Christ’s and be so divided? 5. Why am I here—for what purpose do I exist? 6. What is the role of Jesus the Christ in saving our souls from eternal condemnation?

Our theology is also affected by our political predispositions and preferences. Consider the case of Susehland.

HOMEWORK FOR MARCH 8

Please answer and be ready to discuss these questions: 1. Is trinity an important concept in one’s theology? Why? How so? 2. What are multiple manifestation notions of Trinity? Modality differentiation? Element deselection

manifestations of Trinity? What are the implications of each of these errors in understanding Trinity? 3. How can words interfere, and help, our understanding of theology in general and Trinity in

particular?

“Trinity” is one of Christianity’s most remarkable paradoxes. With the exception of God’s simultaneous need to exact justice and express mercy, the trinity construct uncomfortably stretches the Western mind. Three distinct persons, each fully God, and yet one God? Trinity is the ultimate non‐sequitur. While many laypersons allege that the construct is mere seminarian theobabble, it is also clear many false and spiritually dysfunctional beliefs arise from failing to accept the full force of the trinity paradox and its implications. Perhaps extending the argument too far, Bavinck nonetheless asserts:

“In the confession of the Trinity throbs the heart of the Christian religion: every error results from, or upon deeper reflection may be traced to, a wrong view of this doctrine.”1

Grudem,2 a noted theologian, is clearly uncomfortable with the trinity construct—he recognizes its import, but argues that all analogies attempting to explain the trinity are either simplistic or definitively wrong. None of the analogy types he discusses (multiple manifestation, modality differentiation, or element deselection3), however, consider technology as fertile ground for an analogy of the Trinity. Understanding computer technology may help us understand the Trinity without suffering most of the problems of “word‐based” analogies.

1Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Translated by William Hendriksen, page 281. 2Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 1994, Inter-Varsity Press. 3Dropping the equality of one or more members of the trinity; e.g., saying the Son is less God than the Father because the Son prayed to and obeyed the Father.



Page 3

First, a word about words. With the exception of onomatopoeia or commonly used and thus highly‐abbreviated words (e.g., “I” or “the”), all words are analogies—on their face or in their etymological roots. Therefore, analogies based exclusively on “words” will by definition suffer inherent flaws; they carry historical baggage which may or may not be useful in understanding Trinity. Finally, words are not what they represent although they are often treated as such.

Second, a word about technology. Much of technology is an extension of ourselves (McLuhan). As such, any analogy which uses technology to “explain” the Trinity will, again by definition, suffer inherent flaws. Technology is almost always modeled after our human understanding of reality or a mimicry of what we see in the Creator’s world, an extension of our own limbs, or an extension of how we construe our mind/brain.

A Technologically‐Based Analogy to Help Explain the Trinity

Microsoft in the early‐nineties recognized computers will not always be single processor machines. As such, they developed a new, and very advanced operating system called “NT” (new technology). One of its distinctive characteristics was the ability to use the power of multiple‐processors. Its current manifestation is called “XP.” It is clearly more robust, and like NT, can take advantage of multiple processor computers. A multiple processor

computer with three cpu’s (central processing units) has these characteristics:

1. there are three processors, 2. each processor is fully computer, and yet 3. there is one computer. Thus, each processor in a multiple processor computer is fully interdependent and yet continually subordinate to the functions of the other processors. If one is moving pixels around, another will process mathematical processes—or vice versa. All processors are of the same essence—they all have the same clock speed, stepping sequences, the same manufacturer, share the same memory, and same hard drive. Thus, the Trinity may be thought of as a 3 processor computer.

Problems. Unlike God, however, the multiple processor computer has no power of its own, and it is a created entity. The existence of multiple processor computers is not attributable to random activity; they are devised by a designer. The contrast? God was neither designed nor created. God is, period.

And so the analogy, while beneficial, has its limits. As Grudem said, “It is spiritually healthy for us to acknowledge openly that God’s very being is far greater than we can ever comprehend. This humbles us before God and draws us to worship Him without reservation” (page 256). For some, computers are incomprehensible—and are treated accordingly with neglect and hostility. And for some, God is incomprehensible as Trinity—but, unlike a multiple processor computer, God deserves both attention and affection. We can conclude: God is Trinity.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

The orthodox description of Trinity argues there are three Persons, each is fully a person distinct from the other, yet still one Person.



Page 4

1. Definition: “Theology” is derived from the Greek word, theos (θεος) meaning “______,” and logos (λογος) meaning “_________” or “______________.” “Systematic” comes from the Greek verb sunistano (συνιστανω) which means “to stand ___________” or “to ________________.”

Hence, “systematic theology” emphasizes organizing of our discourse and meanings about God into a coherent whole. While it is relatively easy to create a theology of the church, for example, it is much more difficult to meld that theology with many other theologies of various components of the Christian faith into a systematic, coherent whole.

2. Any body of systematic thought is inextricably linked to its ______________________; i.e., how does this body of thought know what it knows. One’s _______________________________ tells us much about how they think, why they think, and to whom or what they ultimately ascribe. And so it is with Systematic Theology. What shall be the basis of our _____________________? That is, how will we know what we think, why we think, and to whom or what we ascribe when we engage in systematic discourse about God? You must have a clear handle on your _____________________ in order to have a clearer view of the Lord God Jehovah. If your thinking is sloppy, so will be your understanding of Yahweh.

3. Systematic Theology as distinguished from other classifications…

a. Biblical theology—narrower focus; e.g., studies in the theology of John.

b. Historical theology—e.g., the development of Christology in the early church.

c. Dogmatic theology—e.g., the study of a denomination or creedal system (e.g., Arminianism.)

d. Christian theology—e.g., in this context, it is essentially equivalent to Systematic Theology; in other words, this is not a course really in theology, it is a course in Christian theology.

e. Theology proper—e.g., the study of Father God in contrast to a study of the Son or Holy Spirit).

4. Why is Theology 101 Necessary? As an (a)

a. _____________________ for Christianity. Clearer understanding of the fundamental elements of your faith may give you pause. If you are in fact taking this second birth seriously, then you have committed to give it all up. But for what? As Desi would say, “You’ve got a lot of ‘splain’in to do!”

b. _____________________ for Christianity. From the beginnings of the Christian faith, we have been called upon to give an answer to all who would question or challenge our faith. One does not detect counterfeit by studying the counterfeit bill—one studies the real thing.

c. _______________________ for Christians. Correct doctrine is important—it protects the believer from error (1 John 4:1; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 3:16‐17).



Page 5

Homework for March 15— Just What is It that You Want in YOUR Systematic Theology?

Given what you know so far about Christianity, what you’ve learned so far in this course, identify at three characteristics of a systematic theology which would meet your standards? What must be said about God to make a discourse about Him systematic?

ℵ ___________________________________________________________________

ℵ ___________________________________________________________________

ℵ ___________________________________________________________________



Page 6

5. Requirements—How Do You Know If YOU Have a Systematic Theology?

a. Epistemology—Inspired by God, inerrant Scripture; if not, then human reason becomes the source of authority—reason sits in judgment upon the text of Scripture.

b. Hermeneutics—Proper explication of Scripture is key to a systematic theology; otherwise, Porter’s first law of human behavior comes to bear.4 We must be rigorous in setting aside our biases and filters as we examine the Scriptures.

c. Scientific—Reasoned logic has its place—God made us to think rationally; all Truth is God’s Truth, all has a place in building a better discourse regarding God.

d. Objectivity—Research, scientifically, hermeneutically, and epistemologically sound must be based on inductive research and conclusions, not deductive reasoning. As learners of God—rather than creators of knowledge—our job is to discover what He has already revealed. Our conclusions must “bubble up from” revelation; revelation is never to be used as a handbook against which we check our suppositions. This so‐called “handbook” is in reality a record of God’s interplay with us and His world. It was not written for us; it was written so that we might worship God in a manner that pleases Him—“in spirit and in truth.”

Example of the Problematic Nature of Deductive Reasoning and Research

Research Question—“Should circumcision be practiced by today’s Christian?”

Alternate Hypothesis—“Circumcision plays an important role for today’s Christian.”

Null Hypothesis—“Circumcision has no relevance for today’s Christian.”

Evidence Collected—“Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the lawʹs requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.” [Romans 2:25‐27]

Conclusion: Reject the null hypothesis and accept the proffered (alternate) hypothesis; i.e., according to the evidence, “Circumcision plays an important role for today’s Christian.”

e. Progressive Revelation—In order to understand God’s special revelation of Himself through Scripture, we assume that He has progressively revealed Himself. In other words, we learn more and more about God as we study His revelation through Genesis to Job to Judges to the Gospels to the Epistles to Revelation.

4Porter’s First Law of Human Behavior: “People see, hear, remember, understand, and do what they want to see, hear, remember, understand, and do.”



Page 7

f. Illumination—Even when applying the criteria noted above, we must rely upon Holy Spirit. Part of His ministry is to guide the believer to an understanding of divine truth (1 Corinthians 2:9‐14).

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” [Isaiah 64:4]—10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of [Father] God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the manʹs spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of [Father] God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what [Father] God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by Holy Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words [or Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men]. 14The man without Holy Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

g. Human Limitations—Regardless of our motives, methods, or even the intervention of Holy Spirit, we must recognize our limitations as finite beings. We will never be able to comprehend totally God—we must be satisfied with limited knowledge.

6. Sources of Systematic Theology

a. _______________ sources—Scriptures provide a ______________ source of theology as they reveal God and our relationship to Him. Since God is God, He will have revealed to us what is necessary for us to worship Him. Since that revelation is accurately encoded in the sixty‐six books of Scripture, then the Scriptures are the _____________ source of our knowledge about God. ________________ is also a _____________ source of knowledge about God (Psalm 19). ________________ in its harmonious revelation, is a constant witness concerning God’s personality, eternality, and divine nature (Romans 1:20—“For since the creation of the world, Godʹs invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse”).

b. __________________ sources such as the N__________ creed, the W______________ Confessions, the B_______ F___________ & __________, are important to understand how other Christians over the centuries talked systematically about God. _________________ in spite of its fallibility, is critical to understand affirmations about the Christian faith. ______________ when guided by Holy Spirit is also a ______________ source of systematic



Page 8

theology. _____________, however, must submit to the supernatural, rather than attempting to constrain or delimit the supernatural.5

DIVINE REVELATION

1. “Divine” revelation is apokalupsis (απακαλυπσις, disclosure or unveiling); i.e., divine revelation is that discourse made manifest whereby God reveals Himself to those He wants to worship Him. God discloses truth about Himself that we would otherwise know—revelation does not come through speculation or imagination. Broadly construed, divine revelation is “God’s disclosure of Himself through creation, history, the conscience of humankind and Scripture. It is given in both history and Scripture.”6 Keep these three terms in mind, yet distinguished from each other. They are not interchangeable…

a. R_______________________ = the communication of truth.

b. In______________________ = accurate recording of truth.

c. Il______________________ = understanding of truth

2. General Revelation—while not adequate for salvation, general revelation is nonetheless an important pathway, antecedent to salvation. General revelation reveals specific truths and aspects of God’s nature to all humanity—an essential and preliminary to God’s special revelation.

a. God’s revelation in N____________; the most obvious form of general revelation. Psalm 19:1‐6 demonstrates that the heavens and earth testify to Gods revelation. The orderliness of the universe is evidence of the Master Creator. His eternal power, invisible attributes, and divine nature are made manifest by _______ revelation (Romans 1:18‐21). We are rendered guilty by this revelation—we have no excuse because of God’s revelation through _____________. While this revelation gives us an awareness of God, it is inadequate to provide salvation (cf. Job 12:7‐9; Psalm 8:1‐3; Isaiah 40:12‐14, 26).

b. God’s revelation in P____________ C______________; God’s _______________ is a priori as in sunshine, rain, enabling people to function (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:15‐17). God disciplines His people, intentionally through His active intervention, and naturally through the natural consequences of our sin.

c. God’s revelation through C_________________________; it is a natural part (i.e., God‐given) part of being human. In fact, when social groups, regardless of culture, identify one of their

5As “Westerners” we have an enculturated value against “superstition” and rightly so. Be careful, however, that you NOT let your correct predisposition about superstition invade your acceptance and understanding of the supernatural. Not all that is supernatural is good, and not all that appears superstitious is untrue. Learn to differentiate between the two. 6C.M. Horne, “Revelation,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:86).



Page 9

own as not having this attribute, they either constrain the person, or warehouse them. He/she is an __________________; he/she has no c_______________! Romans 2:14‐15 testifies that God has placed intuitional knowledge about Himself within the heart of humans. “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” Everyone, then has the law of C____________ written on their hearts.

d. God’s revelation through P_____________________. God sustains the universe, provides for it and our continuance (cf. Acts 17:25‐28; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). He has appointed times and boundaries for habitation.

Two Limitations of General Revelation … General revelation is limited because: ℵ Human beings are “d_______________.” The fall of humankind has distorted people’s ability

to reason. For example, the theory of macro evolution is flawed scientifically because of this inability to reason.

ℵ The content does not explain s________________; general revelation points to our Redeemer, and pushes toward seeking a relationship with Him, not how to build a relationship with Him.

3. Special Revelation—provides a sharper and precise focus; it is limited to J_____ t___ C______ and the

S_____________. Since every thing that is reliably known about J______ t___ C______ is known through the S______________, one can conclude that Special Revelation is limited to the S____________________. Examples of Special Revelation abound—Exodus 20:1; Deuteronomy 31:24; Jeremiah 36:4, 6, 27‐28. The best statement perhaps is found in Galatians 1:11‐12 …

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

A. Jesus the Christ is portrayed in Scripture as the ONE who has explained the Father (John

1:18). Jesus demonstrated through His words (e.g., John 6:63; 12:49; 14:10; 17:8) and His works (John 5:36; 10:25, 38; 14:11; 15:24) that He (as in He alone, John 14:6) fully revealed the Father. Both His words and His works are accurately recorded in Scripture. Christ Jesus is the exact representation of God (Hebrews 1:3).

TheoByte: How does being “depraved”

affect one’s reasoning ability? Examples?



Page 10

B. Scripture is the second type of Special Revelation for it is God‐breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and written by men as they were carried along by Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Compare then the two forms of Special Revelation—the Scriptures are the “living written word” (Hebrews 4:12), while Christ Jesus is the living incarnated Word (John 1:1, 14). In the case of the Christ, there was human involvement, but Holy Spirit overshadowed the event (Luke 1:35) thus ensuring a sinless Christ. In the case of the Scriptures, there was human involvement (human authorship), but Holy Spirit superintended the writers (2 Peter 1:21), insuring an inerrant Word. Bottom‐line? The Bible ____________________ presents the Special Revelation of God in Christ.

4. Essential Characteristics of Special Revelation

a. It is H_____________. The revelation concerning Jesus the Christ actually took place. God revealed Himself in history; Jesus lived, died, and rose bodily in history. His bodily resurrection from the grave was an historical event. Neo‐orthodoxy argues that Bible events are “above history.” They argue that it is unnecessary to speak of such events as historical. The problem? Faith without works is dead, and faith without factual support is mere illusion. Can we have any support for our faith if the life, death and resurrection of the Christ are not genuinely historical? Either the events happened or they did not. If they happened, we have a basis for faith. If they did not, we are deluded.

Liberalism, on the other hand, says the Bible is merely a product of history—it is only people’s thoughts and speculation, combined with an amalgamation of other religions. Liberals reject the Bible because it is scientifically unverifiable. Orthodox Christians believe, in contrast, that the Bible is God’s revelation about Himself to people, not people’s speculations about God.

b. It is O_________________. Special revelation comes from outside humans, not from within. By our reasoning alone, we will never understand God, even through Scripture. Holy Spirit intercedes in this quest by His assistance in our study of God’s Word (cf., Exodus 20:1ff; Jeremiah 36:2, 26‐27; Galatians 1:11‐12)

c. It is V_____________. Special revelation comes via “words.” Consider how frequently the Scriptures use this phrase, “The Lord speaks …” “Thus says the Lord occurs over 350 times; “The word of the Lord came…” occurs about 400 times. Words, recorded words, is the key modality for special revelation. When my Christ quoted the Scripture, He emphasized words. Truth is understood through words.

TheoByte: Which is the better form of special revelation, Scripture

or Christ?

TheoByte: Neo-orthodoxy emphasizes subjective experience as the way by which God reveals His truth. How useful is this notion?



Page 11

d. It is C_______________. Special revelation has closure; Note Hebrews 1:1‐2: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” Does this not suggest that no further revelation will be given? That Jesus the Christ is the ultimate and final revelation? Revelation is complete; the canon is closed.

BIBLIOLOGY

A. Meaning of the Bible—The English word “Bible” is derived from the Greek

work βιβλιον which means “book” or “scroll.” The name comes from byblos which connotes the papyrus plant which grew in river banks and marshes, primarily near the Nile. Writing material was made from the papyrus plant in one foot strips and setting same in the sun to dry; a warp and woof structure was created up to 30 feet in length. Hence, there were limitations on the length of a scroll, and we have Luke and Acts as two separate books although they would have probably been one if technology would have supported same.

B. Meaning of “Scripture”—the word translated Scripture comes from the Greek word γραφη (graphai) which means simply “writing.” In the “Old” Testament, this writing carried great authority (2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 23:18; Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 10:34). In the “New” Testament, the designations vary… 1. “the Scriptures” designating collectively all the parts of Scripture (cf. Matthew 21:42; 22:29; 26:54;

Luke 24:27, 32, 45; John 5:39; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 3:16) or individual parts of Scripture (Mark 12:10; 15:28; John 13:18; 19:24, 36; Acts 1:16; 8:35; Romans 11:2; 2 Tim. 3:16)

2. “the Scripture says,” fairly equivalent with quoting God (cf. Galatians 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18) 3. “Holy Scriptures” (Romans 1:2); the absence of the definite article in the phrase graphais hagiais

draws attention to “holy” which is also the emphatic form of the Greek text. 4. “Sacred Writings,” heira grammata (2 Timothy 3:15) The classic passage, of course, is 2 Timothy 3:16 which shows these are not ordinary writings, but are in fact “God‐breathed.” Ergo, they are authoritative and error‐free.



Page 12

REALITY CHECK INTERLUDE

Some Examples of Challenges to the Accuracy of Scripture 1. How could Isaiah, for example, know the name of the ruler who would conquer Israel 150 years in

advance (Cyrus)? Issue: “Fortelling versus forthtelling.”

2. Why are there such dramatic differences between the first part of Isaiah and the second part of Isaiah? Surely there are two authors—Isaiah could not have written both.

3. Why is the Greek in 2 Peter so crude compared to 1 Peter? Surely, Peter could have not written both. 2 Peter must be apocryphal.

4. Who wrote Deuteronomy 34? If Moses did not, then why kvetch about other authors of the Torah?

These questions were derivative of the Enlightenment movement, and Deism7 was the rage of this new age; it was socially acceptable theology for those delighted by enlightened reason. It continues today by many who “believe in God,” but have no manifest desire to have a personal relationship with Him, much less a submissive relationship. Modern deism allows humans to satisfy their drive to know God without responsibility—like a man who wishes to have sex with a woman with “no strings attached.” It is a profane, seductively idolatrous theology.

This is another example of how depravity affects rationality; to wit, when people reject the sovereignty of God, and accept human reason alone (sola rationalite’), they can easily conclude that God is only revealed by human logic.

Orthodox Christianity, like orthodox science, begins with premises (articles of faith) which allow understanding to commence. Consider the fundamental premises (assumptions)…

Theistic Christianity Premises Deistic Christianity Premises

A. God is.

B. God reveals Himself (through special revelation).

C. And, because He is God, He reveals Himself accurately, through special revelation.

A. God is.

B. God reveals Himself (through natural revelation).

C. And, because He is God, He is discovered accurately only through rational processes.

7Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature—a noninterventionist creator—who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. Like a “clockmaker god” initiating the cosmic process, the universe moves forward, without needing God’s supervision. Deism believes that precise and unvarying laws define the universe as self-operating and self-explanatory. These laws reveal themselves through “the light of reason and nature.” Reliance on the power of reasoning exchanges faith for human logic. For example, God is identified through nature and reason, not revelation. Deists who believe in God, or at least

TheoByte: What is the soteriological implication of Deism?



Page 13

THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE — _____________________ is the key construct.

A. The Bible as its own witness. The Bible itself claims some 3,808 times, “God said …” or “Thus, says the Lord … “ (e.g., Exodus 14:1; 20:1, Isaiah 1:10, 18, 14; Jeremiah 1:4, 11; 3:11; 4:27) Such claims are not limited to the Hebrew scriptures; Paul recognized that what he was writing were the Lord’s commandments (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:40; 14:37). They were also recognized as such by believers (1 Thessalonians 2:13). John also recognized his teachings in 1 John (4:6) was from God—to reject said teachings was to reject God. For those who would reject the above claims, these men were reliable people who defended the integrity of Scripture (consider Jeremiah—his family {12:6} rejected him for such a defense, they tried to kill him {11:21}, and counterfeits were readily recognized {23:21, 32; 28:1‐17}). Contrast the ___________________ of Joseph Smith of the Mormon cult and Mary Baker Eddy of the Christian Science cult. The Bible records that many reliable folk felt the Scriptures valid—including Jesus, Joshua, Moses, Daniel, John, Paul, Nehemiah, and others. This is not circular reasoning for the Scriptures testify to a compilation of witnesses to the Scriptures, not circular reasoning.

B. Continuity of the Bible. In contrast to the Islamic Qu’ran, for example, or the Hindu’s Bagavagida, the Bible is a unified whole. For example, the Qu’ran was compiled by one individual, Ziad ibn Thabit, under the guidance of Mohammed’s father‐in‐law, Abu‐Bekr. Because of so many disparate copies of the Qu’ran, a group of Arab scholars produced a unified version and destroyed all variant copies to preserve its unity (650AD). In contrast, the Bible comes from some forty different authors, authors with diverse backgrounds—Moses, the political leader; Joshua, the military leader; David, the shepherd; Solomon, the king; Matthew, the tax collector; Peter, the fisherman; Paul, the tent maker; Daniel, the prime minister. What would happen today if such a diverse group were to write a book, separately and without many knowing what the others had written? Would it have the consistent continuity of the Bible? Holy Spirit was indeed active (2 Peter 1:16‐21).

C. Continuation of the Bible. The Bible continues to be a best seller. As of 1804, 409,000,000 had been published; as of the 1932, 1,330,213,815 copies. In 1996 alone, there were 87,398,961 Bibles published. So? In 303AD Diocletian ordered that all Christians and their sacred books were to be destroyed. As the years progressed, just the opposite happened. In the middle of the “enlightenment” (1778), a divine principle, follow few if any of the other tenets and practices of Christianity, Judaism, or any religion believing in a personal God. Any deist god is an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. As retrieved March 20, 2009 at http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

TheoByte: What is the difference between “empirical,” “experiential,” “authority” and “revelation” as a basis for evidence?



Page 14

Voltaire the famous atheist philosopher proclaimed that in 100 years from his time the Bible would not be read and Christianity would be gone—Robespierre attempted to do just that by outlawing Christianity during the French revolution (1790’s). Within 50 years of Voltaire’s death, his former house was used by the Geneva Bible Society to distribute Bibles, using Voltaire’s own printing press. God is smart (and I believe laughing when he heard Voltaire make his foolish boast). The biggest threat to the revelationary validity of the Bible started in the, and continues from until now, 18th century—the age of reason, or enlightenment. Moses as the source of the Torah was challenged; late dating of the epistles; even, repudiation of Jesus’ words in the gospels by the so‐called “Jesus Seminar.” In the midst of all this, the Bible continues to be regarded as what it is: __________________ from God, and not just a historical document redacted to make people or a set of ideas “look good.”

D. Fulfilled Prophecies by the Bible. Some 332 prophecies were fulfilled by the Bible concerning Jesus alone. Given hundreds of years before His life on earth. Consider these as a small sample:

Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46 Psalm 22:7 Matthew 27:39 Psalm 22:8 Matthew 27:43 Psalm 22:16 John 20:25 Psalm 22:17 John 19:33 Psalm 22:18 John 19:24 Psalm 34:20 John 19:36 Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:6 Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23

Other examples of fulfilled prophecies include Daniel’s predictions of the successive world empires of Babylon, Medo‐Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2:31‐43; 7:4‐8). Isaiah mentioned the advent of Cyrus, the Persian king, by name as the one who would allow the Israelites to return from captivity (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). Isaiah lived circa 740‐680BC; Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539BC, approximately 150 years after Isaiah prophesied. Josiah was also predicted by name between 931‐910BC (1 Kings 13:2) while beginning his monarchy in 640BC. The probability of just 48 prophecies of the Bible coming true by chance/coincidence is as likely as one chance in ten to the power of 157 [10157] (Josh McDowell, Evidence Demands a Verdict, pages 175‐176).



Page 15

THE REVELATION CONSTRUCT AS VALID EVIDENCE

Psalm 19:1‐6 Reveals God’s existence Reveals God’s glory In Nature

Romans 1:18‐21 Reveals God’s omnipotence Reveals God will judge

Matthew 5:45 Reveals God is benevolent to all people Acts 14:15‐17 Reveals God provides food for all people In Providential Control Daniel 2:21 Reveals God raises up and removes rulers

General Revelation

In Conscience Romans 2:14‐15 Reveals God has placed His laws within the hearts of all people

John 1:18 Jesus revealed what Father God is like

John 6:63; 14:10 Jesus’ works reveal Father God gives life to those who believe in the Son

In Christ

John 5:36‐37 Jesus’ works reveal Father God’s compassion

2 Timothy 3:16‐17 Scriptures are God‐breathed; hence, the Scriptures are profitable for teaching and training in righteousness.

Special Revelation

In Scripture

2 Peter 1:21 Scriptures are a product of Holy Spirit superintending the writers; hence, the Scriptures are trustworthy.



Page 16

THE WORD OF GOD:

TWO LIVING REVELATIONS LIVING INCARNATE WORD:

JESUS THE CHRIST (John 1:1)

LIVING WRITTEN WORD: THE BIBLE

(Hebrews 4:12)

Human Parents

Holy Spirit Overshadowing

(Luke 1:35)

Human Authors

Holy Spirit Superintending

(2 Peter 1:21) Without Sin Without Error

INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

A. Necessary? Inspiration is a natural consequence of our third premise. Furthermore, if our Scripture is not inspired, by God (specifically Holy Spirit), then His revelation is subject to question and does not correspond to our third premise.

B. Definition? Holy Spirit’s the writers/compilers/redactors so that while writing with their own styles and personalities, the result was God’s Word written, authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs. When we speak of “inspiration,” there are five key elements which belong in our definition:

a) Divinity—Holy Spirit superintending the writers, insuring accuracy. b) Humanity—human authors wrote according to their

individual styles and personalities. c) Inerrancy—the divine‐human authorship is the recording of

God’s truth without error. d) Linguistic—inspiration extends to the selection of words by

the writers. e) Originality—inspiration relates to the ______________ manuscripts.

C. False Views of Inspiration? There are at least five, and while each is “useful” for its particular

progenitor, each also has its particular shortcomings with the truth. 1. ______________ Inspiration—teaches that there is nothing particularly supernatural about biblical

texts. People with unusual ability wrote the books of the Bible in the same way any individual would write any other book. Problems: (a) How can this approach accept, “Thus, says the Lord

TheoByte: Why is this phrase, “… in the original autographs,” a common element in the understanding of Biblical “inspiration?”

TheoByte: Why is it critical that inspiration extends to the selection of words by the writers?



Page 17

…”? Thus, the Bible would be no more authoritative that the works of other great men such as Shakespeare, Plato, or John Wesley. Furthermore, (b) The canon would not be closed; this is an untenable premise given the 1900 years since the Scriptures were written. Finally (c), this theory asserts that the Scriptures were conceived and created by what they wrote, not God.

2. ________________ Illumination—teaches some Christians have special spiritual insight; in this

view any devout Christian, illuminated by Holy Spirit, can be the author of inspired Scripture. Folks who support this notion claim that it is not the writings that are inspired, but the writers who are inspired. The writers did not communicate any more objective truth than their ability to discover or understand. Problems: (a) Again, the canon would not be closed. (b) Who would determined what is inspired? (c) Remember, writers are not inspired—Paul, for example, wrote four letters to the Corinthians. We have only two.

3. _______________ Inspiration—teaches that parts of the Bible, related to key issues of faith and

practice are inspired, but when related to history, chronology, science or other non‐faith matters, the Bible may be wrong, and that is not a problem. To wit, the Bible was written to reveal God, not to be a history book, or science manual, or an agricultural guidebook. Problems: (a) Determining which is inspired and which parts contain error. (b)Who determines what parts are trustworthy and which have error? (c) How can we separate doctrine from history? See Matthew 1:17,18—history of the virgin birth; 20:28‐29—verse 28 = atonement, verse 29 = history. (d) Is it logical for the Bible to be trustworthy in one area, and untrustworthy in another?

4. _______________________ Inspiration—teaches that the ideas of the writers are inspired, but not

the words. Thus “errors” in Scripture are word choices, not a function of Holy Spirit’s superintending. Problems: (a) Jesus (Matthew 5:18) and Paul (1 Thess. 2:13) both affirm that Scripture is inspired in its words; (b) Changing the words, changes the concepts; one can not separate the two; (c) Words are important (John 6:63; 17:8; Galatians 3:16).

5. ____________________ Dictation—teaches that God literally dictated the words of Scripture and

men wrote them down as Holy Spirit directed them. People were mere _____________ who wrote the words they were told to write. Problems: (a) While some of the Bible was indeed dictated (Exodus 20:1ff), books of the Bible reveal quite different styles and vocabulary. If this theory were true, then the books would be uniform—they are not. (b)Human feelings would be meaningless (cf. Romans 9:1‐5); conservative evangelicals are often accused of this untenable theory of inspiration.

6. ____________________ View—teaches that the Bible is not to be equated exactly with the Word of

God. “God does not speak in mere propositions, nor mere facts about Himself; He reveals Himself. The Bible is not the substance of the Word of God, but rather the witness to the Word of God. It becomes the Word of God as the reader encounters Christ in his own subjective

Theo-Byte Warning: Be gentle with your use of “inspired,” especially as it relates to matters spiritual.



Page 18

experience.” For example, purveyors of this idea argue “that whether or not Christ actually rose from the dead is unimportant … in this view the authority of the authority is the subjective experience of the individual rather than the Scriptures themselves.”8

Problems: a) Authority of feelings/experiences? b) What would you conclude from John 8:47 and/or John

12:48? Matthew 5:18? c) What are the objective criteria for evaluating what would constitute a “legitimate” encounter

with God? d) Who would be able to distinguish between myth and truth? e) Is the work of Holy Spirit being ignored here (2 Peter 1:21)?

A BIBLICAL VIEW OF INSPIRATION—CHRIST’S VIEW Christ’s view of the Bible—Perhaps a better witness for the Bible’s inspiration is not 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:21 but the Christ.

ℵ In Matthew 5:17‐18 Christ declared that the smallest letter or stroke would not pass from the Law until it was fulfilled.

ℵ In Luke 24:44, all things written about Him must be fulfilled. (Note by this threefold designation of the Old Testament, Christ affirmed the inspiration and authority of the entire TaNaKh.

ℵ Regarding His right to be called the Son of God, He used Scripture—Psalm 82:6; see also John 10:35.

ℵ Christ continually used Scripture to refute Satan’s arguments (Matthew 4:4,7,10); note the Greek perfect tense there (γεγραπται) emphasizes its permanence. That is, “it has been written and it remains written to this day” or “it stands written.”

ℵ What about the actual words’ inspiration? My Christ was defending the doctrine of resurrection to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:32. He quotes Exodus 3:6—His entire argument is based on the words “I am.” Jesus was supplying the verb which the Hebrew text only implies—He supported the Septuagint version which does include the verb. See also Matthew 22:44. Even though the Pharisees thought the Messiah was a political redeemer, Jesus shows them in His quotation from Psalm 110:1 that David, Israel’s greatest king, saw Messiah as greater than himself, calling Him Lord. The entire argument of Christ rests on the phrase “my Lord.” In the Hebrew text, the word “my” is simply the letter vodh (‘) appended to the end of the 8These quotes which describe the Neo-orthodox View of inspiration is taken from Paul Enns’ text, The Moody Handbook of Theology. You can be assured that Dr. Enns is not neo-orthodox in his view of Scripture.

Theo-Byte: What is the problem with arguing that the Bible is not the Word of God, but contains the Word of God? See John 1:1 for support of this premise.

Theo-Byte: How is Christ a better witness for the inerrancy of the Scriptures than 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:21? And His use of Exodus 3:6 in Matthew 22:32?



Page 19

noun, “Lord.” By quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus based his argument on the inspiration of the precise words “my Lord.” Otherwise, His argument would have been faulty and in vain.

ℵ And what was Jesus’ attitude about the “New” Testament? In John 14:26, He indicated Holy Spirit would provide accurate recall for the apostles as they penned the words of Scripture. Their accuracy was guaranteed (John 16:12‐15). Bottom‐line—is it legitimate to hold a lower view of Scripture that He held?

”Inerrancy”—Is It Really Important?

1. If the Bible is not inerrant, it impugns the _____________ of _________. 2. If the Bible is not inerrant, it is not __________________________.

3. If the Bible is not inerrant, it bears _______ witness against itself because it claims ___________________.

The Nature of Inerrancy:

1. Allows for a variety in style—compare Luke with John. 2. Allows for variety in details explaining the same event. Remember, Jesus spoke Aramaic; the authors

had to translate His speech and the events into Greek. One author was there at a different time than another; they were attempting to make different points about My Christ—both of which are correct, but not the same. Consider this classic example:

Matthew 20:29‐34 Mark 10:46‐52 Luke 18:35‐43 ℵ Jesus is leaving Jericho ℵ Two blind men cry out to

Jesus

ℵ Jesus is leaving Jericho ℵ A blind beggar, Bartimaeus, cries

out to Jesus

ℵ Jesus is approaching Jericho ℵ A certain blind beggar cries

out to Jesus

Solution? ℵ There were ____________ Jericho’s in Jesus’ time. Jesus was leaving old Jericho and going to the

new. ℵ There were ____________ blind men, but one, Bartimaeus, was well known. ℵ All three accounts are true and consistent with the facts.

3. Inerrancy does not demand _________________ reporting of events. Psalm 22:1; Hebrews 2:6 & 4:4. Scrolls were not always available, and if available could not always be rolled out.



Page 20

4. Inerrancy allows for departure from _________________ forms of grammar. Mixing metaphors is a problem in English, but in Greek or Hebrew? Not really—read John 10:9 and then read John 10:11.

5. Inerrancy allows for problem passages—some await archaeologist’s findings, others may never be resolved on this side of glory. See Gleason’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties for an excellent review of problem passages.

6. Inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction. Details may vary, but the Scriptures still reflect things as they were, and are. Compare Matthew 8:5‐13 and Luke 7:1‐10. (Solution: it appears the elders first came and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion came himself. Both accounts are in accord with things as they were.) Objections to Inerrancy 1. Some claim there are historical errors in the Bible. Hittites? Writing at the time of Moses and the

Pentateuch? 2. Some claim writers made mistakes when quoting from the TaNaKh. Translation? Intent to quote

verbatim? Never is there a mis‐representation. 3. Writers were some times inaccurate with the facts. Inscription on the cross? “This is Jesus the

Nazarene the King of the Jews.” 4. Inerrancy relates to the original manuscripts, but we don’t have them. Because we don’t have

them does not nullify inerrancy; the problem is not inerrancy, but manuscript transmission. Copies carry the authority of the original text—Jesus and Paul quoted from the Septuagint, and based their arguments with opponents on the reading of the Septuagint—a translation.

Problems in Rejecting Inerrancy

1. Errantists conclude errors can teach truth. These details do not matter, so there is no need to defend the inerrancy of the entire Scriptures.

2. Errancy impugns the character of God. 3. Errantists disagree about what “errors” are errors.



Page 21

Canonicity of the Bible

A. Definition—given that the Scriptures are inspired by God, then a critical question arises: Which books are inspired? Why were some books accepted, others questioned, and others rejected outright? “Canon” is an English word used to describe books that are inspired by God. Derived from the Greek word κανον (kanon) and also possibly from the Hebrew qaneh which signifies a “measuring rod.” Thus, “canon” came to signify the standards by which books were measured to ascertain whether they were inspired or not. Canonical books, therefore, are those books which have met these tests. On one level, canonicity is not rocket science—given our three premises: (1) God is, (2) God reveals Himself, and (3) Being God, He will reveal Himself perfectly. Ergo, let us ascertain your natural understanding of canonicity. What measures would you use to test whether a document was inspired by God?

1. _________________________________________________________________________

2. _________________________________________________________________________

3. _________________________________________________________________________

4. _________________________________________________________________________

Jews and Christians alike have recognized the 39 books (fewer for Jews as they combine, for example, Kings into one book, as they do also with Chronicles). Evangelical Protestants recognize 27 books of the New Testament as inspired. In 1546 (Council of Trent), the Roman Catholic church recognized the Apocrypha as semi‐canonical. The King James Bible of 1611 also includes the Apocrypha.

B. Canonicity of the “Old Testament”— The Masoretic (Hebrew) text of the OT divided the 39 books into 3 categories: (1) Law (Torah, Pentateuch); (2) Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, major and minor prophets); (3) Writings (sometimes called the “Psalms,” including poetry and wisdom books—Psalms Proverbs

and Job—Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; historical books—Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and 1&2 Chronicles).

Theo-Byte: What criteria would YOU use to test whether a document was inspired by God?

Theo-Byte: “Books were canonical when written, but often only recognized as canonical later.” P. Enns, 9/11/2006



Page 22

By the time of the NT, this three‐fold organizational scheme was recognized (Luke 24:44). It was in AD 90 that the Council of Jamnia recognized publicly the canon we use today for the OT. For a view of the canon from Christ’s perspective, consider this chart…

TANAKH Torah Nebi’im (prophets) Kethubim (writings)

Gen

esis

Ex

odus

Le

vitic

us

Num

bers

D

eute

rono

my

Josh

ua

Judg

es

Sam

uel

Kin

gs

Isai

ah

Jere

mia

h Ez

ekie

l Th

e Tw

elve

Psal

ms

Job

Prov

erbs

Rut

h So

ng o

f Sol

omon

Ec

cles

iast

es

Lam

enta

tions

Es

ther

Dan

iel

Ezra

/Neh

emia

h C

hron

icle

s (en

ds

at 5

39B

C)

1 (Torah is a

single book)

1 (Four Former) Joshua Judges Samuel Kings

2 (Four Latter) Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel and The Twelve

1 Psalms

Job Proverbs

2 Ruth

Song of Solomon

(Canticles) Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)

Lamentations Esther

3 Daniel Ezra-

Nehemiah Chronicles

(ends at 539BC)

The Seams

In Kings: Elijah & Elisha are the key prophets, the proffers of salvation providers, yeshua.

Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah

Haggai Zechariah Malachi

The Seams

Joshua 1 Deuteronomy 34

Malachi 3 Psalms 1-2

Malachi 3:22-24 Deuteronomy 34:10

Joshua 1:8 Psalms 1:3

Salvation nomenclature derivatives (theophoric elements) …

ℵ Joshua son of Nun ℵ Elisha ℵ Isaiah “Yahweh is salvation.” Y’sa’-Yahu ℵ Hosea (hoshea, Joshua’s first name) ℵ Joshua son of Jehozadaq

All built on a Hebrew root “yeshua,” to save. All of these are at the “seams;” ergo, the organizer was trying to tell us something about the beginnings and endings of looking forward to salvation. For example, Psalms begin the Kethubim, and the man in Psalm 1 is perfect, the ultimate Joshua (Yeshua); Chronicles end the Kethubim with Joshua son of Jehozadaq—He’s still yet to come.



Page 23

Specific Tests to Consider So Canonicity May Be Recognized Regarding the TaNaKh

(1) Intrinsic evidence of divine authorship. Did the book indicate Divine authorship? Did it reflect God speaking through a mediator? (cf., Exodus 20:1; Joshua 1:1; Isaiah 2:1)? Was the human author a spokesperson for God?

(2) Prophet. Was he/she a prophet or did she/he have the prophetic gift (cf., Deuteronomy 31:24‐26); 1 Samuel 10:25; Nehemiah 8:3; Deuteronomy 18)?

(3) Accuracy. Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts? (4) Reception by Jews. How was the book received by the Jews? By 90AD, the Council of Jamnia

reflected wide‐spread acceptance of the 39 books of the OT as canonical. (5) Reception by the Church. How was the book received by the church? The New Testament quotes 36

of the 39 OT books (but not Esther, Ecclesiastes, nor Song of Solomon). The books of the OT were divinely inspired and authoritative the moment they were written. Human recognition of same was normally immediate as people recognized the writers as spokespersons for God. The collection of these books into a canon was noted by Josephus as accomplished during the time of Artaxerxes (465‐425BC); afterwards no authorized books were added to this collection.9

C. Problem of the Apocrypha—from the Greek meaning “hidden” and refers to 14 books written between 300BC and 100AD in Israel. Rejected initially by Jerome who developed the first user‐friendly translation (Vulgate, written Latin) in 405, the Apocrypha were determined to be “semi‐canonical” and added to the Roman Catholic scriptures after Jerome’s death.

Nota Bene: Pope Damasus argued we need a verified Latin translation of the Bible—this would help, he thought, to establish the centrality of Rome’s Bishop/see for the church. (It did.) So he commissioned Jerome to do so 380-384. Jerome finished the Vulgate in 405.

1. Starting with the Psalms in Greek (LXX), he decided to work from the Hebrew. 2. Discovered the Hebrew did not include the Apocrypha even though it was part of the Septuagint (LXX).

He concluded the Apocrypha were not inspired texts. 3. Jerome’s translation, originally, had 66 books as today’s canon, but the Apocrypha were added after his

death (some time after 420) 4. Jerome also rejected the Latin version of the Apocrypha because the style was so different. 5. The Vulgate, ironically, was not accepted until the 8th century and was not used until the 13th century

when Latin was dead as a common language. No one was reading Latin in the 8th century and in the 13th Yikes! Deader than dead.

6. Council of Trent in 1546 ruled that the only acceptable version of the Bible was the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek and Hebrew texts. For example, in Acts 2:38, the Latin reads “_____ ________” instead of the Greek “_________.”

Reasons for Rejecting the Apocrypha as Canonical

9D. Guthrie, “Bible,” in Merrill C. Tenney, ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5 Volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975, 1:560.



Page 24

(1) They were never quoted in the NT. (2) They were not recognized by Christ or the other Jews of His day. Josephus and Philo, who listed

canonical books of the OT, did not recognize the Apocrypha as inspired. (3) They do not claim to be inspired, nor do they read like inspired books. They are in some cases simply

history, and in other cases, fiction. (4) They contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. For example, Judith 1:7, 11 says

Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians—nope; it was the Babylonians. (5) They contain teaching that contradicts Scripture:

a. They advocate prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42‐45 vs. Hebrews 9:27) b. They justify suicide (2 Maccabees 14:41‐46 vs. Romans 8:28) c. They teach almsgiving atones for sin (2 Maccabees 3:32 vs. Romans 3:25) d. They teach the pre‐existence of souls (2 Maccabees 8:19‐20) e. They teach that the end justifies the means (see Ephesians 4). f. Their teaching is rejected in Malachi 4:4‐5 since that passage anticipates no Scripture between

Old and New Testaments.

D. Canonicity of the New Testament—several factors facilitated the recognition of a New Testament canon. Among them were:

(1) Spurious writings and attacks on genuine writings led to recognition. Marcion, for example, rejected the OT and NT writings outside of the Pauline letters; he also altered Luke’s gospel to suit his doctrine.

(2) The content of the NT writings were a priori as to authenticity; they were naturally collected, being recognized as canonical.

(3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship—hence, it was necessary to determine which of those writings were canonical. See for example, Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 3:14. Paul recognized his writing as canonical.

(4) Ultimately, the edict of Emperor Diocletian in 303AD demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the NT collection. Apostolic Era—the process of recognition and collection took place in the first centuries of the Christian church. This process began very early. Paul, for example, quotes Luke’s writing on a par with the OT—1 Timothy quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and refers to both texts as “the Scripture says.” Peter also recognized Paul’s writing as Scripture (canonical; 2 Peter 3:15‐16). Letters were being read in the churches and even circulated among same (cf. Colossians 4:16 or 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Post‐Apostolic Era—the early church fathers recognized the canon in their correspondence and teaching. As early as 170, the Muratorian Canon listed all the NT books except for Hebrews, James, and one epistle of John. By 397 at the Council of Carthage, the church recognized and affirmed that only those 39 and 27 books were canonical; i.e., read in church.



Page 25

Specific Tests to Consider So Canonicity May Be Recognized Regarding the New Testament

(1) Apostolicity. Was the author an apostle (John) or have a connection with an apostle? (Luke or Mark). Hence, for example, early questions about James. Authority is the key issue; see 2 Corinthians 12:12.

(2) Acceptance. Was the book accepted by the church at large? By this standard a variety of books were rejected and some legitimate books were delayed in recognition (e.g., Hebrews).

(3) Content. Did the book reflect doctrine consistent with what had been accepted as orthodox teaching? Did the book reflect consistency with previously determined inspired books (e.g., the Psalms)? The Gospel of Peter was rejected using this principle.

(4) Inspiration. Did the book reflect the quality of inspiration—the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were both rejected because of so little high moral and spiritual value that Holy Spirit reflects normally in His writings.

(5) Worship. Was the book used in Christian worship? Early Christians did not have their own copies of the Scriptures, and many were illiterate. The inspired books of the NT were read in the churches.

E. Is the Canon Closed? Since 397AD, Christians have held that the canon of the Bible is complete; if complete, then it must be closed. If a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. Not all of what the apostles wrote was canonical—there are letters that Paul wrote that are not in the NT (the letter to the Laodiceans; the other two letters to the Corinthians).

Theo-Byte: Is the canon closed today? And, why is this an important issue?



Page 26

THEOLOGY PROPER Introduction … now that we have established:

1. The premises (assumptions) under which we operate: ℵ God is. ℵ God reveals Himself. ℵ Being God, God reveals Himself perfectly.

2. Our epistemology: ℵ We treat Scripture not as empirical evidence, nor as narrative evidence, nor as textual evidence,

nor as historical evidence. ℵ We treat Scripture as revealed truth, from God Himself. Ergo, Scripture is inspired, complete, and

true in its original autographs. ℵ While Scripture does have empirical, narrative, textual, and historical dimensions, Scripture is at

its core, the special (revealed) word of God—i.e., the Son is the Λογος, Scripture reveals the Λογος. We can create a systematic discourse about God; i.e., we can think logically and reverentially about the Creator of the universe; i.e., “Theology Proper.” According to Chafer, theology proper is “ … a scientific investigation into what may be known of the existence, Persons, and characteristics of the Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—and quite apart from their works.”10 Four Knowledge Sources Regarding God

1. Intuition—while imperfect because of our natural senses, it is still incomplete, yet valid to a point (see Romans 1:18‐20). 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world Godʹs invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Intuition can in fact be rational—it is the product of reason, and it is accessible by all (note the Greek poet Epimenides’ comment about God, Acts 17:28). Intuition expresses itself by dependence upon, obligation to, and worship of God.

10L.S.Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:129.

Theo-Byte: Why is “intuition” insufficient to “know” God?



Page 27

2. Tradition—Adam’s experience with God was passed on from generation to generation; remember at one time, passing on tradition was education. Currently, tradition continues this role, but much more subtle. In our society, many are agnostic regarding “tradition.” In contemporary times, we often declare rhetorically, “Just because it once was …” without ever asking why was it that way. Tradition, then, has value in understanding why we believe what we believe about God, even though, like intuition, it has its limits.

3. Reason—All theistic arguments (e.g., cosmological, teleological, or anthropological come from “reason.” Through reason, it is logical to assert God exists because of extant evidence; to wit: ℵ Attributes of justice and judgment (Romans 1:20)—all have sense of justice. ℵ Eternal power; omnipotence (Psalm 19:1; Isaiah 40:12)—all of physics seeks to understand the

essence of energy, mass, and matter. ℵ Divine nature (Romans 1:20)—if existence is not promulgated

by the Divine, then what? The Divine is the Occam’s razor of creation.

ℵ Patience of God (Romans 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)—given the amount of evil in the world, it seems logical there would be consequences for same. In fact, this evil is so pervasive that it either shows God is not a God of justice, or that God is a God of patience.

ℵ Sustainer (Acts 14:16‐17; Colossians 1:17)—observables regarding the second law of thermodynamics says that all systems are in a state of continuing entropy (chaos), yet other observables suggest otherwise—Who is holding the universe together?

ℵ Giver of life (Acts 17:28; Epimenides the Cretan philosopher)—Life had to begin from non‐life; ergo, something/someone must have created life. God is a reasonable choice.

4. Revelation—Is the only reliable form whereby people may know God through the living written

word (2 Timothy 3:15), and the living incarnate word (John 1:14; 17:3)—the Λογος became flesh. Knowledge Limitations

1. We know God through special revelation—God’s manifestation as the Son of God, and God’s empowerment through Holy Spirit. Since we only know the Christ through the Bible by Holy Spirit’s empowering influence, the Bible in essence is ultimately the only source of revelation (cf., John 1:18; 17:3, 1 John 5:20; Hebrews 1:1‐3).

2. Our knowledge is limited to our understanding of the Son of God—God’s “perfect expression” (Hebrews 1:1‐3), and God’s fullness (Colossians 1:19). Given the holiness of God, His enormity, and His omniscience, our understanding should always be a source of humility, and not a source of pride. God is God; we are not—to understand Him completely is beyond our human capability—intellectually and spiritually.

Theo-Byte: There’s lots of proof (e.g., the creation) to support the “God hypothesis,” but what evidence would you use to disprove this hypothesis?



Page 28

Theo-Byte: What is the problem with “modalistic monarchianism?”

TRINITARIANISM—ITS DEVELOPMENT AND CORE OF THEOLOGY PROPER Understanding God as Trinity began not just in Scripture (Genesis 1:2; 1:26, 3:22; Matthew 28:19; John 14: 26), but was alive and well in the early church as evidenced by comments of Clement, Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras. Unfortunately, the crisis of the Christ (just who was/is the “son” of God), was not resolved immediately (nor is it resolved today). Most Westerners accept the notion of Father God, and mistakenly accept the notion of Holy Spirit as Father God’s power (Athenagoras), but the “illogical” (according to Greek/Western logic) construct of Trinity was and is a stumbling block. Son has been equated with inequality; hence, Justin Martyr gave the Son second, and Holy Spirit third place in Trinity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion—as such, the whole notion that God is Father God, God the Son and God Holy Spirit became a snare; it is indeed problematic. The easiest way to resolve the paradox, unfortunately, was and has been to reduce the deity of Christ. Resolution of this paradox, without defaming Christ’s deity led to a variety of useful, but unbiblical, notions:

1. Modalistic monarchianism—God was one God who manifested Himself as Father, other times as the Son, and other times as Holy Spirit (aka patripiassainism, Sabellianism).

2. Arianism—attempting to defeat modalistic notions, Arius (elder at Alexandria) taught that to assert Christ as eternal would to affirm two Gods. Arius, therefore, taught the Son had a beginning; He was created prior to all other creation; He was not of the same substance (homoousios) as Father God. Athanasius opposed Arius by arguing the oneness of God while maintaining three distinct persons within the Godhead; he also held that the Christ was eternal, unlike Arius. The Council of Nicea, 325, was called by the emperor to resolve the conflict. They did by rejecting Arianism and affirming the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousion) with Father God and essentially quoted Colossians 1. For the majority of bishops there, the Christ was fully and equally man and deity. The full issue of homoosion vs. homoosious was not resolved, officially, until the emperor (Theodosius) called the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Unfortunately, the crisis continued for Arius also taught that Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son (see Mark 1:12; Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1). Again, Athanasius argued for homoosion for Holy Spirit. The Council of Constantinople also resolved this issue by emphasizing, incorrectly, that Holy Spirit was



Page 29

not subordinated to the Son or the Father, but was, correctly, of the same substance as Father and Son.

Nota Bene: : When we look at Scripture which reveals the personality and work of each of the three Persons, we see all three submitting to the other. The Son was always glorifying the Father; the Son declared that attributing good works to Satan instead of Holy Spirit was the unforgiveable sin. The Son was the most angry when the Father or the Spirit were denigrated. The Father was pleased to “have all His [Father God] fullness dwell in Him [Christ];” hear my Son in whom I am�

“theology 101: what we really believe about god” · 2012. 2. 1. · “theology 101: what we...

Documents