ST 601 Bibliology and Theology

West Coast Baptist College

J. Michael Lester, Instructor

IntroductionThe doctrine of the Bible is the foundation for all that we believe it is the bedrock for Christianity. All that we know about God, we know from the Bible.If we are not settled at this point, all other doctrines will be shaky at best. Thus, as we begin this study we are laying the groundwork for all other doctrines within the Bible.Bibliology then is to be understood as fundamental to our faith. It is given the primary place within our Systematic Theology framework as the source from which all other doctrines are discovered.

Bibliology . . . is much more than the touchstone of theological orthodoxy. . . . [I]t assumes the position of cornerstone of the theological structure; remove it and the superstructure crumbles and disintegrates. Therefore, the twentieth century battle over the doctrine of Holy Scripture is no insignificant quibble . . . but it is a conflict of basic proportions involving the very existence of theology and Christian faith in the traditional meanings of those terms.[footnoteRef:1] [1: John A. Witmer, The Twentieth Century Battleground of Bibliology, Bibliotheca Sacra 111 (April 1954).]

Distinctions to Consider:

1. Revelation concerns the communication of spiritual truth that was previously unknown and otherwise unknowable.

2. Inspiration concerns the recording of that spiritual truth.

3. Illumination concerns the understanding of that spiritual truth.

4. Canonization concerns the recognition of that spiritual truth.

5. Preservation concerns the extension of that spiritual truth.

6. Inerrancy concerns the validity of that spiritual truth.

7. Infallibility concerns the authority of that spiritual truth.

Supernatural Origin of the Bible1. Uploaded at http://lester.wcbc.edu is an article by Benjamin B. WarfieldThe article needs to be read The Divine Origin of the BibleWe are not dealing with a book that is just like any other book1. We do not approach this book like the liberalWe have certain presuppositions that we bring to our interpretative tasks.If we approach the Bible as a divine book, then we must expect divine help in understanding it. Therefore, when an unbeliever wields his academic prowess against the Bible, we should understand that with all of his educational expertise, he is an example of one who professing to be wise, became a foolLogical Organization of the Bible1. For the Old Testament1. Torah (The Law)Nebiim (The Prophets)Kethubim (The Writings) See Luke 24:441. For the New Testament1. The Gospels1. The Acts1. The EpistlesPastoralPrisonChurchGeneral1. The RevelationChronological Organization of the Bible1. Civilizations1. In the OT, there is a progression1. One man becomes two peopleTwo people become a familyA family becomes a fountain headDescendants build citiesCities develop cultureThis culture leads to civilizationsThese civilizations lead to nations, world powers, wars, etcThe OT tells the story of how a certain family interacted with all of these civilizations1. From Adam to Noah, evil reigns and God judges1. Noah has a son named Shem1. Shem has a great grandson, Eber1. Eber has a great, great grandson, Nahor1. Nahor begets Terah, who begets Abraham1. To Abraham, a covenant is made which sets his descendants, and specifically his descendants from Isaac, apart from all other families.1. It is this special covenant group that the OT follows through its ups and downs.As the Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Moabites, etc play a part in furthering the story of Israels covenant relationship with God, they are mentioned by the biblical writers.1. Dispensations1. Innocence

Man was created innocent, not perfect.

Responsibilities included: Being fruitful, having dominion, and obeying God

Ends in Disobedience and Death

1. Conscience

Their eyes are opened and they feel shame and guilt

Conscience is not enough to govern man

This dispensation ends with the Flood

1. Human Government

Beginning with Noah, God makes a covenant about His future intentions

God establishes human government, granting to them the right of capital punishment

They also were able to eat meat

This ends at BABEL

1. Promise

This begins with the Covenant with Abraham

The dispensation of promise established clearly the principle of divine sovereignty, provided a channel of special divine revelation to the nation of Israel, continued provision of divine redemption and blessing, revealed the grace of God, and promised a witness to the world. Like the other dispensations, however, it ended in failure as far as bringing conformity to the will of God, and it laid the ground work for bringing in the law as a schoolmaster to bring believers to Christ (Gal 3:24) [footnoteRef:2] [2: Lewis Chafer and John Walvoord, Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 132.]

This ends with the giving of the Law

1. Law

The law should not be viewed as a list of dos and donts

Rather, it should be understood as a covenant relationship based on shadows, types, and prophesied conditions that would come

It ends with a blind Israel killing her Messiah

1. Grace (Church)

This is sometimes called the Church Age

Its commencement point is difficult to identify: Is it with John the Baptist, with Jesus calling His disciples; with the Cross, with the Ascension, or with Pentecost?

There is a responsibility in this age to tell everyone about the Gospel

It ends with the 2nd Coming (though some will end it with the Rapture, and just have 7 years of unidentified dispensation)

1. Kingdom

Established with the 2nd Coming

Will last for 1,000 years

Will usher us into the Eternal Kingdom

During this dispensation, we rule and reign with Christ

Revelation General and Special1. General Revelation1. Problem1. Does every rational being comprehend something of God? If so, how much of God can he understand? Can he come to salvation without the Word of God?1. Is God only to be revealed through mighty signs, wonders, and miracles? Or, can He make a disclosure of Himself through the more ordinary methods of nature and history?1. There is a distinction that must be made:

10. General Revelation is the disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and within the moral law in mans heart (conscience). It is addressed to man as man and can be discovered by his natural abilities. Intuitively, man feels a responsibility to God and has an innate consciousness for a supreme being.

10. Special Revelation is Gods self-disclosure through speaking, through signs and miracles, through utterances (both written and spoken) of prophets and apostles, and through the deeds / words of Christ (Heb 1:1-3). The goal of this type of revelation is for specific people at particular times and places to gain an understanding of Gods character and a knowledge of His saving purposes in His Son.

1. Biblical Theology of General Revelation1. Through the Dispensation of Innocence

Genesis 1:3, 9, 11 God spoke the material reality into existence (In other words, God communicates)

The Hebrew community understood that Gods creative word was the same authoritative word by which he brought about the affairs of human history and the nations.[footnoteRef:3] [3: K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 145.]

Genesis 1:26-27 Humanity is created in the image of God (which communicates the fact that there is something inherent within man that speaks of God)

1. Through the Dispensation of Conscience

Genesis 3:8-13 God created man with a conscience (which revealed itself in the guilt and shame that Adam and Eve experienced).

1. Through the Dispensation of Human Government

Genesis 9:14-16 the rainbow is the only non-verbal symbol of a verbal promise of God (by the way, this passage begins with a blessing on the human race)

This covenant, symbolized by the rainbow, is universal (in other words, it is made with every living creature, even those who did not hear the covenant).

1. Through the Dispensation of Promise

Genesis 14:18ff How did Melchizedek know about the Most High God?

1. Through the Dispensation of Law

Consider the nature psalms (8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 148)

Psalm 14:1 a fool is someone who closes his mind to the evidence

Psalm 19 identifies two realms of revelation (the book of nature, v1-6, and the book of the law, v7-13)

1. Dispensation of Grace

See Paul at Lystra Acts 14

See Paul at Athens Acts 17

Hear Paul write to Rome (chapter 1-2)

1. What about Church History?

1. Early Church Theologians

a. They argued, based primarily on philosophy, that the mind knows there is a God.[footnoteRef:4] [4: See, for example, Theophilus, To Autolychus, 1.5; Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 5.13; Tertullian, The Apology, 17.6 and Against Marcion, 1.10; and Origen, On First Principles, 1.1.6.]

b. The Fathers also focused a good deal of attention on Romans 1, arguing that God revealed himself to mankind in creation and in human rationality.[footnoteRef:5] [5: T. Oden, Without Excuse: Classic Christian Exegesis of General Revelation, JETS 41 (March 1998): 55-68.]

c. Origen of Alexandria (185-254) concerning Romans 1

Paul says that what can be known about God is plain to them [the Gentile nations], thereby revealing that there is something about God which can be known, even if there is much that remains unknown. . . . It appears here that the wrath of God is revealed not to those who are ignorant of the truth, but to those who already know the truth, however imperfectly.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Origen Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.]

d. John Chrysostom (344-407) concerning Romans 1

God has placed the knowledge of himself in human hearts from the beginning. But this knowledge they unwisely invested in wood and stone. They thus contaminated the truth, at least as far as they were able. Meanwhile the truth itself abides unchanged, possessing its own unchanging glory. . . . How did God reveal himself? By a voice from heaven? Not at all! God made a panoply which was able to draw them by more than a voice. He put before them the immense creation, so that both the wise and the unlearned, the Scythian and the barbarian, might ascend to God, having learned through sight the beauty of the things which they had seen.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Chrysostom Homilies on Romans 3.19.]

Chrysostom also saw this to be an opportunity for salvation, since it was a legitimate means to come to know God. Werent they able to hear the heavens speaking more clearly than a trumpet through the well-ordered harmony of all things? Did you not see the hours of night and day remaining constant, and the good order of winter, spring and the other seasons remaining both fixed and unmoved . . . ? Yet God did not set so vast a system of teaching before the heathen merely to deprive them of any excuse, but so that they might voluntarily come to know him. It was by their own failure to recognize him that they deprived themselves of every excuse.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 3.20.]

e. Basil of Caesarea (4th Century)

You will find that the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings. The cosmos is truly a training place for each rational soul, and a school for attaining the knowledge of God, because through visible and perceptible objects it provides guidance to the mind for the contemplation of the invisible.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Basil Hexameron, Homily 1.]

f. Tertullian

For how can the intellect be considered sovereign above the senses, when it is these senses that educate it for the discovery of truths? It is a fact that these truths are learned by means of palpable objects. Invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the Apostle says in his Epistle.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Tertullian A Treatise of the Soul.]

2. Thomas Aquinas

a. He distinguished between two realms: Nature and Grace

b. He distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: Natural and Revealed

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

d. He had three important presuppositions:

i. Human beings have the power of a rational mind

ii. Intellect was not seriously affected by the Fall

iii. Gods existence is analogous to human existence.

3. Empirical Liberalism (18th and 19th Century)

a. Liberalism taught that knowledge of God obtained by evaluation of natural and social sciences, since God has not given us any special revelation. (Rejected belief in inspired Scripture the Bible was a collection of writings from religious men.[footnoteRef:11] [11: See Henry P. Van Dusen, The Vindication of Liberal Theology (New York: Scribner, 1963); L. Harold DeWolf, A Theology of the Living Church (New York: Harper, 1953).]

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

c. Experience can give a considerable knowledge of God

d. Liberal theology routinely refuses to accept special revelation, usually arguing that a person cannot distinguish between special revelation and general revelation, between nature and the Bible on the ground of the more direct, unmediated character of the latter.[footnoteRef:12] [12: DeWolf, 65.]

4. Existential Liberalism

a. Argued that human beings know God in a mystical, life-changing experience of grace.

b. Schleiermacher believed that God is not found through revelation, but through the feeling of absolute dependence and the uniting of the soul with the Soul of the universe.[footnoteRef:13] [13: Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976 reprint).]

c. Paul Tillich proposed a natural theology that would leave God out.[footnoteRef:14] [14: Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-63).]

d. Karl Rahner, a Roman Catholic, argued that every human already has an a priori relationship with God and therefore possesses an experienced knowledge of God; therefore, the entire world constitutes an anonymous Christianity.[footnoteRef:15] [15: Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations (New York: Seabury, 1974-76), 5:115-34.]

5. Neo-Orthodoxy

a. Neo-orthodoxy was a reaction to liberalism and its rejection of the truth of Scripture; however, neo-orthodoxy refused to return to the clear teaching of Scripture and ended up halfway between truth and falsehood.

b. Its leaders were Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Rudolph Bultmann in Germany; it became popular in the United States after World War 2, but as a movement died an early death.[footnoteRef:16] It remains an indirect influence on evangelicalism today. [16: See especially Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936-69), Vol. 1, Parts 1 and 2, and Volume 2, Part 1.]

c. Basic Tenets:

i. There is no revelation outside of the Word, Jesus Christ

ii. The Bible is a record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself.

iii. Hence this statement: The Bible contains the Word of God.

d. Reasons it rejected natural theology:

i. There is an infinite qualitative difference between God and humanity; hence, no one can reason from the universe to God.

ii. The Imago Dei (the Image of God) was annihilated in the fall; therefore, human reason will always lead a person in the wrong direction.

iii. There is no analogy of being between Creator and creature. God is so far removed from his creation that no analogy may be drawn between it and him. (So, accordingly Barth rejected any concept that Rom 1 teaches that general revelation can bring a man to some measure of knowledge of GodBased on his view of universal election, all heathen can know God theoretically.

6. Dutch Reformed Theology

a. Its modern leaders were Abraham Kuyper, G. C. Berkouwer, and Cornelius Van Til. These men were significant in the American scene as well.

b. Sin has shut the door to general revelation; only the regenerate can find God in nature.

c. Knowledge of God as Creator is predicated on knowledge of God as Redeemer. Unless one knows God as the Redeemer he cannot know God as Creator.

d. Van Til takes a strong presuppositionalist position:

i. There are two ways of viewing reality: Christian and non-Christian

ii. The only way to know anything about God is to presuppose the God revealed in Scripture

iii. Sinful humans, however, are incapable of understanding general revelation; in fact, the unsaved are epistemological atheists.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: In Defense of the Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 82.]

7. Orthodox Theology

a. Augustine

By means of general illumination, all men have a rudimentary knowledge of God. The mind, blessed by common grace, can draw further conclusions about the character of God. However, general revelation cannot save.

b. Martin Luther

One can know about God through general revelation, but not fully or spirituallyOnly special revelation made salvation possible.

c. John Calvin

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

d. General observations

Most evangelical scholars allow for a limited knowledge about God through general revelation.[footnoteRef:18]. [18: Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint), 21-25; Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson, 1907), 26-27; Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Waco: Word, 1976-1983), 1:399-402; 2:69-90; Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 7-10; Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 57-77; 276-77; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 177ff.]

Systematic Theological Formulation1. What is our basis?1. Based on creation (Ps 19; Rom 1)1. Based on conscience (Rom 2:15; 2 Cor 4.2)1. Based on providential history (Acts 14:17; 17:24ff)1. What are the means?1. Comes by perception, not communication1. It is reasonable to assume that the Designer placed pictures of himself in His design1. It is reasonable to conclude that God involves Himself in the lives of His people1. What is its content?1. God is one (one source Acts 17:26; one sustainer Psalm 19; Rom 1)1. God is creator, the source of life (Acts 17:25; John 1:4)1. God is eternal and independent (Ps 93.2; Rom 1.20; Acts 17.25)1. God is invisible and powerful (Rom 1.20)1. God is personal and wise (Ps 104.24)1. He is distinct from universe but active within it (Acts 17:24ff)1. What are the evidences?1. There is a universal human consciousness of dependence on a higher being. This forms the basis for all of the worlds religions.1. There is a universal sense of obligation for right and wrong1. There is a universal understanding of the intelligibility of life1. There is a universal understanding about history and mans part in it.1. What is our response1. Human perception1. Human accountability1. The conscienceApologetic Interaction concerning General Revelation1. Atheistic Suppression1. Pantheistic Distortion1. Liberalisms Inflation1. Neo-orthodoxys DenialSpecial Revelation1. Introductory comments1. A working definition1. Revelation vs Inspiration1. Revelation vs Illumination1. Revelation vs RationalizationIntroductory Characteristics1. Divine revelation is Christocentric1. Divine revelation is progressive1. Divine revelation is varied in its means1. Dreams1. Visions1. Miracles1. Theophanies / Christophanies

1. Divine revelation is accurate1. Divine revelation ceases with close of canon

1. Problems to solve1. How does a man, woman, or child, created and loved by God, come to know the Lord of the universe in a personal, saving relationship?If general revelation does not save but serves only to condemn, has the sovereign God moved to communicate further dimensions of his person and redemptive plan, and if so, how has he done so? How can a Christian determine by what means God has made known his saving purposes? How can finite, alienated persons identify and appropriate the several modes of special revelation?Is God still giving further special revelation?Special revelation is important because it constitutes the prerequisite for the formulation of a theology that is properly Christian. Moreover, it forms the basis whereby a person comes to know God savingly, to worship him, and to serve him meaningfully in life.1. Biblical Theology of Special Revelation

18. Dispensation of Innocence

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

1. God spoke to man in a language they understood Gen 2:16-17

1. God spoke on a regular basis to them as implied by Genesis 3:8-9

18. Dispensation of Conscience

2. Gen 3.15 Part of the first revelation of God after the Fall revealed the person and mission of Christ

2. Gen 5.24 Does this imply that God and Enoch had an ongoing conversation?

2. Gen 6.13 God spoke to Noah and told him His plan of destruction

18. Dispensation of Human Government

3. God speaks to Noah about the rainbow

18. Dispensation of Promise

4. God was speaking directly to Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17)

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

18. Dispensation of the Law

5. Exo 20God gave to Moses the Law / God wrote with His very finger

5. Joshua 4, et al God revealed Himself as Captain of the Lords HostHe also states, The Lord said unto Joshua

5. Daniel 6Again, God wrote with His finger

18. Dispensation of Grace

6. Acts God used visions often

6. 2 Cor 12 Paul received visions

18. Dispensation of the Kingdom

Apologetic Interaction1. Is there still continuing revelation today?1. Consider the OTa. When the Old Testament was completed, no more prophets appearedi. The people of the inter-testamental period understood that there was no prophet available to them.1 Maccabees 4:46 And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them.

1 Maccabees 9:27 So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them.b. The current successor to the prophets is the Old Testament itself which still carries the message of the prophets to Gods people.

2. Consider the NT Apostles:a. There is no wording in the New Testament that conveys the teaching of apostolic succession as taught by the Church of England and Episcopalian Church. b. The office of apostleship was a unique office given to those who were eyewitnesses of the incarnate and risen Christ. c. There is no further revelation given to man today. Instead, all men are responsible to take that which God has revealed and apply it to their lives. d. None of the claimed new revelation of today can legitimately add anything to the message of redemption that God has already given.

What is the Peculiarity with Special Revelation?

1. General revelation is for all men it reveals that there is a God. Special revelation underscores what we deserve as mankind (eternal punishment) but focuses on grace and mercy.

a. It may seem unfair in the minds of men that God would give special revelation to only a few and not to all of mankind (Jews in the Old Testament; Jews and Greeks in the New Testament).

b. However, with the special revelation that God has given comes the responsibility to proclaim it to others.

c. God did not give his revelation so that a particular person or nation could brag about what they had received.

d. God did give his special revelation to specific individuals in order that the whole world might receive it. This is now become the responsibility that Christians have today.

2. Special Revelation: Personal and Propositional

a. Personal: God revealed Himself directly to mankind through various forms of communication

b. Propositional: reveals truth about who God is and how man can relate to Him.

Verbal, Plenary Inspiration1. Definitions

From the biblical description of the process of inspiration, the necessary constituents of a theological definition of inspiration may be derived. There are three:

1.Divine causality. The prime mover in inspiration is God: No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:21). In other words, God moved, and the prophet mouthed the truths; God revealed, and man recorded His word. The Bible is Gods word in the sense that it originates with Him and is authorized by Him, even though it is articulated by men. God speaks in their written records.

2.Prophetic agency. The prophets played an important role in the overall process of inspiration; they were the means by which God spoke. The word of God was written by men of God. God used persons to convey His propositions. In other words, as J.I. Packer perceptively observes, there God exercised concursive operation in, with and through the free working of mans own mind.[footnoteRef:19]7 He amplifies the concept further saying, [19: 7 James I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, p. 82; J.I. Packer, God Has Spoken, esp. pp. 45124. Also see I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration, pp. 4043.]

We are to think of the Spirits inspiring activity, and, for that matter, of all His regular operations in and upon human personality, as (to use an old but valuable technical term) concursive; that is, as exercised in, through and by means of the writers own activity, in such a way that their thinking and writing was both free and spontaneous on their part and divinely elicited and controlled, and what they wrote was not only their own work but also Gods work.[footnoteRef:20]8 [20: 8 Packer, Fundamentalism , p. 80.]

God prepared the prophets by training, experience, gifts of grace, and, if need be, by direct revelation to utter His word. By it [inspiration], the Spirit of God, flowing confluently with the providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writings appointed them, gives the product a Divine quality unattainable by human powers alone.[footnoteRef:21]9 In inspiration, then, God is the primary cause, and the prophets are the secondary causes. Thus the divine influence did not restrict human activity but rather enabled the human authors to communicate the divine message accurately. [21: 9 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 15460.]

3.Scriptural authority is the final product of Gods causality and the prophetic agency. Hence, the Bible is a divinely authoritative book. God moved the prophets in such a way as to breathe out (literally, spirate) their writings. In other words, God spoke to the prophets and is speaking in their writings. Although some might argue that the prophetic model of inspiration is inadequate,1[footnoteRef:22]0 in order to shift the basis of the believers authority from Scripture to some other locus, Carl F. H. Henry rightly observes that the church is neither the locus of divine revelation, nor the source of divine inspiration, nor the seat of infallibility. Rather, the church has the task of transmitting, translating, and expounding the prophetic-apostolic Scriptures.1[footnoteRef:23]1 The cause of inspiration is God, the means is the men of God, and the end result is the word of God in the language of men. [22: 10 Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals, pp. 293, 7475, 99100, 12223, and elsewhere. Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, uncritically accepts this notion, stating, The Bible is more than prophecy, and although direct divine speech is part of the record, there are many other kinds of communication as well, some of them more indirect and ambiguous (p. 63), and indicating that Paul J. Achtemeier has called attention to the inadequacy of the prophetic model for representing the biblical category of inspiration in its fulness (p. 234 n. 8).] [23: 11 Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2: God Who Speaks and Shows: Fifteen Theses, Part One, pp. 1315.]

NOTE: suggested definition: Inspiration is that mysterious process by which the divine causality worked through the human prophets without destroying their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 38-39.]

Concepts1. Infallibility1. New Evangelicals make a distinction between infallibility and inerrancyOriginally, the two terms were interchangeable.Today, infallibility usually refers to the assertion that the Bible will not make any misleading statements. (There may be some historical data that is incorrect, but it will not mislead anyone in search of salvation and biblical doctrine)We define it as absolute truth that it, the Bible is truthful in all its assertions.

1. Inerrancy1. The writers accurately recorded their stories1. As a product of supernatural inspiration, the information affirmed by the sentences of the original autographs of the 66 Canonical books is true.1. Truth is logically non-contradictory, factually reliable, and experientially viable.1. Hence, the Bible is a reliable guide for physical, mental, moral, and spiritual realities that people face.1. Plenarily

21. All of the Canon is equally inspired equally Gods Word

21. Yet, not all of the Bible is not as equally important for answering any given question. (Example: the list of genealogies may not be much guidance for finding Gods will for your life!)

1. Verbally

22. Inspiration is not limited to the concepts or ideas of the Bible

22. Inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture that is found in the autographs.

1. Ipsissima Vox

23. What is it?

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

1. A Definition

2. Latin: Ipsissima = the veryVOX= voice

1. A Description

3. Ipsissima Vox states that we have the very voice of Jesus in the Scriptures.

3. His words have been paraphrased.

3. There are two lines used to defend this position:

3. His words were recorded in Greekthe assumption is he spoke Aramaic

3. There are some alleged discrepancies in the Synoptics

2. EX: Matt 7:11 and Luke 11:13

2. Does Jesus promise good things or the Holy Spirit?

2. Are these identical occasions or did Jesus use similar language / illustrations as He preached?

1. Ipsissima Verba

24. What is it?

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

1. A Definition

2. Latin: Ipsissima the very Verba words

2. This position argues that we have the very words Christ spoke

2. Verba = verbatim

1. A Description

3. When we hear a writer say something like, And Jesus said unto them are these the very words or just a paraphrase, a summary of what He said?

3. The difference between these two options is the difference between Vox and Verba

3. People who take a strong stand on inerrancy fall into both positions. (In other words, a belief in inerrancy doesnt dictate / mandate that you fall into a specific position)

Objections

1. It cannot be a divine book when it contains so many errors.

1. Inerrancy only applies to those Scriptures which deal with salvation.

1. Everyone has a different definition of inerrancy.

Considerations1. Some hypothesis to test1. The Bible is errant1. Those who hold this position usually argue in this manner:1. God is holy. Man is sinful. Therefore, Scripture cannot be inerrant.1. Errors found in Scripture are due to mans sinfulness1. Truth that is contained in Scripture can only be verified through other disciplines such as archeology, psychology, science, etc1. The Bible is partially errant and partially inerrant1. There must be a differentiation between those parts that are errant and inerrant.1. This is determined by the leading of the Holy Spirit and mans faith1. Where Scripture deals with faith and practice (doctrine), it is assumed to be inerrant.1. When the Bible delves into other areas, it may contain falsehoods or misleading statements.1. The Bible is plenarily inerrant1. This position asserts that the Bible is truthful in all that it affirms1. All Scripture originates from God and the Holy Spirit uses only truth to lead people away from idols and to Himself.1. It is necessary for a person to discover what the Scripture is teaching.

1. Some probabilities to consider1. None of these hypotheses can be proven in a completely intellectual sense.1. The issue is: Which hypothesis provides the most probable (coherent and viable) account of the relevant lines of evidence with the fewest difficulties?1. Seven Major Lines of Evidence given as relevant evidence:1. Jesus Christs view of Scripture1. The claims of the prophets1. The claims of the apostlesDominant view of Scriptures throughout history of the churchHumanness of the writers (fallible, finite, and fallen)Problem phenomena: difficulties of apparent historical, chronological, and scientific discrepanciesPositive phenomena: standard Christian evidences of fulfilled prophecies and miracles confirming the office and messages of divine spokesmen.Only the view that Scripture is inerrant lines up with all seven strands of evidence.

Dual Authorship1. Holy Spirit Agency1. Human Agency1. Languages1. Cultural Allusions1. Historical ReferencesFalse TheoriesCanonicity and Authority1. ASSIGNMENT: Read Benjamin B. Warfield The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament Access at: http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/bible/warfield_canon.html

With the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Maachi, the latter prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased ouit of Israel (Tos. Sotah 13:2; baraita in Bab. Yoma 9b, Bab. Sotah 48b and Bab. Sanhedrin 11a)....

Until then [the coming of Alexander the Great and the end of the empire of the Persians] the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit. From then on, incline thine ear and hear the words of the wise (Seder Olam Rabbah 30, quoting Prov. 22.17).

Rab Samuel bar Inia said, in the name of Rab Aha, The Second Temple lacked five things which the First Temple possessed, namely, the fire, the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing and the Holy Spirit [of prophecy] (Jer.Taanith 2.1; Jer. Makkoth 2.48; Bab. Yoma 21b).1[footnoteRef:25]0 [25: 10 10. Beckwith, p. 370.]

Rabbi Abdimi of Haifa said, Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise (Bab. Baba Bathra 12a).

Rabbi Johanan said, Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from prophets and given to fools and children (Bab. Baba Bathra 12b).

In each of these five passages, Beckwith notes, an era is in view, which is variously described as the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the end of the empire of the Persians, the destruction of the First Temple or the transition from the First Temple to the Second.1[footnoteRef:26]1 So then, if a book were written after the prophetic period, it was not considered canonical. If it were written within the prophetic period, in the succession of Hebrew prophets, it was canonical. [8 highlights] [26: 11 ibid.]

In brief, what were later called canonical writings were by the Jews considered to be those sacred and authoritative writings of the Hebrew prophets from Moses to Malachi. So sacred were these holy writings that they were preserved by the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple. To touch these holy writings was to defile ones hands; to break them was to defile ones life. The Hebrew canon, then, was that collection of writings which, because they possessed divine inspiration and authority, were the norm or rule for the believers faith and conduct.[footnoteRef:27] [27: Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 206-07.]

1. Reasons for recognition

1. Historical Reasons:

1. Marcion

1. 140 ADMarcion is mutilating the text

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

1. Diocletian 303AD

2. During his reign, he ordered that all Christian books were to be burned

2. Again, this is before the first official list of Athanasius (367AD), but it is evident that believers were equipped with a knowledge of knowing what was worth dying for

1. Biblical Reasons:

2. Man is to live by every word that proceeds from Gods mouth

2. This implies that the church recognize that which is actually authoritative

2. Canonicity is determined by God because of inspiration.

2. We could say that canonicity is equivalent to authority.

When the Word of God was written it became Scripture and, inasmuch as it had been spoken by God, possessed absolute authority. Since it was the Word of God, it was canonical. That which determines the canonicity of a book, therefore, is the fact that the book is inspired by God. Hence a distinction is properly made between the authority which the Old Testament possesses as divinely inspired, and the recognition of that authority on the part of Israel.[footnoteRef:28] [28: Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 211-12.]

1. Requirements for recognition

1. OT

The idea of a "canon" did not originate with the Israelites. They had a model to go on, one which was in circulation in Egyptian and Mesopotamian society. Vasholz [Vash.OTOT, 3-4], using the example of the Poem of Erra and other documents from the 12th to 8th centuries BC, notes these four core (commonsense!) steps:

The deity speaks, and his words are recorded.

The material is faithfully transmitted.

Authenticity is established by means of blessings for honor, and curses for dishonor, in transcription.

Materials are preserved in a sacred place.

These essential "canon concepts," then, were "there for the taking" at the time when the OT was being put together and involves no radical innovation or supposition of historical invention. The ancient "canonical" concept appears in its earliest form in the OT in Exodus 17:14 and Deuteronomy 31:24-6, where emphasis is made upon preservation of material as a memorial and as a witness. This is the seed from which an OT canon, or set of established books, grew

1. Was it written by a prophet?

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; (39) and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; (40) but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. (41) It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; (42) and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them[footnoteRef:29] [29: Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).]

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

1. NT

2. Apostolicity

2. Authority

2. Consistency

2. Catholicity

1. Disputed Books1. Homologoumena The books accepted by all

These were the books that were received as canonical without dispute

All but seven of the New Testament fall into this category

1. AntilegoumenaThe books rejected by some

These were the disputed books:

JamesRevelation2 JohnJude

Hebrews2 Peter3 John

1. PseudepigraphaThe books rejected by all

31. The Gospel of Thomas

You judge:

This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. . . . Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. (2:14)

Another tells how He cursed a lad to wither like a tree:

And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Josephs house.(3:23)

Again, when a child ran and dashed against his shoulder, Jesus is said to have been provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit., go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. These accounts reflect a dimension of personality in Jesus that is utterly at variance with that as set forth in the New Testament gospel accounts.

31. The Gospel of Peter

What does it assert?

1. That Pilate was guiltless; the Jews responsible for Christs death

1. That Jesus felt no pain during the crucifixion

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

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

31. Protoevangelium of James

1. Perpetual virginity of Mary

1. Mary born 3 months early; walked at six months

1. Mary was 16 years old during the birth of Christ

1. For lack of better words, a matrix-like miracle

And I looked up at the vault of heaven, and saw it standing still and the birds of the heaven motionless. And I looked at the earth, and saw a dish placed there and workmen lying round it, with their hands in the dish. But those who chewed did not chew, and those who lifted up anything lifted up nothing, and those who put something to their mouth put nothing (to their mouth), but all had their faces turned upwards. And behold, sheep were being driven and (yet) they did not come forward, but stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them with his staff, but his hand remained up. And I looked at the flow of the river, and saw the mouths of the kids over it and they did not drink. And then all at once everything went on its course (again).

31. The Gospel of the Hebrews

1. James, the brother of Christ was at the Last Supper

1. The Holy Spirit is called My mother by Christ

1. Mary was pregnant for only seven months with Jesus

31. The Gospel of Philip

1. Gnostic gospel

1. Narrates the journey of a soul through seven successive spheres of hostile powers (planetary archons)

31. The Gospel of Judas

1. Judas is a hero

1. He was obeying Christ because someone needed to betray Him to fulfill Scripture

31. There were additional Acts as well:

1. Acts of John

1. Acts of Peter

1. Acts of Andrew

1. Acts of Thomas

1. Acts of Paul (in which he is described as a short, bald man with big nose and bowlegged)

1. ApocryphaThe books accepted by some

10. Seven Epistles of Ignatius

10. Epistle to the Corinthians

Dionysius of Corinth (60-80) says that this epistle 1 Corinthians by Clement of Rome, was read publicly at Corinth and elsewhere, and it is found in Codex Alexandrinus (A) [the Alexandrian manuscript] of the New Testament (c. 450, see chap. 22). Herbert T. Andrews sums up the situation on this epistle, saying, Today no one would put in a plea for its recognition as Scripture, yet from a historical point of view the Epistle has no little interest for us.... It gives us a very good conception of the Christian belief at the time. . . . It contains explicit references to Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians, and gives several quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and so proves that these books were widely circulated and recognized before the close of the first century.

10. Letters of Clement

The letter was occasioned by a dispute in Corinth, which had led to the removal from office of several presbyters. Since none of the presbyters were charged with moral offences, Clement charged that their removal was high-handed and unjustifiable. The letter was extremely lengthy it was twice as long as the Epistle to the Hebrews and includes several references to the Old Testament, of which he demonstrates a knowledge. Clement repeatedly refers to the Old Testament as Scripture. New Testament references include Clements admonition to Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle (xlvii. 1) which was written to this Corinthian audience; a reference which seems to imply written documents available at both Rome and Corinth. Clement also alludes to the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and the first epistle to the Corinthians; numerous phrases from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and possible material from Acts, James, and I Peter. In several instances, he asks his readers to remember the words of Jesus, although Clement does not attribute these sayings to a specific written account. These New Testament allusions are employed as authoritative sources which strengthen Clements arguments to the Corinthian church, but Clement never explicitly refers to them as Scripture

10. Polycarp to the Philippians

In one sense, Polycarp is the most important of the apostolic Fathers. He was a disciple of the apostle John. He lays no claim to inspiration for himself, but says that he always taught the things he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. There is very little originality in this epistle, as it borrows both matter and style from the New Testament, and particularly from Pauls epistle to the Philippians. Even though it was not considered canonical, it is a valuable testimony to the existence of most of the New Testament canon, which he interweaves into his writing.

10. Revelation of Peter

This is perhaps the oldest of the noncanonical New Testament apocalypses, and it enjoyed great popularity in the early church. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, in the table of contents of Bezae (D), and is quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Its description of heaven is picturesque, and its pictures of hell are grotesque, depicting it as a lake of flaming mire or a lake of pitch and blood and boiling mire. Its imagery had a wide influence on medieval theology, and was a source from which Dantes Inferno was derived. As to its authenticity, even the Muratorian Fragment raised questions, saying that some would not permit it to be read in the churches. The church in general has agreed with that conclusion.

10. Shepherd of Hermas

This is the most popular of all the noncanonical books of the New Testament. It is found in Sinaiticus (), in the table of contents of Bezae (D), in some Latin Bibles, quoted as inspired Scripture by Irenaeus and Origen, and Eusebius recognized that it was publicly read in the churches and deemed most necessary for those who have need of elementary instruction. The Shepherd has been aptly called the Pilgrims Progress of the early church. Like Bunyans great allegory, it ranks second only to the canonical books in its circulation in the early church and in its dramatization of spiritual truths. In other words, it is like Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) of the Old Testament Apocryphaethical and devotional, but not canonical.

10. Didache

Also called the Teaching of the Twelve. The Didache was held in high regard by the early church. Clement of Alexandria quoted it as Scripture, and Athanasius listed it among the sacred writings along with Judith and Tobit. This book is of great importance from the historical point of view, giving the opinion of the church of the early second century on the essential truths of Christianity, and it forms a bridge between the New Testament and the patristic literature; nevertheless, the verdict of history is at one with Eusebius, who placed it among the rejected books.

10. Epistle of (Pseudo) Barnabas

(c. 70-79). This widely circulated epistle is found in the Codex Siniaticus () (c. 340), and mentioned in the table of contents of Codex Bezae (D) (c. 450 or c. 550, see chap. 22). It was quoted as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. It parallels the canonical epistle to the Hebrews in style although it is more allegorical and mystical than Hebrews, and there is some debate as to whether it is a first or second century document. Nonetheless, it may be concluded with Brooke Foss Westcott that while the antiquity of the Epistle is firmly established, its Apostolicity is more than questionable.

1. Why we believe in the authority of Gods Word1. Apologetic introduction

33. It bears the marks of divine quality

33. It carries timeless truths

33. It provides a witness to the greatest event in human history

33. It claims to be the Word of God

1. Internal evidence

34. Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God?

34. Luke 24:44 Jesus delineates the OTwhat about the New?

2. 1 Tim 5:17-18, Paul calls Lukes writing Scripture

2. 2 Peter 3:15-17, Peter calls Pauls epistles Scripture

2. 2 Peter 3:1-2, Peter shows the authority of the apostles and prophets

2. Jude 17, The words of the apostles were authoritative

2. 2 Timothy 4:11, Mark is profitable for ministry

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

1. External evidence

11. Archaeology confirms it

11. History confirms it

11. Science confirms it

11. Changed lives confirm it

1. How we received Gods Word1. Languages

36. Hebrew

36. Aramaic

36. Greek

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

1. Writings (Chronology)

37. Moses

37. Joshua

37. Samuel

37. Prophets

37. Matthew / James

37. Mark / Luke

37. Jude

37. Pauls letters

37. John

37. 1-3 John

37. Revelation

1. Preservation

12. Through the Jews (Rom 3.2)

12. Through the Church (John 17.17; 1 Tim 3.15)

12. Through translations into languages

3. LXX

3. Syriac Peshitta

3. Italic (Old Latin)

3. Gallic (Old French)

3. European languages during the Reformation

3. Still translating today

1. Interpretative issues to consider

1. Dispensationalism

2. Covenantalism

3. These topics are covered in Advanced Hermeneutics, but suffice it to say here that how one approaches the Bible greatly influences how he understands it.

Theology

1. Introduction1. How do we define God?

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

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

1. What are the sources of our knowledge?

1. Intuition

1. Tradition

1. Reason

1. Revelation

1. How do we know God exists?

1. Cosmological

Logically speaking the cosmological argument for the existence of God is inductive and a posteriori: the evidence is examined, and based on it a conclusion is drawn that God exists. The term cosmological comes from the Greek word cosmos, meaning world. This argument is based on the fact that a cosmos, or world, exists. Because something cannot come from nothing, there must be an original cause that is the reason for the worlds existence. A man wears a Bulova wristwatch. Although he has never seen a watchmaker, the fact of the existence of the wristwatch suggests there is a Swiss watchmaker who made the watch. The cosmological argument says that every effect must have a cause[footnoteRef:30] [30: Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 183.]

1. Teleological

As in the previous case, the teleological argument is inductive and a posteriori. Teleological comes from the Greek word telos, meaning end. The teleological argument may be defined thus: Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause.[footnoteRef:31]2 The world everywhere evidences intelligence, purpose, and harmony; there must be a master architect behind all this evidence. The psalmist sees the magnificence of Gods creation in the universe and recognizes that it testifies to His existence (Ps. 8:34; 19:14). Gods harmony is observed throughout the universe and world: the sun being ninety-three million miles distant is precisely right for an adequate climate on earth; the moons distance of two hundred forty thousand miles provides tides at a proper level; the earths tilt provides the seasons. A conclusion is clear that God, the Master Designer, has created this magnificent universe. The alternative, that the world happened by chance, is no more possible than a monkeys being able to create a work of Shakespeare on a typewriter by haphazard play on the keys.[footnoteRef:32] [31: 2 H. C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 28.] [32: Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 183-84.]

1. Anthropological

The anthropological argument, which is also inductive and a posteriori, is based on the Greek word anthropos, meaning man. Contrary to the secular humanist who sees man simply as a biological being, the biblicist sees man as created in the image of God (Gen. 1:2628). The image of God in man is spiritual, not physical (cf. Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Man is not simply a physical being, but also a moral being with a conscience, intellect, emotion, and will. Chafer states: There are philosophical and moral features in mans constitution which may be traced back to find their origin in God A blind force could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator.[footnoteRef:33] [33: Ibid., 184.]

1. Moral

The moral argument is related to the anthropological argument (some combine the two) and can be seen as a further consideration of that argument. The moral argument acknowledges that man has an awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality. Where did this sense of moral justice come from? If man is only a biological creature why does he have a sense of moral obligation? Recognition of moral standards and concepts cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process. The biblicist recognizes that God has placed a sense of moral justice within the human race in contradistinction to all other creation. Romans 2:1415 indicates that Gentiles who have had no revelation of the law have an inner, moral witness placed there by God.[footnoteRef:34] [34: Ibid., 184.]

1. Ontological

The ontological argument, distinct from the preceding arguments, is deductive and a priori; it begins with an assumption and then attempts to prove that assumption. It is less significant than the preceding arguments. The term ontological comes from the Greek present participle ontos (from the verb eimi) and means being or existence. The ontological argument is philosophical rather than inductive. The argument reasons: If man could conceive of a Perfect God who does not exist, then he could conceive of someone greater than God himself which is impossible. Therefore God exists. The argument rests on the fact that all men have an awareness of God. Because the concept of God is universal, God must have placed the idea within man. Anselm (1033?1109) was the first proponent of this view. In the thinking of some, this argument has limited value, and few would affirm the usefulness of the ontological argument.[footnoteRef:35] [35: Ibid., 184-85.]

1. How does God exist?

1. Biblical view of Trinitarianism

1. God is a personal being

1. God is a spiritual being

1. God is a tri-unity

1. Hints of this are found:

4. Genesis 1.26 (possible allusion)

4. Deuteronomy 6.4

2. Genesis 2.24

2. Exo 24.3

2. Ezra 2.64

4. Ecclesiastes 12.1

4. Matthew 28.19

4. Acts 17.29

4. Romans 1.20

4. 2 Corinthians 13.14

4. Colossians 2.9

4. 1 Peter 1.2

1. Historical view of Trinitarianism

2. Church Fathers

i. Belief in the Trinity is affirmed; Clement sets forth the equality of the triune God in his statement: For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect (Cor. 58). Clement acknowledged God as Creator and Master of the universe (Cor. 33).[footnoteRef:36] [36: Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 410.]

ii. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality;[footnoteRef:37]3 and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized;[footnoteRef:38]4 nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,[footnoteRef:39]5 the same Trinity sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire, but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, Thou art my Son,[footnoteRef:40]6 whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount,[footnoteRef:41]7 or when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;[footnoteRef:42]8 but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly[footnoteRef:43] [37: 3 [Augustin teaches the Nicene doctrine of a numerical unity of essence in distinction from a specific unity. The latter is that of mankind. In this case there is division of substancepart after part of the specific nature being separated and formed, by propagation, into individuals. No human individual contains the whole specific nature. But in the case of the numerical unity of the Trinity, there is no division of essence. The whole divine nature is in each divine person. The three divine persons do not constitute a speciesthat is, three divine individuals made by the division and distribution of one common divine naturebut are three modes or forms (Phil. 2:6) of one undivided substance, numerically and identically the same in each.W. G. T. S.].] [38: 4 Matt. 3:16.] [39: 5 Acts. 2:2, Acts 2:4.] [40: 6 Mark 1:11.] [41: 7 Matt. 17:5.] [42: 8 John 12:28.] [43: Augustine of Hippo, "On the Trinity", trans. Arthur West Haddan In , in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume III: St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 20.]

iii. Church Councils

a. Nicea 325 AD Affirmed Deity of Christ

b. Constantinople 381 AD Affirmed Deity of Spirit

Although the doctrine of the Trinity itself was not discussed, the doctrine of the deity of Christ was confirmed. In attendance were approximately 300 bishops, many of whom were divided over the issue. Arius with his supporters, Theonas, Secundus, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, held the view that Jesus was an inferior creature to God the Father. The orthodox camp was led by Bishops Hosius, Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Athanasius who argued that Jesus is God. After hours of debate, the council concluded the following in their creed:

"We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father. . . ."

While the deity of Christ--a crucial aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity--was affirmed, Arius nevertheless continued to teach his doctrine of Christ's inferiority, and Arianism came back into favor for a short time. Fifty years later, in 381 A.D., the Council of Constantinople was called by Emperor Theodosius. Here the Nicene Creed was reaffirmed and further clarified. It is at this council that the Holy Spirit was declared equal in divinity with the Father and the Son.

The councils of Nicea and Constantinople did not establish a new creed. The councils clarified and formalized the belief in the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, views already held by the apostles and church fathers.

ILLUSTRATION: TD JAKES, Christianity Today, January 27, 2012

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/01/td_jakes_embrac.html

Jakes -- who once made the cover of Time magazine, which asked if he might be the next Billy Graham -- said he was saved in a Oneness Pentecostal church. Oneness Pentecostalism denies the Trinity and claims that instead of God being three persons, He is one person. In Oneness Pentecostalism, there is no distinction between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is also called "modalism," and it is embraced by the United Pentecostal Church International.

"I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son," Jakes said. "There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that." [See the transcript of Jakes' comments at the end of this story.]

The doctrine of the Trinity -- embraced by all three historical branches of Christianity -- holds that God is three persons, each person is distinct, each person is fully God, and that there is one God.

Several key Bible passages, Jakes said, impacted his transition.

"Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, for example, coming up out of the water [and] the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the Father speaks from heaven -- and we see all three of them on one occasion," he said, "or in Genesis [where God said,] 'let us make man in our own likeness' or Elohim -- He is the one God who manifests Himself in a plurality of ways. Or what Jesus says, 'I am with the Father, and the Father is in me.'"

Jakes added: "That began to make me rethink some of my ideas and some of the things that I was taught. I got kind of quiet about it for a while. Because when you are a leader and you are in a position of authority, sometimes you have to back up and ponder for a minute, and really think things through."

1. Formulated Doctrinal statement

The Bible asserts that within the Godhead exists three distinct Persons within this one essence. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are seen to be co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent.

1. Heresies to combat:

4. Tritheism

1. This is the belief that there are three separate GodsThree Persons / Three Essences

1. This is the charge leveled against the Orthodox by Jehovahs Witnesses

4. Modalism

2. This is a belief that God manifests Himself in three different persons(One person, three manifestations)

2. This is the belief that has worked its way into Unitarianism and Oneness Pentecostalism.

2. Consider the testimony of Jakes there were Bible verses that hindered his belief in the Oneness teaching.

4. Arianism

3. This is a belief that teaches that Jesus was a created being, a lesser god.

3. This belief has worked its way into the teaching of the Jehovahs Witness movement

3. One need only ask, Does the Bible teach the Deity of Christ to understand why Arianism was banned as heretical in the 4th Century (the Council of Nicea, 325)

1. What is God doing?

A. Does God have a plan?

3. It appears from Scripture that God, indeed, has a plan. There is an order, a design in the grand scheme of things.

3. From Isaiah 46.10 and Acts 2.23, we notice that His plan (counsel) is singular.

3. That is, God is not orchestrating multiple plans to see which one works best. He has one plan, with multiple steps, layers, and phases, but all working toward that good pleasure based on the counsel of His own will (Eph 1.1-14)

B. What is His plan?

1. Is this plan the redemption of man?

1. Is this plan the inauguration of the kingdom?

2. While each of these is important, they reveal only a part of Gods plan.

2. Gods ultimate plan is His glory. Consider the following verses:

2. Matthew 6.13

2. Luke 2.14

2. Acts 12.23

2. Romans 1.23

2. Romans 3.23

2. Romans 9.23

2. 1 Corinthians 1.29

2. 1 Corinthians 10.31

2. Ephesians 1.6

2. Revelation 4.11

C. What is the purpose of His plan?

The ultimate purpose of Gods plan is the praise and manifestation of the glory of God (Eph. 1:6, 11, 12, 14; 3:21; Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Rev. 4:11; 5:13). It is essential to the very Being of God and by the very nature of God that His glory be manifested and appreciated because of what Gods glory is and does within the universe. This is not the action of some pompous person who wants to be seen to feel good about himself. Not for a moment. Rather, this is more like the blessing, the joy, and the awe we may experience when we see some highly-skilled acrobat, athlete, actor, musician, or some majestic part of creation. Because of the beauty, grace and skill, it needs to be seen and appreciated by others. When we view a glorious mountain in its beautiful setting or see an athlete perform in an outstanding way, we often think, how awful it would be if such talent or beauty were never seen and appreciated, not for the ego of the person, but for the joy and thrill it gives to the viewers.

So Gods plan is designed to manifest the various facets of His glory or perfections. How? By allowing sin through the creature, Gods plan brought out all aspects of Gods glory much like sparkling diamonds against the backdrop of black velvet. The presence of sin and rebellion manifests Gods love, patience, holiness, mercy, and grace to a magnificent degree.[footnoteRef:44] [44: Hampton Keathley, Theology Proper: the Doctrine of God. Bible.org]

1. What is God like?

A. Non-Communicable Attributes[footnoteRef:45] [45: Any delineation of these attributes into categories is soon shown to be insufficient. Some of the attributes that are listed as non-communicable, some would argue are not. Some of the attributes listed in the communicable section would be argued against as well. This is not black and white however, it provides a framework for discussion.]

1. Self-existence (John 5.26)

2. Immutability (Ps 102:25-27; Ex 3.14; James 1.17)

3. Infinity

a. Eternality infinite in time (Ps 90.2)

b. Omnipresence infinite in space (Ps 139:7-11)

4. Holiness

B. Communicable Attributes

1. Attributes of Intellect

a. Omniscience God knows all things actual and potential (Ps 139.16; Matt 11.21)

i. Of course, omniscience itself is non-communicable. But knowledge itself can be communicated in a limited way to man.

ii. The dilemma of this attribute is between omniscience and free will

iii. In this generation, more books are being written on the Open View of God

1. If God already knows the future as if it were accomplished, then nothing we can do can change what will happen.

2. If we can do nothing to bring about a foreseeable change, then man does not have free will.

3. At stake are the following issues:

a. Ones definition of omniscience

b. Ones definition of free will

c. Whether or not these two terms are compatible

d. Has every event been predetermined?

e. Where does prayer fit into this equation?

b. Omnisapience God acts upon His knowledge to always do what is infinitely best (Rom 11.33-36).

i. Since God is all-wise (and not just all-knowing), His plan is always best.

ii. Wisdom is the right use of knowledge.

2. Attributes of Emotion

a. God is love incomprehensibly active for our good (1 Jn 4.8)

b. Grace unmerited favor (Eph 2.8-9)

c. Mercy concern, compassion (James 5.11)

d. Longsuffering self-restrained when provoked (2 Pet 3.9, 15)

e. Just He is perfectly righteous and exact in His dealings with man (Ps 19.9)

3. Attributes of Will

a. Omnipotence God is able to do anything that He wills. He will not do anything against His nature (sin) or anything that is logically self-contradictory. (Job 42.2)

b. Sovereignty God is the final authority, the ruler over all the affairs of the universe. He may choose to let some things happen according to natural laws He put in place. (2 Chron 29.11-12)