To explain why integrative thinking is needed in a diversified world, it is necessary to recognize underlying assumptions about reality and how we know reality in the social issues of life. It develops an awareness of the metaphysical nature of existence. Integrative thinking assembles a correct epistemology concerning physical and spiritual reality that weighs upon the consciousness of contingent beings.

Knowing Ultimate Reality

It is necessary to consider a collection of experiences, sources, philosophies, and present or historical conditions that encompass all knowledge. To explain coherently and exhaustively what truthful worldview contexts exist for living Coram Deo and among people who live together in civility and reasonable harmony.

Theology’s Challenging Task

Even with all of the experiences we live through, and the availability of divinely revealed truth, there are charges brought against the discipline of systematic theology as a manner of response and criticism concerning methodologies and the arrival of decisions about theological conclusions and truth. They are verbatim as follows: ¹

1. Systematic theology organized a system of Christian thought around one central theme (sovereignty, freedom, covenant, dispensation, or kingdom) chosen a priori and imposed on the rest of revelation in a contrived interrelatedness.
   
   
2. Systematic theology failed to do justice to the multiplicity of relevant lines of biblical information seen in their cultural and historical contexts.
   
   
3. Systematic theology paid insufficient attention to the history of doctrine in the church.
   
   
4. Systematic theology tended to regard a system of theology as closed rather than open to new discoveries from God’s Word or God’s world.
   
   
5. Systematic theology passed its teachings on to the next generation by sheer indoctrination—an unworthy approach to education.
   
   
6. Finally, systematic theology failed to display the relevance of its content to the burning personal and social issues of its day.

Theologians unaffected by these criticisms retained “presuppositional and axiomatic methodologies.” Consequently, their effectiveness and limited reach concerning the theological subject matter were explained by faulty priori assumptions, the importation of biblical meaning into current cultural contexts, indifference to historical doctrines, and closed-mindedness.

To advance the course of study adjacent to systematic theologies (with its limitations and impediments), integrative theology is introduced as an embodied approach to the discipline of theology. Integrative theology is the art and science of developing a comprehensive set of convictions from special and general revelation about topics pertinent to Christian life and service. Integrative theology is a discipline of the student who investigates various interrelated criteria of truth, logic, philosophy, and reason. It bears upon evidence from the world as cast into existence from God. It is responsible for evaluating the empirical sciences and internal experiences as interpreted through psychology, axiology, ethics, epistemology, and ontology.

Integrative theology requires testable hypotheses in discovery:

1. Noncontradiction
2. Support from adequate evidence
3. Affirmability without hypocrisy

It does not accept out-of-hand presuppositions imposed upon Scripture but instead adopts a chosen research methodology. Collecting data and facts involves illumination by the Holy Spirit, proper hermeneutics, personal study, teaching, preaching, and other qualified and reliable primary sources that converge into personal convictions that are shareable to the faith community at large.

Integrative theology incorporates the strengths and values of systematics and avoids its weaknesses. There are several specific areas by which that is accomplished.

1. Rather than presuppositions that feed into systematics that form historical doctrines of immense value from eisegesis, integrative theology produces a coherent end to exegetical interpretation that involves Scriptural data and experience.
   
   
2. Personal revelation by interpretation and thinking God’s thoughts after Him without claim to complete comprehension.
   
   
3. Tested and validated hypothesis formed by beginning from historical and contemporary options before arriving at conclusions – as compared to conclusions of systematics formed from presuppositions.
   
   
4. Systematic theology is a product of indoctrination, while integrative theology is not. Doing theology is an endeavor of recurrence that will withstand reexamination. It is always open to discoveries from the closed canon of Scripture, literary materials, historiographical subject matter, ancient cultures, languages, and discoveries throughout creation, whether through revelation or empirical scientific method.
   
   
5. Systematic theology is a product of indoctrination while integrative theology is not. Doing theology is an endeavor of recurrence that will withstand reexamination. It is always open to discoveries from the closed canon of Scripture, literary materials, historiographical subject matter, ancient cultures, languages, and discoveries throughout creation whether through revelation or empirical scientific method.
   
   
6. Integrative theology is an approach to the practical significance of faith and practice. As an outcome of formulated and established doctrines, it showcases the relevance of theological truth for spiritual value and service.

To explain integrative theology’s relationship to other disciplines of interest, these disciplines must be understood individually as each has functional involvement with other fields.

1. Apologetics
   As this is the defense of theological presuppositions, there are reliable and testable assertions that God has acted in creation, Christ, and Scripture. As such, worldview formation that has a bearing upon lived lives affirms God’s existence, His creation, the historical Jesus, and the subject matter of Scripture.
   
   
2. Biblical Studies
   Theological information originates from biblical studies and primary sources. To study, live, teach, and preach divinely inspired truth, the theology student must reach for the root meaning of written materials, plus how they were formed, translated, conveyed, and transmitted.
   
   
3. Hermeneutics
   Theological subjectivism is conclusively refuted by sound hermeneutics. Cognitive assertions according to the biblical writers’ intended meaning require readers to change readers assumptions to fit the given facts within Scripture.
   
   
4. Logic
   As logic is a metaphysical construct that accompanies material creation, it didn’t exist in the Universe before ex nihilo. While philosophical categories of reason within creation are not exclusive to the spiritual realm, the metaspiritual domain of elohim is assumed, or at least it isn’t confined by the properties of three-dimensional creation (abstract or otherwise). – Human logic is merely a tool to form methods, draw reliable conclusions and follow principles of coherent reasoning to make sense of reality. A realm of an eternal now would involve ways and means of rationale beyond the sensory perception of cause-and-effect by sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste that transcends the physical Universe. To say that logic is the root of God’s mind is presumptuous. While divine revelation involves the presence of it throughout creation, are we to conclude that it exists in the same manner in His domain? To assert as much requires Scriptural support. Jesus fed 5000 people from five loaves and two fish.
   
   
5. Previous Theologies (historical theologies)
   These are secondary sources with provisional authority, yet it is to our loss if we ignore the insights, syntheses, and applications of theological principles from Scripture. Many contributors over the centuries offer meaningfully inspired material about the truth of divine revelation and surrounding truths as made evident within God’s creation. The traditions, creeds, and doctrines of faith produce valuable and helpful sources of subject matter that contribute to investigative efforts. The work of the Patristics, Puritans and Reformed theologians are of especially significant value as historical insights are among people imbued by the Spirit to share their learning and convictions. The conclusions they draw are made our own even if there are sparse areas of misunderstanding and disagreement.
   
   
6. Research Methodology
   As a key to responsible theological decision-making, how research is conducted has a bearing on how we grasp Truth.
   
   a. Define the problem
   b. Survey relevant literature and gather many perspectives
   c. Test all hypotheses
   d. Formulate preliminary conclusions from among alternatives while open to inquiry
   e. Determine concrete ways to implement conclusions

Coherent truth must not be rejected in the search for theological truth grounded in Scripture. Existential, pragmatic, and mystical experiences can be significant as a work of the Spirit that cannot be dismissed or discounted. Humanistic philosophies shall not go unchecked and shall be countered with coherent reason and theistic philosophies that defend the faith through engagement while speaking from truth and love.

All Scripture must be the primary source of truthful information for integrative, systematic, and biblical theologies. Whether chronologically or logically, these theologies use Scripture as a matter of principled application toward research. However, defined by purpose or scope, integrative theology invites further sources into chronologically or logically situated biblical truth.

Just as comparative abstractions offer propositional meaning between biblical and systematic theologies, integrative theology holds up just as well in terms of Scriptural principles to derive truth consistent with divine revelation.

As the development of alternative theologies advanced through history, further sources and materials anchored by divine truth arrived by exegetical understanding and historiographical relevance. Integrative theology intentionally uses aggregated sources and materials that cumulate, such as manuscripts, geographical and cultural discoveries, historical pressures among empires, conquests, literary formation and diversity, and scientific discoveries about nature and the Universe itself.

To inspire people as a conduit of God’s revealed truth is a deep joy as a way to glorify Him and worship Him. Because of who He is and what He has done, what He does, and by His promises. To serve as a vessel, not only to host and serve Him but to be the container of His truth which carries His message as an outpouring of His message and His interests.

Even if to both the goats and the sheep together of a small flock, or one-by-one, it is a joy and privilege to be His servant to speak of Him, His Word, and compelling theological truths that reach people where the Holy Spirit might turn them to God (Matt 13:14b-17).

Divine Revelation to All People of All Times

The classical problem the authors make explicit is the question of whether or not every rational person can comprehend something of God. A genuine inquiry into this question is essential for developing a person’s worldview, including personal and social survival. Specific interest around general revelation involves the recognition of God as Creator by observing what is observed throughout Creation. Moreover, Creation and the conscience of people involving moral obligations and duties present evidence of a Being at the source of their existence. Absent self-inflicted severing of conscience or God’s hardening of a person’s heart (Rom 9:18), all people internally recognize and intuitively understand the existence of a Creator as the source of all reality. While people internally understand God’s existence, acknowledging and accepting that is another matter.

Contrary to Barth’s perspective² and consistent with Romans 1:20, people recognize God in nature, providential history, and moral law. All existentially made possible from among free agents who develop a basic understanding of God through His general revelation in this way. Denial of this as Scripturally factual is a betrayal of God’s Word and, ultimately, of Him as Creator.

There are various hypotheses to be tested to summarize influential answers to this problem objectively.

1. Aquinas and the Thomistic Tradition
   Thomas Aquinas favored rational induction to explain that people would eventually recognize the existence of God on their own. He propositioned two realms (nature and grace) and two kinds of knowledge (natural and revealed) with two methods of knowing (reason and faith). As it was his rationale that people are made in the image of God with a rational mind, he also concluded that the intellect was “not seriously affected” by the Fall. Aquinas’ perspectives about the “analogy of being” showed that persons are derivative of God, and their existence is analogous to God’s existence. The Reformers, in contrast, understand the human condition as totally depraved and unable to arrive at God’s existence insofar as their need for Him.
   
   
2. Empirically Orientated Liberalism
   Liberals who want empirical data to evaluate the merits of God’s existence seek to rely on natural and social sciences. On their terms or methods, the emphasis is upon the power of the rational mind to conclude God’s existence. By observation, knowledge of God is attained through modern learning. In comparison to scholars and theologians who have a high view of Scripture as infallible and inerrant, empirically orientated liberals believe that the Bible is fallible and requires the corrective discipline of human knowledge (i.e., Scripture is not inspired by the Holy Spirit).
   
   
3. Existentially Orientated Liberalism
   Unlike empirically orientated liberals who want data to determine if God exists or that He can be found and understood, existentially orientated liberals rely upon human experience. God is not found or understood as Creator by external means of observation (contrary to Scripture) but by intuition and a personal mystical experience. In this way, revelation imparts no new knowledge but a new consciousness, according to the author.
   
   
4. The Neoorthodox Tradition
   Those of the neoorthodox tradition insist that revelation does not exist outside of what God has communicated to humanity through His Word. To the neoorthodox, God is utterly unique as Creator, while humanity is far removed from God by its sinfulness and ability to recognize Him, much less comprehend His existence by general revelation. The author of this text characterizes Karl Barth as the locus of neoorthodoxy as general revelation unknowable from nature (contrary to Rom 1:18-20). The author cites Barth as writing a denial about the meaning of Romans 1:18-20 as it pertains to humanity’s ability to acknowledge God’s existence by general revelation. The author does not indicate whether or not Barth’s position concerns special or secondary revelation.
   
   
5. Dutch Reformed Theology
   The author writes that just as the neoorthodox deny general revelation has a bearing upon a person’s recognition and understanding of God, the Dutch Reformed concur. They together view the effects of sin upon people as rendering them incapable of drawing correct conclusions about God from nature or anywhere else. According to the author, Dutch reformers claim that only the regenerate can see Creation and nature as it is and recognize God through His work.
   
   
6. Many Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals
   From long ago to more contemporary figures, numerous people of faith hold to both general non-salvific knowledge of God and particular knowledge from revelation through the incarnate Christ. Augustin, Luther, Calvin, and others wrote of general revelation recognizable in nature by humanity. It is ascertained that people can also discern God as Creator who instilled moral values and duties through general revelation by the human conscience. Where general revelation only serves to condemn and does not save, God’s Word through the Holy Spirit witness of Christ and His redemptive work for the elect who believe the gospel.

All literary genres of Scripture account for the evidence between general and particular revelation, the Old Testament and the New. Reformers and early Church fathers were more in line with the covenant distinctions and the substance of the redemptive work to include the authority of God’s Word through instruction and Scripture, plus the inner work of the Holy Spirit from Pentecost onward.

The observable Universe and its laws of nature reveal God as the cause of physical, metaphysical, and material reality. The self-aware nature of humanity and its inherent cognition of right and wrong is also evidence of a causal Creator who originated people as His image bearers. As made clear in Romans 1:18-20, general revelation is explicitly understood that God has made His attributes and power known to all people. Special revelation through the life and teachings of Christ Jesus informs people about God’s redemptive work. Throughout Creation, people are called to eternal life with God through the Messiah for reconciliation as a means to escape sin, judgment, and eternal condemnation. The life and ministry of Christ are God incarnate upon the Earth to inform believers and unbelievers alike who He is and what He set out to do through covenants with people. The witness of the Holy Spirit as God and the whole counsel of His Word specifically reveals His intentions and interests.

God’s view matters most. Human experience, in general, doesn’t reliably describe with logical consistency who God is beyond what was specified and implied in Scripture as intended. Through the consciences of people and observable Creation by what was made (Rom 1:20, 2:14, 15; Acts 14:17; 17:24–27), God and his attributes are revealed to the extent His Word specifies through the Holy Spirit. None of the alternative views among the various perspectives self-derive a knowability about God beyond what He has set in place throughout created order. The ability to reason and conclude comes from God. The presence, behaviors, and properties of Creation are made to glorify Him, and people witness the unspoken praise of Creation for this purpose. 

Given the scale and scope of the Universe and the mysterious and hidden nature of the sub-molecular activity of space, matter, and time, people can barely comprehend what is physically before them in an opaque way. Much less the spiritual realities that exist. It is a pronounced understatement to say that each and every individual for all time throughout humanity has a very myopic and narrow view of the world around them. As it is written by the prophet Isaiah, “We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men” (Isa. 59:10).

The categorical groups the authors set out to describe are helpful for understanding perspectives. However, every one of them is limited in its own unique way. I have trouble with the whole perspective that they are fully set against one another (Mark 9:39, Luke 9:50). Or in opposition where the cause of Christ is proclaimed even amid an abundance of error. The empirically orientated liberal who places the highest confidence upon the power of the intellect has little room for the assurance of truth by experience and metaphysical awareness among the existentially orientated liberals. Those of the faith who view neoorthodox believers as dry and vacant of the expressive presence of the Holy Spirit are somewhat upstaged by the reformers and evangelicals who “make room” for the Holy Spirit within to give voice to reason and experience. After a while, the contentious differences become wearisome. Yes, it is necessary to remain on guard, and believers are warned of false teachers as we must avoid them. Still, the following quote occasionally comes to mind as a look at the exercise of compare and contrast weighs heavily. Quote: Caesar Augustus openly professed the worship of the gods, which he had practiced secretly, and set the bishops of the Christians at odds:

“[4] On this, [Caesar] took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterward have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.”³   – Ammianus Marcellinus (330 – 400AD), Roman Soldier, Rerum Gestarum, (of the achievements, of history; for achievements), Book XXII, Chapter 5

I’m just doing my best to follow Christ by His invitation,

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  – Matt 11:28-30

Biblical and doctrinal convictions that develop from immersion in the Word through prayer, worship, fellowship, and reliable academic instruction help to yield me to God’s grace as I am utterly dependent upon Him for understanding, faith, and practice. The viability of my convictions comes from what I’ve accepted as the authoritative Word of God. I am committed to what it says and what it means because the messaging in all its forms originates from God. And how can I not live and abide by them even when, at times, I’m inconsistent in words, thoughts, or deeds (as are the authors of this textbook)?

I do not betray personal convictions of biblical truth as they’re developed within, nor do I live in persistent contradiction to them as they more closely align with this text’s “Many Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals” (pg. 65). Far less so am I guided or informed by convictions formed through instruction, the church, and views of people (including believers unless God has placed specific individuals into my life). A verse I memorized is my most pertinent answer to this question:

“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. – Gal 2:20

It is not my intent to be contrarian to the instructional value of this text. I am only writing what comes to mind and heart as I’ve read and studied the material at length. I get what the authors as a whole articulate, and I’m persuaded and better educated by the awakening subject matter in this text, but in my very limited view, some questions are hit-and-miss relevant. God is love and we are to love.

Divine Revelation Through Christ, Prophets, and Apostles

Volumes 1 and 2 of the Integrative Theology texts have the same review questions among nearly all chapters. These are template questions where the authors try to map the questions to readers’ expected or suitable responses about the subject matter. The author intends to have readers relate to and apply each section of the chapter read. Volume 3 of the set includes questions for discussion where they change for each chapter as they are more closely relevant to the subject matter. The chapter questions in volume three do not repeat as they do for volumes one and two.

Under the chapter title, “Divine Revelation through Christ, Prophets, and Apostles,” the authors wrote the question: How does a man, woman, or child, created and loved by God, come to know the Lord of the Universe in a personal, saving relation?

Given that question as a problem, a reader is better served by understanding the gospel with an invitation to seek Christ Jesus through His Word in Scripture. After that, if that person wants to develop a relationship with God further, there are biblically sound churches or fellowships where new believers are directed to help with spiritual formation. Believers attain spiritual formation from the Bible (Divine revelation), which consists of the words of God through the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles.

The answer to the question as a problem to resolve best comes from Scripture itself (as it is, in fact, a historical reference):

²⁸ But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.”
²⁹ And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas.
³⁰ Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” ³¹ And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” – Acts 16:28–31 (ESV)

For context, reference the account of the Philippian jailer converted in verses 25 through 40.

Among all the alternatives listed between Roman Catholic Scholasticism to Most Church Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals, the views of the latter group are closest to the primary biblical evidence (as answered by Acts 16:28-31).  

When the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he asked what he must do to enter into a salvific relationship with God. Paul’s response serves as the source of authoritative doctrine regarding the matter. The jailer was to believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation, and he was given specific instructions about how to do that by Apostle Paul. There is no grounding to dispute what is necessary to attain salvation. It is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. From the Greek meaning of the term (, this belief is not a manner of mental assent. It is to entrust oneself to God through Christ Jesus in complete confidence. Furthermore, “God and Christ are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.”⁴

• Roman Catholic Scholasticism
  From assertions made at the Council of Trent, Catholics believe that all saving truth is contained in written and unwritten traditions. The “unwritten traditions” from the succession within the Catholic church claim authority of equal weight and relevance to Scripture. God’s Word, as either the Protestant or Catholic canon, never validates that claim.
  
  
• Enlightenment Skepticism
  The assertions of Enlightenment theologians who develop perspectives in denial of divine activity deny general or special revelation. This class of “theologians” dismiss all accounts of Scriptural witness and historical testimony. Accordingly, their insistence that salvific value is necessary for understanding through self-derived means judged sufficient through human reason, science, and experience is futile as flesh counts for nothing (John 6:63).
  
  As Enlightenment Theologians and skeptics reject the prospect of a spiritual reality that helps explain what transpired through revelation in all its forms within redemptive history, by inference they have already concluded there is no sin or wrath to be saved from. No need for reconciliation on God’s terms as He is their creator. Accordingly, there is no problem or question to answer as such from this text.

⁶¹ But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? ⁶² Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? ⁶³ It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. – John 6:61–63 (ESV)

• Kierkegaard and Neoorthodoxy
  Kierkegaard and Barth have firm convictions about the weight of authority concerning Scripture. As evident by Christ Jesus through His incarnate presence, His words, and His actions, they view revelation as a qualitative difference among people where the Bible becomes the Word of God when believers respond in faith. While I resonate with their views about the authoritative nature of God’s Word and their dismissal of liberal thought as self-serving for social interests, I must withhold agreement about what the authors of this text wrote about when God’s Word becomes a special revelation. The Word of God has the spiritual substance of revelation for salvific merit, as validated by Paul, the apostle. Whether it was accepted or not. The Word is not an instrument to wield as if it were possible to get oneself saved. The Spirit works through His Words in Scripture to produce salvific faith among those appointed to believe.
  
  I understand that the Word of God is His revelation, whether it is perceived that way or not. Conversely, we read Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians as follows:

¹³And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. – 1 Thess 2:13 (ESV)

• Pannenberg’s Revelation as History
  Revelation as identical to the totality of history is Pannenberg’s view about how revelation is permissible. Divine revelation includes all humanity as recipients across time to involve redemptive and secular history. Contrary to what God has accomplished throughout extensive OT and NT biblical teaching, salvation is up in the air, so to speak, about what is necessary to redeem people and the individual to God.
  
  
• Theistic Existentialism
  To existentialist theologians, divine revelation is a progression of experiences or events upon a person where transformation occurs without reference to the communication of gospel information from God. In contradiction to Romans 10:14-15, theistic existentialists also deny the authority of Scripture in this area. And they would likely do the same regarding the message of salvation where the point is moot about their acceptance of the gospel and Christ Jesus’s claims as redeemer Messiah.
  

In contrast to this question I answered previously, is the question asking if my convictions are viable, valid, or authentic by whether or not I can live by them? Where the underlying rationale is that if I can’t live by them, then my convictions are not valid? The premise to which the question is posed in response to the subject matter in this chapter is puzzling. Because no one fully lives by their convictions in thoughts, words, or actions. Believers are not sinners upon rebirth; they’re saints who sometimes sin (by betraying their convictions). This looks like an unregenerate question, but I’m sure I’m not getting the meaning somehow. We live by faith. Is the question concerning conviction about the subject matter of this chapter?

Our views and actions follow what we believe with consistency. My views are better formed by what I’ve learned in this chapter, yet I tentatively know what is off, false, or unbiblical. I want to be careful about the outliers compared to my convictions because I know there are times I’m a walking-talking contradiction as I seek to learn more about God, experience Him by His Word and Spirit, and rely on Him for life, faith, and those areas where I’m oblivious that my convictions don’t match what I do. If I’m in biblical or theological error, it is my plea for God to reveal that to me from His Word, by His Spirit, through this chapter and the others to follow. If there’s some area of correction about my convictions, I hope for God’s mercy. I assume my views are viable concerning God’s revelation to us because they’re biblical best I can tell.

I wouldn’t frame my agreements or disagreements with what the authors in this text wrote as convictions. This subject matter is informative, and it helps to gather various perspectives and sources about what theological thinking develops, but my level of maturity in this area is pretty low, I suspect. With a one-time read-through of this chapter, the Biblical Teaching and Systematic Formulation sections around the areas of divine revelation are highly stimulating and merge into a personal understanding that wasn’t previously there. It’s not obvious how I would test my understanding of the subject matter on divine revelation other than by what I study within Scripture and what the Spirit allows me to comprehend.

The Bible as Given by Inspiration and Received by Illumination

Under the chapter title, “The Bible as Given by Inspiration and Received by Illumination,” the authors wrote the question: In what way is the Bible Inspired and Authoritative?

Questions about inspiration and the authority of the Bible are relevant and critical to understanding whether or not divine revelation actually exists. Without the inspiration and authority of the written texts as Scripture, its truth claims, propositions, and messages are questioned. As flawed and corrupted human authors attentive to self-interest or their assertions about spiritual matters, what they write is simply a mix of fictional and nonfictional work.

Illumination and authority require the infallibility, inerrancy, and sufficiency of God’s Words made evident as divine revelation through human authors. The supernatural work of God to form messages of historical and salvific importance span the pages of the Bible to inform readers about Christ Jesus. The method in which the Bible is authoritative and inspired comes from Scripture itself. The Holy Spirit carried along men as God spoke through them to convey His messages (2 Pet 1:20-21).

As made evident through all genres of Scripture, there were various means by which God’s revelation is transmitted to people. Whether through people or directly, verbal or written, the source of inspiration originates from God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The authority of the Word originates from the Creator as God, who has the power to save, engage, withdraw, or destroy.

Jesus himself endorsed the Old Testament as objective truth, both inerrant and authoritative, as he brought to the attention their power against temptation while in the wilderness and tempted by Satan. He also drew attention to the law, the prophets, and the writings to teach and confront people about matters of moral value and conduct. Jesus viewed the teachings of the law, prophets, and writings as valid truth (inerrant) and authoritative. And there are numerous ways that from Him and his apostles, the Word of God as Scripture is demonstrated as both authoritative and inspired by what they spoke, wrote, and historically accomplished.

As structured and answered in prior chapters of this text, alternative proposals from the Church are considered at length about the topic centered upon the doctrine of God’s Word. In contrast to what Scripture informs its readers, those perspectives range from Catholics and Protestants to orthodox and heterodox (liberal) thought. The author of this text also groups “Most Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals” as its separate category to include the patristics of the early church, reformed theologians, and modern leaders of Christian traditions.

The Catholics dispute the canon and supremacy of God’s Word and situate it adjacent to the interpretive authority of the Catholic Magisterium. That is, assertions about the Magisterium’s authority are claimed alongside the authority and inerrancy of Scripture through its exclusive ability to interpret the Word of God. Consequently, the authority and inspiration of Scripture as the supremacy of revelation becomes substituted for the primacy of Scripture as if special revelation is derived and participative between God and the church. While historical Catholicism supplants the exclusive and complete inerrancy and authority of God’s Word as special revelation, Protestant Liberalism and Liberal Evangelicals outright deny it. Between them, the question of the inspiration of Scripture is a toss-up. Catholicism, liberal protestants, and liberal evangelicals commonly question the self-attestation of Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, and authority. On April 8^th, 1546, at the Council of Trent, a Catholic leadership gathering identified its canon of Scripture (to include apocryphal books) in contrast to what Jesus spoke about concerning the Old Testament canon as the law, the prophets, and the writings. Those opposed to the Catholic canon were threatened by penalty of anathema (i.e., accursed as an absolute and irrevocable ex-communication from communion and fellowship).⁵

Reformed theologian and pioneer Martin Luther objected to the books of Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation, the Apocalypse of John. For numerous reasons, I strongly suspect that Jude, a brother of Jesus, was the author of Hebrews in addition to his self-titled letter. James, another brother of Jesus, wrote the book of James. Where these three together are isolated with the Book of Revelation by Luther undermines his credibility in light of his further objections to the Catholic church. Luther was fully persuaded about the soteriological emphasis on grace and held less regard for the tension between grace and living faith by evidence within believers’ lives. So, while the Catholic canon adds material to the Protestant canon (the canon of Athanasius at the Third Synod of Carthage), the protestant reformer Luther sought to deduct material.

Further chafing comes from Both Barth and Brunner. They held that Scripture is errant or has the capacity of error stemming from human words about the divine Word among neo-orthodox perspectives. Brunner rejected verbal inspiration.

Finally, most Patristics, Reformers, and Evangelicals are grouped in a separate category to bring attention to more favorable perspectives about more familiar doctrines about the Word of God according to traditions and confessional standards. A thread of coherent development concerning the inspiration and authority of Scripture is weaved from influential fathers of the early church to the Reformers and evangelicals today, as stated by the CSBI. 

There isn’t primary biblical evidence about the inspiration and authority of Scripture concentrated in one area or grouping. There is a wide distribution of demonstrable self-attestation from the Pentateuch to Johannine literature. It is possible to assign weights to the placement and definitive proof of inspiration and authority of Scripture and cast a distribution to show where and how much the doctrine is supported. Such as a histogram or Pareto rule of concentration that objectively quantifies the matter. However, intuitively, the four gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ use of Scripture bear the most interest concerning the Old Testament.

As I deeply distrust the theoretical and spiritually consequential perspectives of people who form conclusions outside Scripture, I have a high degree of skepticism from all traditions, confessions, and denominations. Thinking biblically about matters of doctrine, faith, practice, and matters of conviction, involves a commitment to God and His interests as revealed through His Word. With limited acceptance, I support only the perspectives of historical figures, scholars, academics, pastors, and teachers who align with Scripture and all its substance as truth.

Truthful systematic formulations, doctrines, traditions, confessions, philosophies, teachings, and the ocean of historical documents of enormous weight are far subordinate to Scripture primarily because they speak of truth while God’s Word itself is truth and so much more.

The defense of my views wouldn’t only rest upon what logic and facts I derive. My defense would originate from the Bible, and I would rely on the Spirit to bring to mind what to think and say. If principles of reason or philosophical perspectives are spoken, I wouldn’t likely offer that sort of defense without some references to Scripture or principles derived from the Word without an explicit chapter-and-verse approach.

I would also probably call attention to widespread contradictions among historical authors, academics, and scholars to go on offense about what counter-assertions are made about points unsupported by Scripture (Col 2:8). When it comes to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word, I won’t engage with individuals who have perspectives that run contradictory to the plain meaning of Scripture simply for argument’s sake. Liberals and Catholics with activist perspectives about inspiration and authority come from a position of relativism and particular interests out of conformance with God’s Word as it has been rendered for centuries. Only from authentic interest and inquiry would I offer thoughts and a defense (offense) to influence or persuade according to what I’ve learned and accepted.

After a while, going from conscious decisions of acceptance in what is written to faith and belief in what God said through His Word became a type of muscle memory. So it isn’t by becoming informed that convictions about the Word are formed most deeply. It is by doing them. Doing them by discipline, worship, giving, and serving brings out spiritual understanding that doesn’t otherwise seem available. It’s not learning by doing but spiritual formation and sanctification by acting out the biblical text. With that and availability to the Spirit comes deeper convictions about the truth, inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of God’s Word.  

The Living God

God: An Active Personal, Spirit

Under the chapter titled “God: An Active, Personal Spirit,” the authors wrote the question: How shall we view the reality of God ontologically? Accordingly, there are alternative perspectives in answer to the question in contrast with biblical teaching (according to the authors of the text).

It is thoroughly necessary to understand and live out the reality of God as His existence pertains to each individual’s state of being and eschatological trajectory. As every person is created in the image of God, there is a purpose for which people are created and meant to live coram Deo. As people are individual and social beings, living before God in awareness and faithful obedience to the truth of God is an existential necessity. As various conceptions of God get compared across theological commitments and worldviews, substantive attributes are presented in Scripture that reveals Him as Spirit and personally involved within His Creation.

There are numerous perspectives concerning the being of God and His metaphysical attributes. The spectrum of traditions ranges from Scholastic Thomism, deeply embedded in Catholic theology, to unorthodox, liberal, and protestant proposals. The differences among the perspectives are so broad and distinct that it seems impossible to reconcile them to arrive at an accurate or approximate conclusion about God in terms of His being, essence, identity, and attributes. Perspectives that stem from philosophical thought or premises that do not comport with the Old and New Testament revelation are generally narrowed to individual theories unanchored to Scripture. Perspectives listed and covered also range far and wide depending upon traditions and doctrines that loosely derive from Scripture and early church writings. The text doesn’t offer specifics about the rationale beneath these perspectives (e.g., why Schleiermacher denies the immutability of God), so there is a less meaningful effort to contrast and compare toward objective conclusions (1 Tim 1:4).

While wild speculations are apparent among the various perspectives, Process theology appears to be the farthest afield compared to traditions, doctrines, and Scripture. Contrary to Scripture, adherents of Process theology deny that Yahweh God is a person. Process theology possesses a thoroughly unbiblical notion of God. There is some overlap in truth claims among various perspectives, but there are specifics that are unreconcilable and false compared to a biblical standard. The error between them as groups, whether liberal or orthodox, appears to originate from a “God-centered” or “man-centered” approach to understanding.

Subjective understanding that doesn’t rely on the authority of divine revelation is held by liberalism, idealism, and Process theology perspectives that are errant concerning biblical instruction and teaching that have spanned thousands of years. Protestant and Catholic perspectives that align with Scripture overlap among various beliefs aside from dogmas that have grown out of the Roman Catholic church before and after the Protestant Reformation and Puritan eras. Liberalism, whether Protestant or Catholic, is gravely errant and unmoored from the authority of Scripture, including the gospels and the early church.

The question posed as biblical evidence from the biblical teaching that the authors of this text wrote infers there is single or primary evidence of the most significant weight. How God expresses Himself, His character, attributes, and intentions come through various genres according to the situational context of historical circumstances. To arrive at conclusions about God, His character, and attributes, it is critical to understand from His Word what He has revealed throughout history.

The text’s authors demonstrate widespread Scriptural attestation about the identity of God as a personal Deity with attributes recognizable across generations. To decide for me the most consistent and adequate account of primary biblical data concerning God as an active and personal Spirit doesn’t take wholly provided revelation of God. Scripture isn’t meant to be parsed to draw singular conclusions in this way. For example, how to selectively think of God’s omniscience over His immutability or aseity from biblical descriptions is a narrowing of perspective. To conclude that some attributes are subordinate or contingent upon others is an insight not otherwise available without biblical research about what God has revealed about Himself.

The triune God as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is transcendent, immutable, and self-existent. The eternality of God suggests the presence of time that God inhabits forever. In contrast to a persistent and unending now, independent of time, where the absence of time as a dimension, there is no decay as a function of it. If time is an illusion, as Einstein once said, then the past, present, and future doesn’t necessarily exist in a realm outside Creation. Einstein and many scientists believe that actual reality is timeless and that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. To use the term eternal to describe God’s attribute is an understandable proposition, but not as a perpetuated reality without the effects of aging or decay. Eternality is a timeless existence of a sustained now.

God is the alpha and omega. The beginning and end as He is both concurrently. His existence, independent of Creation, transcends space and time within Creation. Eternality along a human timeline suggests the permanent presence of historical facts within God’s realm of existence, whether ‘outside’ or ‘inside’ His creative reality. The human spirit is not a three-dimensional construct.

The human spirit inhabits a three-dimensional human body as a person’s tripartite being (body, spirit, and soul). God is spirit, and by His ‘breath,’ He gave life and sentient consciousness to humanity to bear His image. God relates to people through the Spirit as Creator, who is active throughout time among generations. God is a personal and active Spirit in the lives of individuals.

The view I maintain is the perspective of biblical writers. In the same response as before, the interpretive value of what the biblical writers wrote corresponds to God’s Word in defense of the errant views of the alternative proposals. At the same time, alternative theories about God as an active and personal Spirit out of alignment with the revealed facts of authoritative Scripture contradict God Himself. The effect of this misalignment with the original root meaning of God’s Word renders the views of the alternate proposals as empty speculations that cause disputes (1 Tim 1:4). Understanding the proposals of alternative views contrary to sacred Scripture only has value as far as identifying where the errors are to refute them and warn others about the specific contradictions (which is what this textbook does by inference).

In contrast to all the alternative proposals, including Protestantism on a trajectory of modern liberalism, I do not fully share various convictions about the topic of who God is as an Active and personal Spirit. I generally hold to the Word and most confessional traditions around the Westminister Confession of Faith and other confessional standards before and after the Reformation. Missing from these perspectives is more development around the thoughts and views of Patristics, and the Puritans compared to 20^th and 21^st-century theologies. Various approaches before the “Enlightenment” period would be a closer way to explore differences to my convictions concerning what the authoritative Word of God reveals about Himself as Spirit, both living and active as personal Creator and Deity involved in people’s lives.

Living by faith according to the Word is where my convictions rest. To live by best effort according to what the Lord wants and teaches. After a lot of time invested in understanding various modern denominations within evangelicalism, reformed traditions, and Catholicism (aside from the views of post-modern liberalism), there are practices and perspectives contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture among every one of them (without exaggeration). The biblical teaching across all genres of this chapter most closely aligns with my convictions.

God’s Many-Splendored Character

In the chapter titled “God’s Many-Splendored Character,” the authors wrote the question: How shall we view the character of God intellectually, ethically, emotionally, volitionally, and relationally? Accordingly, there are alternative perspectives in answer to the question in contrast with biblical teaching according to the authors of the text. With this question, there are interactive tensions between God’s character concerning His attributes and especially concerning His relationship to Creation and His created beings. How God’s interpreted presence and activity within creation are points of continued discussion to answer this question about God’s many-splendored character.

The range of perspectives about God as a personal or impersonal Being throughout the course of history has been contemplated and debated in depth among theologians and philosophers in the church over time. From interpreted observations about the nature of creation and divine revelation throughout Scripture, there are numerous divergent perspectives about how God set creation into existence with its various characteristics as the opinions and theories of individuals are brought to bear within this text. Attempts to answer this question from the perspectives of this text are a subset of what assertions are derived whether consistent with the truths of Scripture or not.

The textbook begins by looking back at Marcionite and Gnostic thought within the church’s earliest centuries. Augustine first followed Macrion as he began his philosophy journey before moving on to Platonism and eventually Christianity. The primitive and often self-contradictory meaning of interpreted historical facts about Judaism and Christianity resulted in controversy and friction as Marcion’s truth claims produced friction, false teaching, and confusion within the early church. Marcion’s errant views about the omnipotent attributes of God were a continued point of contention.

Further along in time, Aquinas recognized the valid attributes of God’s being concerning His omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, and necessity, among others. Aquinas’ assignment of human categories to which God’s attributes belong is propositional at best. More specifically, distinctions between God as a necessary being and contingent beings having a comparative footing in an ontological sense are inferred and worrisome.

Among the numerous additional perspectives narrated in this textbook, Deism and Socinianism affirm and deny characteristics of God. There are yet further divergent views in conformance and opposition to what the biblical writers wrote and from church teachings under the leadership of Paul and leaders of early apostolic succession. The extent and depth to which speculative assertions of human reason work to comprehend and understand God’s attributes beyond divine revelation through Scripture is an elaborate exercise of intellectual futility.

As readers of Schleiermacher and Ritschl attempt to grasp the theoretical propositions of liberalism, either by Protestant or Catholic tradition, there is a loose attachment to biblical facts concerning the revealed attributes of God. Without a commitment to the entire canon of Scripture, whether Protestant or Catholic, there is a continued and implicit denial of their authority that readers are expected to accept as valid or relevant theological and philosophical speculations unanchored from biblical truths about God. Entertaining vain speculations don’t inform a well-developed understanding of biblically centered theological development.

The term “Protestant” is pejorative to many in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. And it has become a label of sorts to identify that which is non-Catholic (which is a false proposition). Degrading the identity of Christ’s followers as Christians subdivided by participants with cause to reach for “their truth” is an unwanted means of division. Too often, as a means by which counterfeit notions, traditions, and doctrines arise and swirl as speculative or happenstance nonsense to escape spiritual and moral obligation or achieve social power and economic gain.

The value to which it is helpful to understand the views of neo-liberal individuals such as Tillich, Whitehead, and Macquarrie, is not for comparative interest in consideration of truthful interpretation about God’s character and attributes but instead to identify error. As liberal thoughts, traditions, persuasive propositions, and influential reasoning contradict the plain meaning of biblical truth, they are entirely dismissed en masse. Distractions that involve the defense of the plain truth of Scripture inject an intentional process of placing confusion where it brings harm. And not from those searching to understand truth as revealed by God, but from those who are in rebellion to that whether they know it or not. Off-mark and errant liberalism corrode everything it touches, and it is an utter waste of time and resources to contend with it. It is impossible to reason with an evil mind that long continues in error even after sound and thorough refutation from facts and truth. It must be isolated, rejected, or destroyed.

The character of God, including His attributes, is extensively covered among a wide span of biblical genres. The textbook covers numerous instances in which God’s attributes and character are revealed. Either by direct interpretive observation or testable inference by correlated Old and New Testament authors. The writers of this textbook provide numerous explicitly attested accounts throughout history concerning how God demonstrated His character and attributes, but also about why and what they are. From the Pentateuch to the Johannine writings in the New Testament, there are numerous primary facts about God’s revealed character and attributes that go well beyond the scope of this paper with available time and effort. As with the prior questions in this paper and among those before, the questions are asked so that they can be answered from an extensive approach to address them adequately. How the questions are formed and asked for written replies is somewhat open-ended without a defined scope in response.

While it isn’t possible to sift through all the points supported by biblical evidence the authors make about the character and attributes of God, the question posed here doesn’t fit the body of material presented in the Biblical Teaching segment of this reading. While this is a template question situated through all chapters and their subject matter, it is more effective to pick one instead toward contention against the alternative views. An attempt to answer the question about God’s many-splendored character by searching through the numerous outstanding examples within this text to offer a primary hypothesis (or synthesis) is not achievable by anyone under any circumstances. To suppose the contrary to this question is to surmise that God’s attributes and character properties are sortable and, by human assignment, subordinate to others.

The biblical teaching of God’s character and attributes, as covered extensively within this textbook, include the Pentateuch, historical books, poetry and wisdom, prophetic literature, synoptic gospels, acts of the apostles, Pauline epistles, Johannine literature, and other New Testament books. To distill among them the facts about God’s many-splendored character to find which alternative is more correct is an elaborate and intensive undertaking that isn’t answerable from coalesced biblical data as primary evidence. Numerous attributes are explained through narration, song, prophetic utterance, historical records, and much more. To demonstrate, the following represents the range of these characteristics as supported by specific biblical passages. Besides the prominent errant views that are outright dismissed, how does one navigate the biblical data about God’s character and attributes to determine which modern and orthodox alternatives are most correct?

God is:

1. Holy	21. Loving	41. Compassionate	61. Wise
2. Protective	22. Great	42. Refuge	62. Longsuffering
3. Impassable	23. Everlasting	43. Servant	63. Sovereign
4. Jealous	24. Glorious	44. Righteous	64. Healing
5. Joyful	25. Praiseworthy	45. Patient	65. Searching
6. Pursuing	26. Omnipresent	46. Understanding	66. Mindful
7. Merciful	27. Omniscient	47. Abundant	67. Immutable
8. Precious	28. Omnipotent	48. Revealing	68. Transcendent
9. Pleasing	29. Affectionate	49. Nourishing	69. Profound
10. Awesome	30. Zealous	50. Wrathful	70. Gentle
11. Sympathetic	31. Profound	51. A Fortress	71. Pure
12. Majestic	32. Hope	52. Exalted	72. Counselor
13. Freeing	33. Life	53. Authoritative	73. Magnificent
14. Faithful	34. Almighty	54. The Way	74. Consuming
15. Truth	35. Comforting	55. Fearsome	75. Light
16. Refreshing	36. Powerful	56. Just	76. Humble
17. Delightful	37. Reliable	57. Lord of Lords	77. Savior
18. Creator	38. Gracious	58. Serious	78. Mediator
19. Kind	39. Encouraging	59. Fatherly	79. Sacrificial
20. Considerate	40. Love	60. Ruler	80. Blameless

My doctrinal conviction about God’s character and attributes doesn’t come from the alternative interpretations in the Church. Or what belief system is most closely aligned to theological or philosophical rationale. It comes from biblical teaching of Scripture. This textbook renders exceptional and specific biblical answers about God’s character and attributes to which I come to rest. The other points between orthodox and confessional matters of faith and practice don’t nearly carry as much weight. Theological derivation of biblical facts to originate an understanding of God’s character and attributes prevails over any tradition, confession, or denominational interest. Contested ideas commingled together don’t yield Scriptural and theological truth as one panning for gold out of the waters of turbulence.

In my small view, speaking with children is the best way to share God’s character and attributes as He has shown them to us. Not to persuade or convince a congregation of people with a heart for truth but to let God speak through His words of beauty about who He is. By what He has done, what He has shown, and what He has promised, we understand Him better and become informed through the biblical witness of the Holy Spirit. It is within the wonderful character of God that spiritually explanatory power isn’t given to intellectuals and the wise.

While the integration of views is informative from the perspective of knowing where people stand about systems of thought, Integration Theology itself will not produce the best of ideas on its own. As the textbook’s authors clearly demonstrate, the integration of views must be stood up against what God has given through His Word. Not where Scripture itself is reduced as a common denominator, as it is held in authority over all views. The problems held out as propositional encounters between alternate views set up the textbook authors to defend the plain meaning of Scripture. They do this well, and I echo what they wrote. However, while they take into account various perspectives involving philosophical, theological, and scientific thought as the method of Integrative Theology, Scripture is preeminent and a smelter to which it is all set to fire. In a more specific response to the question, the scope to which the question is answered is very long, as there are numerous alternative views with cascading opinions and claims. Each of these is distinctive by way of relative biblical accuracy and the wide range of errors or contradictory views among them.

I accept everything God said about Himself through Scripture. Either directly as quoted or through the biblical authors. My convictions come from what is written in Scripture. And from what was recounted in the Bible by the textbook’s authors. As apostle Paul wrote, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17), it is clear that the Word of God produces faith within believers. Where from faith righteousness pleases God as necessary to live by it (Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38). It is from His Word that belief about who God is (i.e., His many-splendored character and attributes) and what He has done that the viability of conviction is proven within and among others. The infallibility of God’s Word authentically lived out as a matter of faith produces fruit (including convictions that arise from knowledge).

“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.” – 2 Peter 1:5–7 (ESV)

God’s Unity Includes Three Persons

In the chapter titled “God’s Unity Includes Three Persons,” the authors wrote various questions to stimulate understanding and discussion around the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a supposed contradiction or tension between propositional revelation and the personal experience of physically separate beings as individual entities. The human-centered interest to logically assign discrete personhood in three quantitative forms as an economic Trinity is an inversion of what special revelation informs people about (i.e., three persons in one essence). Understanding the Trinity on God’s terms, as clearly expressed through the plain meaning of Scripture, provides the proper cognitive recognition of who God is as described.

The situation cast by the authors of this text presents an understanding of the Trinity as a problem for the community’s retention of belief in God. A problem predicated upon the condition that how God is must be according to reality and existence as humanity prescribes it. “Doing justice to the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit” is one concern, while the uniqueness and unity of Yahweh are the other. As if they’re in contention with one another within the space and time that God set people to occupy.

The alternative interpretations in the Church vary widely, as expected. The differences appear centered around the economic and ontological understanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is said to be modal or three persons in one essence. While efforts to connect the modality of God as one being having three expressions of existence (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are in the form of God’s self-communication for human understanding. , while God remains a single personal entity. The interpretation of God’s being in this way is modalism (heresy), also called Sabellianism. It does not view Father, Son and Spirit as three particular “persons in relation” but as three modes of the one divine person of God. In contrast to Trinitarian theology, the Trinity is the single divine nature as a unity of three persons. Yahweh, through Scripture, reveals that He is three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

The other area of differentiation appears from an understanding of how the Holy Spirit proceeds from God. The filioque (a Latin term literally meaning “and the Son”) is a Western interpretation of revelatory detail concerning God as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Augustine and various Western theologians hold to this view, including Catholics and Protestants. In contrast, Eastern Orthodox tradition views the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father alone. The schism of 1054 A.D. between the Eastern and Western traditions of understanding concerns the controversial origination of how the filioque appeared within the Western churches in the sixth century after the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds of 325 and 381 A.D. (which did not have the filioque statement). The original creed did not include language about the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son. When the statement appeared within the confessional documents of the Nicene and Constantinople creeds, Eastern churches objected and separated from the Latin churches that included it.

The views of Orthodox and Evangelical theologians, including the patristics and reformers, held to the ontological view of the Trinity and not the economic Trinity proposition as espoused by various liberals and unorthodox formulations (Monarchian, Arian, Socinian, Hegelian, etc.). Moreover, the Didache (7.1) supported belief in the triune God. Further, early church fathers and theologians, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Calvin, and others, were together adherent to the triune God as three persons in one essence. The consensus of these influential church fathers migrated to various confessional statements that are recognized and recited today.

While the nature of the Trinity is described throughout the Old Testament, and more specifically, from the Pentateuch to the prophetic literature, we see the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Messiah. Yet without specifics about the incarnate identity of the Messiah, Jesus is revealed within the New Testament as the nature of the Trinity becomes clearer. There are numerous interactive instances of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as evident in the earliest writings of the Patriarchal fathers, the prophets, and the Psalms of David. The functional activity within the Old Testament is a consistent backdrop of the New Testament presence of each person as revealed through various Scriptural accounts (e.g., the baptism in the Jordan, the transfiguration, and the various dialogs in between).

It is consistently apparent among various biblical authors that the Trinity becomes manifest in observable ways. Where by linguistic form (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), there were recorded passages that intertextually corroborate to substantively validate the proper ontological view of the Trinity as Scripturally recognized, described, and defined through the centuries. There is no contradiction in how the triune God is revealed to humanity as a means to give credit toward the economic Trinity from within the closed system of space and time. Assertions about the economic Trinity that centers reasoning around the idea that God must exist as a single consciousness, with modes of expression required within three dimensions of created reality, are short-sighted of the spiritual reality of Elohim. Notwithstanding Scriptural attestations about the triune God made clear by revelatory evidence, that is a flat-earth mentality.

My doctrinal conviction corresponds to the Scriptural evidence across the biblical writers. From Scripture, as the Holy Spirit inspires it, we learn about each person of the Trinity who exist as a single essence. Through centuries of honest and accurate interpretation from among church fathers, we also have observations and intertextual readings that correspond to traditions and confessional standards that help form convictions. While it is surprising that Barth, Rahner, Brunner, and others of the 20^th century held modalistic convictions, I continue to adhere to the biblical and historical belief about the Trinity as an ontologically valid triadic union.

Understanding God from within the framework and substance of meaning through Scripture, there are conclusions we can make about his that are safe and valid. While Scripture doesn’t present the term “Trinity” to its readers, or that members of the triune God don’t explicitly present Himself as three persons and one essence doesn’t invalidate the theological truths of the divine unity.

To answer a question about the existence of God as a triadic union, as if it were a problem in comparison to other views or theories, I would defer to the personal conviction that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. What God informs people about concerning Himself as three persons in one essence, we choose to accept and embrace as truth having far greater weight than the philosophical speculations of flawed and sinful people held captive to the constraints of space and time.

Interpretations of traditions change. Traditions from the early or historical church morph into practices that do not always correspond to the truths of Scripture. Furthermore, they are susceptible to subjectivism and secular influences that contradict the interests of God as made plain through Scripture.

The authority by which the filioque is accepted rests upon the authority of Scripture concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from Christ Jesus and the Father as the triune God. All co-equal as three persons in one essence. As the spiritual voice of God is given through the pages of holy Scripture, anyone of the persuasion that God exists as modalities doesn’t accept the Word on its authority that history demonstrates otherwise.

A clear conscience about living by the truth of Scripture can set oneself against the interests of people with vested interests in tradition or presuppositional commitments that do not carry evidentiary weight. Especially in comparison to the correctly interpreted meaning of what God revealed through His Word, I continuously and persistently decide to choose what God says over man. At every turn, where some idea is set up against the knowledge of God, I oppose each because they’re contradictory, subjective, or arbitrary in light of what Scripture otherwise conveys. Especially when the explicit biblical truth informs our understanding of God and what He has revealed.

A comprehensive and up-close understanding of Scripture is utterly necessary to know the Word of God to refute or dismiss erroneous, false, or deceitful ideas and propositions. It also isn’t enough to merely know Scripture at a surface level. Theological endeavor must be thoroughly supported by immersion in the Word of God. Each and every word, phrase, clause, sentence, and punctuation must be understood to comprehend and accept God’s special revelation about Himself as true. The triune God made evident throughout the pages of Scripture is understood by what is written to stand about each divine person of the Most High as co-equal members of the Trinity. If Scripture is coupled with tradition or philosophical thoughts and theories that originate elsewhere and there are propositional contradictions to the reading of the biblical writers, then there is nothing to discuss or contemplate.

God’s Grand Design for Human History

In the chapter titled “God’s Grand Design for Human History,” the text authors set up a problem in the form of another question: “Are all events in nature and history the fulfillment of the sovereign plan of a perfectly wise and omnipotent God?” Furthermore, they pose various additional questions to elaborate upon the purported differences between the sovereignty of God and human free will. These questions are presented to readers in an effort to render an understanding of God’s will and purpose through human agency over the course of history.

The design of human history is framed within an understanding of human freedom, responsibility, the existence of evil, and the trajectory of the unsaved. As there are disputes, misunderstandings, and controversies about the nature of human history in this respect, various views are covered for comparative reference.

1. Pelagian and Liberal Traditions
   Pelagianism is from the 5th-century British monk and theologian Pelagius who led people to believe that original sin is not a biblical doctrine, and that human will is entirely free to choose either good or evil. And, consequently, individual salvation or damnation depends on that choice. Continued adherence to this thought process runs counter to biblical instruction and early church teaching, as it remains against God’s sovereignty today. Liberal theology developed in the 20^th century further undermines the sovereignty of God and transfers ownership of soteriological interest to human freedom and autonomy. There is a prevailing choice and thought process among liberal perspectives that human freedom and preferences override or refute biblical instruction and revelation about divine foreordination. There is an underlying notion among liberals that the doctrines of divine decree are predatory, despotic, and arbitrary.
   
   Through further comparison, adherents of process theology reject the biblical notion of God as having controlling power over His creation. It situates human freedom, creativity, and personal growth over classical theism, where instead, God is a persuasive and not controlling divine authority. To the liberal, human freedom stands above God’s sovereignty.
   
   
2. Semi-Pelagian and Arminian Perspectives
   To semi-Pelagians and Arminians (James Arminius, 1559-1609), decrees from divine sovereignty impair human responsibility and freedom. To dehumanize the individual by divine decree, as evident through Scripture, is not a tolerable proposition to those who consider such theology a crude fatalism. The priority of the human will is situated over divine will, and semi-Pelagians restrict God’s sovereign decrees to the foreknowledge of human choices.
   
   In further rejection of Augustinian theology and explicit biblical intent, Arminianism denies that God wills the actions of free agents. More specifically, Arminians believe that God only saves those He foreknows who would believe. Conversely, God would only judge those He foreknows who would not believe. Further along in modern theological thought, Wesleyan and Methodist reasons from Arminianism that sovereignly divine decree is limited or conditional to human choice and God’s sovereignty does not determine a person’s eternal destiny. To John Wesley, God permits what He has determined as controlled by human freedom, decision, and accountability.
   
   
3. Supralapsarian Hypotheses
   John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others of the Reformation era surmised from Scripture that God decrees and predestines people to salvation and damnation. The redeemed for salvation and the reprobate for damnation are determined in advance in the mind of God and not as an outcome of the Fall. Known as double predestination, or pejoratively as “Hyper-Calvinism,” the doctrine is more pronouncedly rejected among liberal and Arminian or Wesleyan adherents. It was explicitly made clear by Calvin,
   
   “We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.”⁶
   
   To Calvin, the terms of interpretation are clear concerning righteousness and reprobation as the decree before the existence of each individual was already formed in the mind of God. Calvin distinguishes between the proximate and ultimate cause of the Fall. At the same time, he assigns the responsibility of sin to the human agent. Proximately, the choice of proto-humanity was the cause of the Fall, but God’s sovereign will is the remote cause of the Fall. To Calvin, from the wickedness of men, the whole fault rests upon them.” Calvin and Luther were careful not to claim that sin originated from God.
   
   Theodore Beza (Calvinist Theologian, 1519-1605) made a further distinction between the sovereign decrees of God and how they are executed. To the double predestination interpretation, God wills individuals’ eternal salvation and damnation, but His decree is executed by secondary means of faith and unbelief. To Beza’s rationale, the supralapsarian upholds human responsibility while denying that God is the author of sin.
   
   John Owen (Puritan Theologian, 1616-1683), another supralapsarian, far more accepted the sovereignty of God in all respects concerning His will and decrees.
   
   “God disposeth of the hearts of men, ruleth their wills, inclineth their affections, and determines them freely to choose and do what he in his good pleasure hath decreed shall be performed”⁷
   
   As a final comparison, the authors of this textbook wrote, “Bavinck does insist that nothing comes to pass without first being established in the divine mind” while situating him in the supralapsarian category of alternative views.⁸ However, Bavinck himself wrote,
   
   “Accordingly—and fortunately!—supralapsarianism is consistently inconsistent. It starts out with a bold leap forward but soon afterward it shrinks back and relapses into the infralapsarianism it had previously abandoned.”⁹
   
   To a significant extent, Bavinck wrote about the inadequacy of both supra- and infralapsarianism. As he wisely understood that the logic of the universe insufficiently explains the will of God by His sovereign decrees and intent. To insist otherwise is an internally held insistence that God must think and conclude, as does humanity. For instance, Bavinck maintained that purpose, foreknowledge, and predestination are used almost exclusively with reference to predestined glory. Since eternal damnation, by comparison, is not the goal but the termination of human life, it cannot be classified as predestination. Grace to eternal life is not by the same rationale or human logic as the condemnation of the reprobate to eternal damnation.
   
   
4. Barthian Neoorthodoxy
   Just as Bavinck affirmed double predestination in a limited way, Karl Barth (Protestant Theologian, 1886-1968) did so similarly. He also concluded that election and reprobation were not symmetrical decrees (such as from Calvin and Beza). Still, in the supralapsarian camp (“purified supralapsarianism”), Barth points to Scripture concerning the gospel against liberalism to support election by sovereign decree through Christ Jesus. Barth did not support Augustine’s or Calvin’s abstract views of God’s sovereign decree but instead wrote of Jesus as “God’s Word, God’s decree, and God’s beginning.”
   
   
5. Infralapsarianism
   Held by some Fathers, Medieval Authorities, Reformers, and Many Evangelicals, infralapsarianism
   
   “From the Latin infra (“below” or “later than”) and lapsus (“fall”), the belief that God’s decrees of election and reprobation logically come after the decree to permit the Fall, in contrast to supralapsarianism. Accordingly, God judges humanity in light of sin, not apart from it. The position argues that if election and reprobation logically preceded the Fall (as in supralapsarianism), this would ultimately make God the author of sin, creating a conflict between God’s love and holiness; consequently, it would appear that God ordains people to punishment without cause. Historically, infralapsarianism is the majority position among Reformed theologians, though none of the Reformed confessions takes a side on this issue.”¹⁰
   
   As it is in the interest of theologians to refrain from accusing God as the author of sin, infralapsarians assert that God has not willed sin but permitted it. Through all decreed eventualities of human acts and being from before time began, God knew that Fall would occur and the resulting eternal damnation would be permitted. As Jesus spoke,
   
   “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – Jn 3:18

The term “already” here is translated from the root as a “marker of logical proximity and immediateness, in fact.” Said another way, the term “already” can be understood as an adjective “currently – already enacted or happening at this time or period.”¹¹ The alienation of people from God due to sin and the Fall He permitted, people stood condemned without being born-again as made clear in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus in John chapter three. Various church fathers, reformers, and modern evangelicals uniformly adhere to the single predestination to life, as does the various Reformed Confessions (Second Helvetic, Gallic, Belgic, Dort, and Westminster).

The textbook makes a very well-developed case around Scripture about God’s preceptive and permitted will in the course of human history and events to involve His grand design. The sovereignty of God is never diminished or viewed in the light of other perspectives in an inferior way. As the authors traverse the various books of the Bible and its genres, it is obvious that humanity doesn’t live by strict determinism as God’s sovereign will does not discourage human effort or render it meaningless against His purposes. It is consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments that God incorporates free human agency into His purposes as history unfolds to produce the intended design and purposes He accomplishes.

Pauline theology throughout the book of Romans is loaded with meaning and understanding about God’s sovereign intentions and purposes. To include background rationale and the historical development of creation as God’s redemptive work takes shape across covenants.

While the textbook advocates an infralapsarian position of human history within God’s grand design, I don’t think the textbook presents robust information to make the best informed and confident decision for me personally. While it is out-of-hand straightforward to dismiss liberal, Pelagian, and Wesleyan perspectives as contrary to Scripture, the book’s partitioning and limited coverage of Barthian, supralapsarianism, and infralapsarianism theology doesn’t offer enough background and depth to take an informed position or develop a doctrinal conviction. I’ve read enough of Bavinck to understand the insufficiency of freestanding supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism to develop instead a tentative perspective that involves a biblical overlap of both without historical propositions predicated on either/or logic and philosophical regret.

“I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.” – Aquinas, 1273

A personal defense of God’s sovereign intent and design is effectual from His Word. From a natural perspective, logic works to a limited extent to settle convictions from persuasion and arguments that involve mastery of God’s Word. It is useful to understand the weaknesses of reason involving perspectives contradictory to God’s Word specific to the intent of His grand design. For the purpose of honoring the truth and beauty of God and His Word, situational awareness of both physical and spiritual realities that exist involves faith, promises, and confidence in who He is and what He does. It isn’t enough to just reason from cognitive strength alone to defend convictions developed through special revelation within Scripture.

From successive approximation and iterative exposure to error stood alongside the truth of Scripture, there is within an elimination of fault until there is no further capacity to arrive at a more precise resolution. From that, I write and speak to learn and live by what God would have me believe and do.

The viability of my conviction rests upon the free will God has given to live for His glory. As He directs my heart and my affections close to Him, I confess that I love God with all my soul, mind, body, and strength. And if I could just delight in Him all my days, He would give me the desires of my heart. Because, as He knows and as He intended, He is my heart’s desire. I belong to Him. And by the freedom He has given me, even if just enough, I hope He is pleased because He knows He is loved.

Citations

_____________________________________
¹ Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality: The Living God, vol. 1, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 24.
² Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Vol. 2, Pt. 1, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936–1969), 173.
³ Ammianus Marcellinus, With An English Translation, ed. John C. Rolfe, vol. 2 (Medford, MA: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd., n.d.), 203.
⁴ William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 817.
⁵ Theodore Alois Buckley, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (London: George Routledge and Co., 1851), 19.
⁶ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 926.
⁷ John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 42.
⁸ Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality: The Living God, vol. 1, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 297.
⁹ Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 388.
¹⁰ Kelly M. Kapic and Wesley Vander Lugt, Pocket Dictionary of the Reformed Tradition, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 63.
¹¹ William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 434.

---