ST 601 Bibliology and TheologyWest Coast Baptist College

J. Michael Lester, Instructor

I. IntroductionA. The 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.

B. 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.

C. 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.”1

D. 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.

II. Supernatural Origin of the BibleA. Uploaded at http://lester.wcbc.edu is an article by Benjamin B. Warfield

B. The article needs to be read – “The Divine Origin of the Bible”

1 John A. Witmer, “The Twentieth Century – Battleground of Bibliology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 111 (April 1954).

C. We are not dealing with a book that is just like any other book

1. We do not approach this book like the liberal2. We have certain presuppositions that we bring to our interpretative tasks.3. 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 fool…”

III. Logical Organization of the BibleA. For the Old Testament

1. Torah (The Law)2. Nebiim (The Prophets)3. Kethubim (The Writings) 4. See Luke 24:44B. For the New Testament

1. The Gospels2. The Acts3. The Epistles

a. Pastoral

b. Prison

c. Church

d. General

4. The Revelation

IV. Chronological Organization of the BibleA. Civilizations

1. In the OT, there is a progressiona. One man becomes two people

b. Two people become a family

c. A family becomes a fountain head

d. Descendants build cities

e. Cities develop culture

f. This culture leads to civilizations

g. These civilizations lead to nations, world powers, wars, etc

2. The OT tells the story of how a certain family interacted with all of these civilizationsa. From Adam to Noah, evil reigns and God judges

b. Noah has a son named Shem

c. Shem has a great grandson, Eber

d. Eber has a great, great grandson, Nahor

e. Nahor begets Terah, who begets Abraham

f. To Abraham, a covenant is made which sets his descendants, and specifically his descendants from Isaac, apart from all other families.

g. It is this special covenant group that the OT follows through its ups and downs.

3. As the Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Moabites, etc play a part in furthering the story of Israel’s covenant relationship with God, they are mentioned by the biblical writers.

B. Dispensations

1. InnocenceMan was created innocent, not perfect. Responsibilities included: Being fruitful, having dominion, and obeying GodEnds in Disobedience and Death

2. ConscienceTheir eyes are opened and they feel shame and guiltConscience is not enough to govern manThis dispensation ends with the Flood

3. Human GovernmentBeginning with Noah, God makes a covenant about His future intentionsGod establishes human government, granting to them the right of capital punishmentThey also were able to eat meatThis ends at BABEL

4. 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)” 2

This ends with the giving of the Law

5. LawThe law should not be viewed as a list of do’s and don’ts

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

6. 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…)

7. KingdomEstablished 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

V. Revelation – General and SpecialA. General Revelation

1. Problema. 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?

b. 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?

c. There is a distinction that must be made:i. General Revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in providential

history, and within the moral law in man’s 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.

ii. Special Revelation is God’s 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

2 Lewis Chafer and John Walvoord, Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 132.

and places to gain an understanding of God’s character and a knowledge of His saving purposes in His Son.

2. Biblical Theology of General Revelationa. 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 God’s creative word was the same authoritative word by which he brought about the affairs of human history and the nations.”3

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)

b. Through the Dispensation of ConscienceGenesis 3:8-13 – God created man with a conscience (which revealed itself in the guilt and shame that Adam and Eve experienced).

c. Through the Dispensation of Human GovernmentGenesis 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).

d. Through the Dispensation of PromiseGenesis 14:18ff – How did Melchizedek know about the Most High God?

e. Through the Dispensation of LawConsider 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)

f. Dispensation of GraceSee Paul at Lystra Acts 14

See Paul at Athens Acts 17

Hear Paul write to Rome (chapter 1-2)

g. What about Church History?1. Early Church Theologians

a. They argued, based primarily on philosophy, that the mind knows there is a God.4

3 K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 145.

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.5

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.”6

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.”7

Chrysostom also saw this to be an opportunity for salvation, since it was a legitimate means to come to know God. “Weren’t 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

5 T. Oden, “Without Excuse: Classic Christian Exegesis of General Revelation,” JETS 41 (March 1998): 55-68.6 Origen Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.7 Chrysostom Homilies on Romans 3.19.

voluntarily come to know him. It was by their own failure to recognize him that they deprived themselves of every excuse.”8

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.”9

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.”10

2. Thomas Aquinasa. He distinguished between two realms: Nature and Graceb. He distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: Natural and

Revealedc. He stressed two ways of knowing: by means of reason and by

means of faithd. He had three important presuppositions:

i. Human beings have the power of a rational mindii. Intellect was not seriously affected by the Fall

iii. God’s 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.11

b. They believed that insights from modern man are superior to the biblical writers.

8 Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 3.20.9 Basil Hexameron, Homily 1.10 Tertullian A Treatise of the Soul.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).

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.”12

4. Existential Liberalisma. 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.13

c. Paul Tillich proposed a natural theology that would leave God out.14

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.”15

5. Neo-Orthodoxya. 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.16 It remains an indirect influence on evangelicalism today.

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

12 DeWolf, 65.13 Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976 reprint).14 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-63).15 Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations (New York: Seabury, 1974-76), 5:115-34.16 See especially Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936-69), Vol. 1, Parts 1 and 2, and

Volume 2, Part 1.

any concept that Rom 1 teaches that general revelation can bring a man to some measure of knowledge of God…Based on his view of universal election, all heathen can know God theoretically.

6. Dutch Reformed Theologya. 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-

Christianii. The only way to know anything about God is to presuppose

the God revealed in Scriptureiii. Sinful humans, however, are incapable of understanding

general revelation; in fact, the unsaved are epistemological atheists.17

7. Orthodox Theologya. 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 LutherOne can know about God through general revelation, but not fully or spiritually…Only special revelation made salvation possible.

c. John CalvinGeneral revelation is the ability of humans to know God s Creator by intuition, by moral law, and the image of God.

d. General observationsMost evangelical scholars allow for a limited knowledge about God through general revelation.18.

3. Systematic Theological Formulationa. What is our basis?

17 Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: In Defense of the Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 82.

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.

i. Based on creation (Ps 19; Rom 1)ii. Based on conscience (Rom 2:15; 2 Cor 4.2)

iii. Based on providential history (Acts 14:17; 17:24ff)

b. What are the means?i. Comes by perception, not communication

ii. It is reasonable to assume that the Designer placed pictures of himself in His design

iii. It is reasonable to conclude that God involves Himself in the lives of His people

c. What is its content?i. God is one (one source – Acts 17:26; one sustainer – Psalm 19; Rom 1)

ii. God is creator, the source of life (Acts 17:25; John 1:4)iii. God is eternal and independent (Ps 93.2; Rom 1.20; Acts 17.25)iv. God is invisible and powerful (Rom 1.20)v. God is personal and wise (Ps 104.24)

vi. He is distinct from universe but active within it (Acts 17:24ff)

d. What are the evidences?i. There is a universal human consciousness of dependence on a higher being.

This forms the basis for all of the world’s religions.ii. There is a universal sense of obligation for right and wrong

iii. There is a universal understanding of the intelligibility of lifeiv. There is a universal understanding about history and man’s part in it.

e. What is our responsei. Human perception

ii. Human accountabilityiii. The conscience

4. Apologetic Interaction concerning General Revelationa. Atheistic Suppression

b. Pantheistic Distortion

c. Liberalism’s Inflation

d. Neo-orthodoxy’s Denial

B. Special Revelation

1. Introductory commentsa. A working definition

b. Revelation vs Inspiration

c. Revelation vs Illumination

d. Revelation vs Rationalization

2. Introductory Characteristicsa. Divine revelation is Christocentric

b. Divine revelation is progressive

c. Divine revelation is varied in its meansi. Dreams

ii. Visionsiii. Miraclesiv. Theophanies / Christophanies

d. Divine revelation is accurate

e. Divine revelation ceases with close of canon

3. Problems to solvea. 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?b. 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?

c. 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?

d. Is God still giving further special revelation?e. 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.

4. Biblical Theology of Special Revelationa. Dispensation of Innocence

i. God used specific language to create – Genesis 1.3, 6, 9 etc

ii. God spoke to man in a language they understood – Gen 2:16-17iii. God spoke on a regular basis to them as implied by Genesis 3:8-9

b. Dispensation of Consciencei. Gen 3.15 – Part of the first revelation of God after the Fall revealed the

person and mission of Christii. Gen 5.24 – Does this imply that God and Enoch had an ongoing

conversation?iii. Gen 6.13 – God spoke to Noah and told him His plan of destruction

c. Dispensation of Human Governmenti. God speaks to Noah about the rainbow…

d. Dispensation of Promisei. God was speaking directly to Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17)

ii. God revealed truths to Joseph via dreams (Genesis 37ff)

e. Dispensation of the Lawi. Exo 20…God gave to Moses the Law / God wrote with His very finger

ii. Joshua 4, et al – God revealed Himself as Captain of the Lord’s Host…He also states, “The Lord said unto Joshua…”

iii. Daniel 6…Again, God wrote with His finger

f. Dispensation of Gracei. Acts – God used visions often…

ii. 2 Cor 12 – Paul received visions

g. Dispensation of the Kingdom

5. Apologetic Interactiona. Is there still continuing revelation today?

1. Consider the OTa. When the Old Testament was completed, no more prophets appeared

i. 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 God’s 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.

b. 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 Propositionala. Personal: God revealed Himself directly to mankind through various

forms of communicationb. Propositional: reveals truth about who God is and how man can

relate to Him.

VI. Verbal, Plenary InspirationA. 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 God’s 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 man’s own mind.”7 He amplifies the concept further saying,

We are to think of the Spirit’s 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 God’s work.8

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.”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.

3. Scriptural authority is the final product of God’s 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,10 in order to shift the basis of the believer’s 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.”11 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.

77 James I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, p. 82; J.I. Packer, God Has Spoken, esp. pp. 45–124. Also see I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration, pp. 40–43.

88 Packer, “Fundamentalism” , p. 80.

99 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 154–60.

010 Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals, pp. 29–3, 74–75, 99–100, 122–23, 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).

111 Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part One, pp. 13–15.

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.19

B. Concepts

1. Infallibilitya. New Evangelicals make a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy

b. Originally, the two terms were interchangeable.

c. 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)

d. We define it as absolute truth – that it, the Bible is truthful in all its assertions.

2. Inerrancya. The writers accurately recorded their stories

b. As a product of supernatural inspiration, the information affirmed by the sentences of the original autographs of the 66 Canonical books is true.

c. Truth is logically non-contradictory, factually reliable, and experientially viable.

d. Hence, the Bible is a reliable guide for physical, mental, moral, and spiritual realities that people face.

3. Plenarilya. All of the Canon is equally inspired – equally God’s Wordb. 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 God’s will for your life!)

4. Verballya. Inspiration is not limited to the concepts or ideas of the Bibleb. Inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture that is found in the autographs.

5. Ipsissima Voxa. What is it?

i. ASSIGNMENT: Read: Donald Green, “Evangelicals and Ipsissima Vox,” The Masters Seminary Journal 12:1 (Spring 2001): 49-68

ii. A Definition1. Latin: Ipsissima = “the very”…VOX= “voice”

iii. A Description1. Ipsissima Vox states that we have the very “voice” of Jesus in the

Scriptures.2. His words have been paraphrased.3. There are two lines used to defend this position:

a. His words were recorded in Greek…the assumption is he spoke Aramaic

b. There are some alleged discrepancies in the Synoptics

19 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 38-39.

i. EX: Matt 7:11 and Luke 11:13ii. Does Jesus promise “good things” or the “Holy

Spirit?”iii. Are these identical occasions or did Jesus use

similar language / illustrations as He preached?

6. Ipsissima Verbaa. What is it?

i. ASSIGNMENT: Read Robert L. Thomas, “Historical Criticism and the Evangelical: Another View,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000): 97-111

ii. A Definition1. Latin: Ipsissima “the very” Verba “words”2. This position argues that we have the very words Christ spoke3. Verba = verbatim…

iii. A Description1. 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?

2. 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 doesn’t dictate / mandate that you fall into a specific position…)

C. Objections1. “It cannot be a divine book when it contains so many errors.”2. “Inerrancy only applies to those Scriptures which deal with salvation.”3. “Everyone has a different definition of inerrancy.”

D. Considerations

1. Some hypothesis to testa. The Bible is errant

i. Those who hold this position usually argue in this manner:ii. God is holy. Man is sinful. Therefore, Scripture cannot be inerrant.

iii. Errors found in Scripture are due to man’s sinfulnessiv. Truth that is contained in Scripture can only be verified through other

disciplines such as archeology, psychology, science, etc

b. The Bible is partially errant and partially inerranti. There must be a differentiation between those parts that are errant and

inerrant.ii. This is determined by the leading of the Holy Spirit and man’s faith

iii. Where Scripture deals with faith and practice (doctrine), it is assumed to be inerrant.

iv. When the Bible delves into other areas, it may contain falsehoods or misleading statements.

c. The Bible is plenarily inerranti. This position asserts that the Bible is truthful in all that it affirms

ii. All Scripture originates from God and the Holy Spirit uses only truth to lead people away from idols and to Himself.

iii. It is necessary for a person to discover what the Scripture is teaching.

2. Some probabilities to considera. None of these hypotheses can be proven in a completely intellectual sense.b. The issue is: Which hypothesis provides the most probable (coherent and viable)

account of the relevant lines of evidence with the fewest difficulties?c. Seven Major Lines of Evidence given as relevant evidence:

i. Jesus Christ’s view of Scriptureii. The claims of the prophets

iii. The claims of the apostlesiv. Dominant view of Scriptures throughout history of the churchv. Humanness of the writers (fallible, finite, and fallen)

vi. Problem phenomena: difficulties of apparent historical, chronological, and scientific discrepancies

vii. Positive phenomena: standard Christian evidences of fulfilled prophecies and miracles confirming the office and messages of divine spokesmen.

d. Only the view that Scripture is inerrant lines up with all seven strands of evidence.

E. Dual Authorship

1. Holy Spirit Agency2. Human Agency

a. Languages

b. Cultural Allusions

c. Historical References

F. False Theories

VII. Canonicity and AuthorityA. 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 2.4–8; Bab. Yoma 21b).10

010 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.”11 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]

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 one’s hands; to break them was to defile one’s 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 believer’s faith and conduct.20

B. Reasons for recognition1. Historical Reasons:

a. Marcioni. 140 AD…Marcion is “mutilating the text”

ii. According to Irenaeus, the church had already unofficially recognized a list of authoritative books.

b. Diocletian 303ADi. During his reign, he ordered that all Christian books were to be burned

ii. 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…

2. Biblical Reasons:a. Man is to live by every word that proceeds from God’s mouth…b. This implies that the church recognize that which is actually authoritativec. Canonicity is determined by God because of inspiration.d. 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.21

111 ibid.20 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 206-07.21 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 211-12.

C. Requirements for recognition1. 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

a. 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 them22

b. Did it have the quality deemed worthy of an inspired book?

22 Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

2. NTa. Apostolicityb. Authorityc. Consistencyd. Catholicity

D. Disputed Books

1. Homologoumena The books accepted by allThese were the books that were received as canonical without dispute All but seven of the New Testament fall into this category

2. Antilegoumena The books rejected by someThese were the disputed books:

James Revelation 2 John JudeHebrews 2 Peter 3 John

3. Pseudepigrapha The books rejected by alla. 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. (2:1–4)

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 Joseph’s house.(3:2–3)

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.

b. The Gospel of PeterWhat does it assert?

1. That Pilate was guiltless; the Jews responsible for Christ’s death2. That Jesus felt no pain during the crucifixion

3. That Jesus referred to the Father as “My power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?”

4. That Jesus’ brothers and sisters were from a previous marriage of Joseph

c. Protoevangelium of James1. Perpetual virginity of Mary2. Mary born 3 months early; walked at six months3. Mary was 16 years old during the birth of Christ4. 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).

d. The Gospel of the Hebrews1. James, the brother of Christ was at the Last Supper2. The Holy Spirit is called “My mother” by Christ3. Mary was pregnant for only seven months with Jesus

e. The Gospel of Philip1. Gnostic gospel2. Narrates the journey of a soul through seven successive spheres of

hostile powers (planetary archons)

f. The Gospel of Judas1. Judas is a hero…2. He was obeying Christ because someone needed to betray Him to fulfill

Scripture

g. There were additional “Acts” as well:1. Acts of John2. Acts of Peter3. Acts of Andrew4. Acts of Thomas5. Acts of Paul (in which he is described as a short, bald man with big nose

and bowlegged)

4. Apocrypha The books accepted by some

a. Seven Epistles of Ignatiusb. 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 Paul’s 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.

c. 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 Clement’s 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 Clement’s arguments to the Corinthian church, but Clement never explicitly refers to them as “Scripture”

d. Polycarp to the PhilippiansIn 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 Paul’s 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.

e. Revelation of PeterThis 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 Dante’s 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.

f. Shepherd of HermasThis is the most popular of all the noncanonical books of the New Testament.

It is found in Sinaiticus (א), 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 “Pilgrim’s Progress” of the early church. Like Bunyan’s 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 Apocrypha—ethical and devotional, but not canonical.

g. DidacheAlso 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.”

h. Epistle of (Pseudo) Barnabas(c. 70-79). This widely circulated epistle is found in the Codex Siniaticus (א)

(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.”

E. Why we believe in the authority of God’s Word

1. Apologetic introductiona. It bears the marks of divine qualityb. It carries timeless truthsc. It provides a witness to the greatest event in human historyd. It claims to be the Word of God

2. Internal evidencea. Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God?b. Luke 24:44 – Jesus delineates the OT…what about the New?

i. 1 Tim 5:17-18, Paul calls Luke’s writing Scriptureii. 2 Peter 3:15-17, Peter calls Paul’s epistles Scripture

iii. 2 Peter 3:1-2, Peter shows the authority of the apostles and prophetsiv. Jude 17, The words of the apostles were authoritativev. 2 Timothy 4:11, Mark is “profitable” for ministry

vi. James 1 – James is the pastor at Jerusalem (Acts 15)

3. External evidencea. Archaeology confirms itb. History confirms itc. Science confirms itd. Changed lives confirm it

F. How we received God’s Word

1. Languagesa. Hebrewb. Aramaicc. Greek

NOTE: All of these languages would have been “common” to the world in which it was directed…

2. Writings (Chronology)a. Mosesb. Joshuac. Samueld. Prophetse. Matthew / Jamesf. Mark / Lukeg. Judeh. Paul’s lettersi. Johnj. 1-3 Johnk. Revelation

3. Preservationa. Through the Jews (Rom 3.2)b. Through the Church (John 17.17; 1 Tim 3.15)c. Through translations into languages

i. LXXii. Syriac Peshitta

iii. Italic (Old Latin)iv. Gallic (Old French)v. European languages during the Reformation

vi. Still translating today

G. Interpretative issues to consider1. Dispensationalism2. Covenantalism3. 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

I. IntroductionA. How do we define God?

1. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

2. God is an eternal personal Being, of absolute knowledge, power and goodness.

B. What are the sources of our knowledge?1. Intuition2. Tradition3. Reason4. Revelation

C. 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 world’s 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 cause23

2. TeleologicalAs 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.”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 God’s creation in the universe and recognizes that it testifies to His existence (Ps. 8:3–4; 19:1–4). God’s 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 moon’s distance of two hundred forty thousand miles provides tides at a proper level; the earth’s tilt provides the seasons. A conclusion is clear that God, the Master Designer, has created this magnificent universe. The alternative, that the world

23 Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 183.22 H. C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 28.

happened “by chance,” is no more possible than a monkey’s being able to create a work of Shakespeare on a typewriter by haphazard play on the keys.24

3. AnthropologicalThe 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. 1:26–28). 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 man’s 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.”25

4. MoralThe 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 2:14–15 indicates that Gentiles who have had no revelation of the law have an inner, moral witness placed there by God.26

5. OntologicalThe 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.27

24 Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 183-84.25 Ibid., 184.26 Ibid., 184.27 Ibid., 184-85.

D. How does God exist?1. Biblical view of Trinitarianism

a. God is a personal beingb. God is a spiritual beingc. God is a tri-unityd. Hints of this are found:

i. Genesis 1.26 (possible allusion)ii. Deuteronomy 6.4

1. Genesis 2.242. Exo 24.33. Ezra 2.64

iii. Ecclesiastes 12.1iv. Matthew 28.19v. Acts 17.29

vi. Romans 1.20vii. 2 Corinthians 13.14

viii. Colossians 2.9ix. 1 Peter 1.2

2. Historical view of Trinitarianisma. 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).28

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;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

28 Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 410.

33 [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 substance—part 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 species—that is, three divine individuals made by the division and distribution of one common divine nature—but are three modes or “forms” (Phil. 2:6) of one undivided substance, numerically and identically the same in each.—W. G. T. S.].

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;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,”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,”6 whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount,7 or when the voice sounded, saying, “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;”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 indivisibly29

iii. Church Councilsa. Nicea – 325 AD – Affirmed Deity of Christb. 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

44 Matt. 3:16.55 Acts. 2:2, Acts 2:4.66 Mark 1:11.77 Matt. 17:5.88 John 12:28.29 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.

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."

3. Formulated Doctrinal statement

4. Heresies to combat:a. Tritheismb. Modalismc. Arianism

II. What is God doing?A. Does God have a plan?B. What is His plan?C. What is the purpose of His plan?

III. What is God like?A. Non-Communicable Attributes

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 Attributes1. Attributes of Intellect

a. Omniscience – God knows all things actual and potential (Ps 139.16; Matt 11.21)b. Omnisapience – God acts upon His knowledge to always do what is infinitely best (Rom

11.33-36).

2. Attributes of Emotiona. 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 Willa. 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)