Archive | Theology RSS feed for this section

The Holiness of Saints

From collecting various thematic pericopes around the subject of holiness, it was of interest to further narrow this state of being toward people who are believers in Christ. Just as it is necessary to understand the holy attributes of God in a limited way, human response to that and its effect on persons is a matter of very high priority. Holiness is a required state of being in life before entry into Heaven.

“Hebrews has declared how Jesus’ sacrifice makes us holy once for all in status (Heb 10:10), giving us confident access to God. In this verse, “holiness” refers to purity of life. It is provided by God (Heb 13:21) and guided by His discipline (v. 10), but we must “strive for” it.”¹ “The vision of God our Saviour in heaven is reserved as the reward of holiness, and the stress of our salvation is laid upon our holiness, though a placid peaceable disposition contributes much to our meetness for heaven.”² “Holiness is clearly expected of all Christians (without which no one will see the Lord). This is not salvation by works, however, for Christians are sanctified once for all by the death of Christ (Heb. 10:14); holy living is a part of the perseverance encouraged throughout Hebrews.”³ “Christ’s sacrifice made His people holy (Heb 10:10, 14). Those sanctified belong to God (Heb 2:11) and, sharing in His discipline, will experience His holiness (v. 10).”⁴ “Personal holiness must be vigorously sought since without holiness (hagiasmos) no one will see the Lord. Since no sin can stand in God’s presence, Christians must—and will be—sinless when they see the Lord (cf. 1 John 3:2). That realization offers motivation for pursuing holiness here and now. But the author may also have had in mind the thought that one’s perception of God even now is conditioned by his real measure of holiness (cf. Matt. 5:8).”⁵

“While it may be of some relief to realize that ‘perfection’ in Hebrews does not mean moral perfection, which most Christians would find an impossible goal, for the author of Hebrews it certainly is related to holiness, which does bring moral virtue into view. Hebrews 10:14 speaks of those who Christ “has made perfect forever” (note the perfect tense) as “those who are being made holy” (note the present tense). For the author of Hebrews, these two categories, though distinct, must nevertheless be inseparable in the life of the Christian. Jesus did not offer himself as the final sacrifice so that people may give him a nod on Sunday and then continue to live in disobedience to God. Hebrews does not speak of the believer as ‘saved’ but as ‘being made holy.’ Salvation from judgment, which is assured, still stands in the future. The writer of Hebrews exhorts his readers to ‘throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles’ (Heb 12:1). It further expects those who have “been perfected” to “make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14, emphasis added). It speaks against adultery and all sexual immorality (Heb 12:16; 13:4). Like the other New Testament writers, the author of Hebrews encourages believers to love one another (Heb 13:1), to show hospitality to strangers (Heb 13:2), to be in solidarity with those believers in prison (Heb 13:3). Contentment free from a love of money is a mark of holiness (Heb 13:5), as is a willingness to follow faithful leaders in the church (Heb 13:7, 17). Verbal witness to our faith is a characteristic of those who have been “perfected” in Christ (Heb 13:15), accompanied by doing good and sharing with others (Heb 13:16). And finally, believing prayer for the circumstances of others marks those who are being made holy (Heb 13:18–19).”⁶

It is helpful to get a basic grasp of the biblical holiness of God. From there, an up-close look at what personal holiness is about and what it entails is of significant interest because it is essential in the life of a believer. While humanity can only attain a limited understanding of God’s holiness, we can recognize what He has revealed about Himself through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit through scripture. So, again, the following thematic outline sets up a context and an anchor by which to get started. How holiness is attained among believers through various means, personal attention, and circumstances are supported by numerous scriptural points of reference.

Synopsis

Believers are enabled to grow in holiness on account of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, foreshadowed by the OT sacrificial system, and through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

Holiness begins with God’s initiative

God chooses who and what is to be holy

2 Ch 7:16

2 Chronicles 7:16 (ESV) — 16 For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time.

See also Ex 20:11; Nu 16:7; 2 Ch 29:11; Zec 2:12

Exodus 20:11 (ESV) — 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Numbers 16:7 (ESV) — 7 put fire in them and put incense on them before the Lord tomorrow, and the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!”

2 Chronicles 29:11 (ESV) — 11 My sons, do not now be negligent, for the Lord has chosen you to stand in his presence, to minister to him and to be his ministers and make offerings to him.”

Zechariah 2:12 (ESV) — 12 And the Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.”

God chooses and calls his people to holiness

Dt 7:6; Eph 1:4

Deuteronomy 7:6 (ESV) — 6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) — 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

See also Dt 14:2; Ro 1:7; Col 3:12; 1 Pe 1:2; 1 Pe 1:15

Deuteronomy 14:2 (ESV) — 2 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Romans 1:7 (ESV) — 7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 3:12 (ESV) — 12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

1 Peter 1:2 (ESV) — 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Peter 1:15 (ESV) — 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,

Holiness is conferred by the holy God

Holiness is conferred by the presence of God

Ex 29:42–43

Exodus 29:42–43 (ESV) — 42 It shall be a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. 43 There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my glory.

See also Ex 3:4–5; Ex 19:23; 2 Ch 7:1–2

Exodus 3:4–5 (ESV) — 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

Exodus 19:23 (ESV) — 23 And Moses said to the Lord, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for you yourself warned us, saying, ‘Set limits around the mountain and consecrate it.’ ”

2 Chronicles 7:1–2 (ESV) — 1 As soon as Solomon finished his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. 2 And the priests could not enter the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord filled the Lord’s house.

Holiness is conferred through covenant relationship with God

Ex 19:5–6

Exodus 19:5–6 (ESV) — 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

See also Dt 28:9; Eze 37:26–28; 1 Pe 2:9

Deuteronomy 28:9 (ESV) — 9 The Lord will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways.

Ezekiel 37:26–28 (ESV) — 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”

1 Peter 2:9 (ESV) — 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Holiness is conferred by the sovereign action of God

1 Th 5:23

1 Thessalonians 5:23 (ESV) — 23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

See also Le 20:8; Is 4:3–4; Eze 36:25; Zep 1:7; Ac 15:9; Heb 2:11

Leviticus 20:8 (ESV) — 8 Keep my statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you.

Isaiah 4:3–4 (ESV) — 3 And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, 4 when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.

Ezekiel 36:25 (ESV) — 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

Zephaniah 1:7 (ESV) — 7 Be silent before the Lord God! For the day of the Lord is near; the Lord has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests.

Acts 15:9 (ESV) — 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

Hebrews 2:11 (ESV) — 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,

Holiness through the OT rituals

Cleansing from what is unclean

Nu 8:6–7

Numbers 8:6–7 (ESV) — 6 “Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them. 7 Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.

Purification and atonement through sacrifice

Nu 8:12–14 The OT sacrificial system and holiness laws foreshadow the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ that enables believers to grow in holiness through faith.

Numbers 8:12–14 (ESV) — 12 Then the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and you shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the Lord to make atonement for the Levites. 13 And you shall set the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and shall offer them as a wave offering to the Lord. 14 “Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the people of Israel, and the Levites shall be mine.

See also Ex 29:35–37; Le 8:14–15; Le 16:5–10; Le 16:15–22; Le 16:29–30

Exodus 29:35–37 (ESV) — 35 “Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you. Through seven days shall you ordain them, 36 and every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall purify the altar, when you make atonement for it, and shall anoint it to consecrate it. 37 Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy. Whatever touches the altar shall become holy.

Leviticus 8:14–15 (ESV) — 14 Then he brought the bull of the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull of the sin offering. 15 And he killed it, and Moses took the blood, and with his finger put it on the horns of the altar around it and purified the altar and poured out the blood at the base of the altar and consecrated it to make atonement for it.

Leviticus 16:5–10 (ESV) — 5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. 6 “Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. 7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. 9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, 10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

Leviticus 16:15–22 (ESV) — 15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. 17 No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel. 18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around. 19 And he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel. 20 “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

Leviticus 16:29–30 (ESV) — 29 “And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. 30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins.

Consecration by anointing

Le 8:10–12

Leviticus 8:10–12 (ESV) — 10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and consecrated them. 11 And he sprinkled some of it on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its utensils and the basin and its stand, to consecrate them. 12 And he poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him to consecrate him.

Holiness through Jesus Christ

Through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Heb 10:10

Hebrews 10:10 (ESV) — 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

See also Eph 5:25–27; Col 1:22; Heb 1:3; Heb 9:13–14; Heb 9:23–28; Heb 10:14; Heb 10:19–22; Heb 13:12; 1 Jn 1:7; 1 Jn 2:2; 1 Jn 4:10

Ephesians 5:25–27 (ESV) — 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Colossians 1:22 (ESV) — 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

Hebrews 1:3 (ESV) — 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Hebrews 9:13–14 (ESV) — 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 9:23–28 (ESV) — 23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Hebrews 10:14 (ESV) — 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Hebrews 10:19–22 (ESV) — 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Hebrews 13:12 (ESV) — 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

1 John 1:7 (ESV) — 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 2:2 (ESV) — 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 (ESV) — 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Through relationship with Jesus Christ

1 Co 1:2

1 Corinthians 1:2 (ESV) — 2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

Holiness through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit

2 Th 2:13

2 Thessalonians 2:13 (ESV) — 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

See also Jn 3:5–8; Ro 15:16; 1 Co 6:11; 1 Th 4:7–8; Tt 3:5; 1 Pe 1:2

John 3:5–8 (ESV) — 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Romans 15:16 (ESV) — 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:11 (ESV) — 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Thessalonians 4:7–8 (ESV) — 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

Titus 3:5 (ESV) — 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

The human response to holiness

Repentance

1 Jn 1:9

1 John 1:9 (ESV) — 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

See also Ezr 9:1–7; Ezr 10:1–4; Ps 51:1–10; Ac 2:38; Ro 6:11–13; Jas 4:8

Ezra 9:1–7 (ESV) — 1 After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.” 3 As soon as I heard this, I tore my garment and my cloak and pulled hair from my head and beard and sat appalled. 4 Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of the returned exiles, gathered around me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice. 5 And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garment and my cloak torn, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the Lord my God, 6 saying: “O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens. 7 From the days of our fathers to this day we have been in great guilt. And for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as it is today.

Ezra 10:1–4 (ESV) — 1 While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. 2 And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. 3 Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. 4 Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.”

Psalm 51:1–10 (ESV) — 1 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Acts 2:38 (ESV) — 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6:11–13 (ESV) — 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.

James 4:8 (ESV) — 8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Faith

Ga 5:5

Galatians 5:5 (ESV) — 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.

Obedience

1 Pe 1:22

1 Peter 1:22 (ESV) — 22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,

See also Ps 119:9; Jn 17:17; Ro 6:16–19

Psalm 119:9 (ESV) — 9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.

John 17:17 (ESV) — 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Romans 6:16–19 (ESV) — 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Citations

___________________________
1. R. C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015), 2219.
2. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2404.
3. Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2383.
4. John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Heb 12:14.
5. Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 810.
6. Karen H. Jobes, Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 126–127.

Continue Reading ·

The Divine Holiness

By James Austin in Theology

In preparation for a time of in-depth study on sanctification, I intend to complete a series of posts about various readings and the gathering of research materials concerning the subject. The posts on biblical holiness will not be sequential as I have coursework about Pauline doctrines and theology running concurrent to this effort. The effort involves the Pursuit of Holiness by Bridges, Holiness by Ryle, the Philokalia, the Mortification of Sin by Owen (puritan), and the Doctrine of Repentance by Watson (puritan), including various other materials to a lesser extent. The purpose is to answer multiple questions about the who, what, where, when, how, and why of personal and collective holiness. Especially to involve historical figures within scripture, saints of tradition, and anyone who seeks after God and what He would have of His people. This effort shall have nothing to do with the subjective experiences of individuals or an appeal to personal rationale centered on social interests.

To begin, an inquiry about the biblical holiness of God is necessary. While humanity can only attain a limited understanding of God’s holiness, we can recognize what He has revealed about Himself through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit through scripture. The following thematic outline sets up a context and an anchor by which to get started.

Synopsis

The moral excellence of God that unifies his attributes and is expressed through his actions, setting Him apart from all others. Believers are called to be holy as God is holy.

God’s nature is holy

He is perfect

Dt 32:4; Is 6:3; Re 4:8

Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV) — 4 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.

Isaiah 6:3 (ESV) — 3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

Revelation 4:8 (ESV) — 8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

See also 2 Sa 22:31; Job 6:10; Ps 18:30; Ps 22:3; Ps 71:22; Ps 78:41; Is 41:14; Is 43:15; Hab 1:13; Jn 17:11; Re 6:10

2 Samuel 22:31 (ESV) — 31 This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.

Job 6:10 (ESV) — 10 This would be my comfort; I would even exult in pain unsparing, for I have not denied the words of the Holy One.

Psalm 18:30 (ESV) — 30 This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.

Psalm 22:3 (ESV) — 3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.

Psalm 71:22 (ESV) — 22 I will also praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praises to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 78:41 (ESV) — 41 They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

Isaiah 41:14 (ESV) — 14 Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I am the one who helps you, declares the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

Isaiah 43:15 (ESV) — 15 I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.”

Habakkuk 1:13 (ESV) — 13 You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

John 17:11 (ESV) — 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

Revelation 6:10 (ESV) — 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

He is uniquely holy

1 Sa 2:2

1 Samuel 2:2 (ESV) — 2 “There is none holy like the Lord: for there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God.

See also Ex 15:11; Ps 77:13; Is 40:25; Re 15:4

Exodus 15:11 (ESV) — 11 “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?

Psalm 77:13 (ESV) — 13 Your way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God?

Isaiah 40:25 (ESV) — 25 To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.

Revelation 15:4 (ESV) — 4 Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

God’s name is holy

Eze 36:21–23

Ezekiel 36:21–23 (ESV) — 21 But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. 22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.

See also Le 22:32; 1 Ch 16:35; 1 Ch 29:16; Ps 33:21; Ps 97:12; Is 57:15; Eze 39:25; Lk 1:49

Leviticus 22:32 (ESV) — 32 And you shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified among the people of Israel. I am the Lord who sanctifies you,

1 Chronicles 16:35 (ESV) — 35 Say also: “Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather and deliver us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise.

1 Chronicles 29:16 (ESV) — 16 O Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand and is all your own.

Psalm 33:21 (ESV) — 21 For our heart is glad in him, because we trust in his holy name.

Psalm 97:12 (ESV) — 12 Rejoice in the Lord, O you righteous, and give thanks to his holy name!

Isaiah 57:15 (ESV) — 15 For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.

Ezekiel 39:25 (ESV) — 25 “Therefore thus says the Lord God: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name.

Luke 1:49 (ESV) — 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

God’s dwelling-place is holy

Is 57:15 David’s palace was regarded as holy because of the presence of the ark

See also 2 Ch 8:11; 2 Ch 30:27; Ps 2:6; Ps 3:4; Ps 5:7; Ps 11:4; Ps 15:1; Ps 20:6; Ps 47:8; Ps 48:1; Ps 65:4; Is 63:15; Joe 3:17; Ob 16–17; Jon 2:4; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; Zec 2:13; Ac 21:28 The Jews accused Paul of defiling the temple area by bringing in Gentiles; Eph 2:21–22 the church as the dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit; Heb 10:19–22; Re 22:19

2 Chronicles 8:11 (ESV) — 11 Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the city of David to the house that he had built for her, for he said, “My wife shall not live in the house of David king of Israel, for the places to which the ark of the Lord has come are holy.”

2 Chronicles 30:27 (ESV) — 27 Then the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to his holy habitation in heaven.

Psalm 2:6 (ESV) — 6 “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”

Psalm 3:4 (ESV) — 4 I cried aloud to the Lord, and he answered me from his holy hill. Selah

Psalm 5:7 (ESV) — 7 But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love, will enter your house. I will bow down toward your holy temple in the fear of you.

Psalm 11:4 (ESV) — 4 The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man.

Psalm 15:1 (ESV) — 1 O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?

Psalm 20:6 (ESV) — 6 Now I know that the Lord saves his anointed; he will answer him from his holy heaven with the saving might of his right hand.

Psalm 47:8 (ESV) — 8 God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.

Psalm 48:1 (ESV) — 1 Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God! His holy mountain,

Psalm 65:4 (ESV) — 4 Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple!

Isaiah 63:15 (ESV) — 15 Look down from heaven and see, from your holy and beautiful habitation. Where are your zeal and your might? The stirring of your inner parts and your compassion are held back from me.

Joel 3:17 (ESV) — 17 “So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who dwells in Zion, my holy mountain. And Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it.

Obadiah 16–17 (ESV) — 16 For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow, and shall be as though they had never been. 17 But in Mount Zion there shall be those who escape, and it shall be holy, and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions.

Jonah 2:4 (ESV) — 4 Then I said, ‘I am driven away from your sight; yet I shall again look upon your holy temple.’

Micah 1:2 (ESV) — 2 Hear, you peoples, all of you; pay attention, O earth, and all that is in it, and let the Lord God be a witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple.

Habakkuk 2:20 (ESV) — 20 But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him.”

Zechariah 2:13 (ESV) — 13 Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord, for he has roused himself from his holy dwelling.

Acts 21:28 (ESV) — 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Ephesians 2:21–22 (ESV) — 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Revelation 22:19 (ESV) — 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

God’s holiness is revealed in his righteous activity

Is 5:16

Isaiah 5:16 (ESV) — 16 But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.

See also Jdg 5:11; 1 Sa 12:7; Ps 77:13; Ps 145:17; Da 9:14; Da 9:16; Zep 3:5

Judges 5:11 (ESV) — 11 To the sound of musicians at the watering places, there they repeat the righteous triumphs of the Lord, the righteous triumphs of his villagers in Israel. “Then down to the gates marched the people of the Lord.

1 Samuel 12:7 (ESV) — 7 Now therefore stand still that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous deeds of the Lord that he performed for you and for your fathers.

Psalm 77:13 (ESV) — 13 Your way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God?

Psalm 145:17 (ESV) — 17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.

Daniel 9:14 (ESV) — 14 Therefore the Lord has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice.

Daniel 9:16 (ESV) — 16 “O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us.

Zephaniah 3:5 (ESV) — 5 The Lord within her is righteous; he does no injustice; every morning he shows forth his justice; each dawn he does not fail; but the unjust knows no shame.

God’s holiness affects worship

It is celebrated in worship

Ps 99:5

Psalm 99:5 (ESV) — 5 Exalt the Lord our God; worship at his footstool! Holy is he!

See also 1 Ch 16:29; Ps 29:2; Ps 99:5; Ps 103:1; Ps 105:3; Ps 145:21; Is 6:3

1 Chronicles 16:29 (ESV) — 29 Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name; bring an offering and come before him! Worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness;

Psalm 29:2 (ESV) — 2 Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name; worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness.

Psalm 99:5 (ESV) — 5 Exalt the Lord our God; worship at his footstool! Holy is he!

Psalm 103:1 (ESV) — 1 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name!

Psalm 105:3 (ESV) — 3 Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the Lord rejoice!

Psalm 145:21 (ESV) — 21 My mouth will speak the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless his holy name forever and ever.

Isaiah 6:3 (ESV) — 3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

Coming before a holy God requires preparation

Ex 3:5

Exodus 3:5 (ESV) — 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

See also Ex 29:37; Ps 24:3–4; 1 Co 11:28; Heb 10:1–2; Heb 10:22

Exodus 29:37 (ESV) — 37 Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy. Whatever touches the altar shall become holy.

Psalm 24:3–4 (ESV) — 3 Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully.

1 Corinthians 11:28 (ESV) — 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Hebrews 10:1–2 (ESV) — 1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?

Hebrews 10:22 (ESV) — 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Special requirements and tasks are given to worship leaders

Le 21:7–8 the priests; Le 21:10–15 the high priest

Leviticus 21:7–8 (ESV) — 7 They shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to his God. 8 You shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God. He shall be holy to you, for I, the Lord, who sanctify you, am holy.

Leviticus 21:10–15 (ESV) — 10 “The priest who is chief among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor tear his clothes. 11 He shall not go in to any dead bodies nor make himself unclean, even for his father or for his mother. 12 He shall not go out of the sanctuary, lest he profane the sanctuary of his God, for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is on him: I am the Lord. 13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.”

Aaron and his family:

Ex 28:1–43; Le 21:16–23

Exodus 28:1–43 (ESV) — 1 “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2 And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. 3 You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. 4 These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. 5 They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. 6 “And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and of fine twined linen, skillfully worked. 7 It shall have two shoulder pieces attached to its two edges, so that it may be joined together. 8 And the skillfully woven band on it shall be made like it and be of one piece with it, of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. 9 You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel, 10 six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the other stone, in the order of their birth. 11 As a jeweler engraves signets, so shall you engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel. You shall enclose them in settings of gold filigree. 12 And you shall set the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel. And Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord on his two shoulders for remembrance. 13 You shall make settings of gold filigree, 14 and two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords; and you shall attach the corded chains to the settings. 15 “You shall make a breastpiece of judgment, in skilled work. In the style of the ephod you shall make it—of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen shall you make it. 16 It shall be square and doubled, a span its length and a span its breadth. 17 You shall set in it four rows of stones. A row of sardius, topaz, and carbuncle shall be the first row; 18 and the second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; 19 and the third row a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; 20 and the fourth row a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper. They shall be set in gold filigree. 21 There shall be twelve stones with their names according to the names of the sons of Israel. They shall be like signets, each engraved with its name, for the twelve tribes. 22 You shall make for the breastpiece twisted chains like cords, of pure gold. 23 And you shall make for the breastpiece two rings of gold, and put the two rings on the two edges of the breastpiece. 24 And you shall put the two cords of gold in the two rings at the edges of the breastpiece. 25 The two ends of the two cords you shall attach to the two settings of filigree, and so attach it in front to the shoulder pieces of the ephod. 26 You shall make two rings of gold, and put them at the two ends of the breastpiece, on its inside edge next to the ephod. 27 And you shall make two rings of gold, and attach them in front to the lower part of the two shoulder pieces of the ephod, at its seam above the skillfully woven band of the ephod. 28 And they shall bind the breastpiece by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, so that it may lie on the skillfully woven band of the ephod, so that the breastpiece shall not come loose from the ephod. 29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment on his heart, when he goes into the Holy Place, to bring them to regular remembrance before the Lord. 30 And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly. 31 “You shall make the robe of the ephod all of blue. 32 It shall have an opening for the head in the middle of it, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment, so that it may not tear. 33 On its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, around its hem, with bells of gold between them, 34 a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, around the hem of the robe. 35 And it shall be on Aaron when he ministers, and its sound shall be heard when he goes into the Holy Place before the Lord, and when he comes out, so that he does not die. 36 “You shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the Lord.’ 37 And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. 38 It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. 39 “You shall weave the coat in checker work of fine linen, and you shall make a turban of fine linen, and you shall make a sash embroidered with needlework. 40 “For Aaron’s sons you shall make coats and sashes and caps. You shall make them for glory and beauty. 41 And you shall put them on Aaron your brother, and on his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests. 42 You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs; 43 and they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or when they come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guilt and die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring after him.

Leviticus 21:16–23 (ESV) — 16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.”

2 Ch 29:5 the Levites

2 Chronicles 29:5 (ESV) — 5 and said to them, “Hear me, Levites! Now consecrate yourselves, and consecrate the house of the Lord, the God of your fathers, and carry out the filth from the Holy Place.

God’s holiness is to be seen in his people

God’s people are to be holy because he is holy

Le 19:2; 2 Ti 1:9

Leviticus 19:2 (ESV) — 2 “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.

2 Timothy 1:9 (ESV) — 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

See also Ex 19:6; Ex 22:31; Le 11:44; Mt 5:48; Ro 12:1; 1 Co 1:2; 2 Co 11:2 the church is to be pure as the bride of Jesus Christ; Eph 1:4; Eph 5:3; Php 4:8; Col 1:22; Col 3:12; 1 Th 3:13; 1 Th 4:3–7; Tt 1:8 a qualification for an elder; Heb 2:11; Heb 3:1; Heb 12:10; 1 Pe 1:15–16

Exodus 19:6 (ESV) — 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

Exodus 22:31 (ESV) — 31 “You shall be consecrated to me. Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.

Leviticus 11:44 (ESV) — 44 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground.

Matthew 5:48 (ESV) — 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Romans 12:1 (ESV) — 1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

2 Corinthians 11:2 (ESV) — 2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) — 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

Ephesians 5:3 (ESV) — 3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.

Philippians 4:8 (ESV) — 8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Colossians 1:22 (ESV) — 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,

Colossians 3:12 (ESV) — 12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

1 Thessalonians 3:13 (ESV) — 13 so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 4:3–7 (ESV) — 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.

Titus 1:8 (ESV) — 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.

Hebrews 2:11 (ESV) — 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,

Hebrews 3:1 (ESV) — 1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

Hebrews 12:10 (ESV) — 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.

1 Peter 1:15–16 (ESV) — 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

Becoming holy involves striving after God

2 Pe 3:14

2 Peter 3:14 (ESV) — 14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

See also 2 Co 7:1; 2 Co 13:11; Eph 4:22–24; 1 Ti 5:22; Heb 12:14; Jas 1:20–21; 2 Pe 3:11–12

2 Corinthians 7:1 (ESV) — 1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

2 Corinthians 13:11 (ESV) — 11 Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Ephesians 4:22–24 (ESV) — 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

1 Timothy 5:22 (ESV) — 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.

Hebrews 12:14 (ESV) — 14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

James 1:20–21 (ESV) — 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

2 Peter 3:11–12 (ESV) — 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!

The holiness of believers originates from God

Ex 31:13

Exodus 31:13 (ESV) — 13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.

See also Le 22:9; Dt 28:9; Ps 4:3; 1 Jn 3:1–3

Leviticus 22:9 (ESV) — 9 They shall therefore keep my charge, lest they bear sin for it and die thereby when they profane it: I am the Lord who sanctifies them.

Deuteronomy 28:9 (ESV) — 9 The Lord will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways.

Psalm 4:3 (ESV) — 3 But know that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself; the Lord hears when I call to him.

1 John 3:1–3 (ESV) — 1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Jesus Christ purifies Christian believers

1 Jn 1:7

1 John 1:7 (ESV) — 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

See also Heb 7:26–28; Heb 9:26–28; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:14; 1 Jn 3:4–6

Hebrews 7:26–28 (ESV) — 26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

Hebrews 9:26–28 (ESV) — 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Hebrews 10:10 (ESV) — 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 (ESV) — 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

1 John 3:4–6 (ESV) — 4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.

God’s holiness makes sin objectionable to him

Hab 1:13

God’s holiness necessitates dependence upon him for forgiveness

Ps 51:1–17

Psalm 51:1–17 (ESV) — 1 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. 13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. 14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. 15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. 16 For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

The Ordis Saeculum

By James Austin in Theology

The State and secular liberalism have an insatiable appetite for power to form policies, crave resources, shape humanistic social values, and largely cater to predatory economies, corporations, and institutions. Churches and religious conventions throughout Christendom have abdicated their responsibility to satisfy people’s common good and well-being through its distancing of political and cultural involvement. Much of it subscribes to the totalitarian inclinations of the State for economic and security reasons having to do with the Churches’ worldview differences and its sense of elsewhere. The world of the Bible, covenant promises, confessions, fellowships, and its subcultures has set the Church apart without question. It hasn’t engaged culture, society, or contributed to its interests in loving people with the Gospel as commensurate with its mission (Matt 28:18-19).

Evangelical organizations, Protestant churches, and Catholic churches have withdrawn from secular public offices and institutions. They make up local boards, municipalities, legislatures, judiciaries, and executive branches of government with very little Christian influence as an internal cultural presence that has a bearing on public policy. The Church is absent to ensure regulatory enforcement against corruption, equitable relief to the poor, and morality-based education. There are pockets of individuals in various locales. Still, people have no concentrated social and political will to ensure they are governed by consent that assures freedom and the necessary fulfillment of God’s requirements to love one another and build His Kingdom. Christianity should be involved in public policy formation and governance at every level, as an effort to install public theology, not to adapt, or to partner for the common good, but to inject a morphology and policy that reflect Godly standards centered around law and order.

Without such efforts, an outcome of privatization of faith with disparate values takes hold. It permits the conditions necessary for socialism to gather momentum with devastating consequences (e.g., holocaust, communist genocide, etc.). The Church itself becomes an empty shell as it does not fulfill its obligation to form the spiritual well-being of people through evangelism and discipleship. All the while, the State begins to carry the theological and transcendent purpose of the Church. Rather than a Kingdom of Priests or the Kingdom of God set within the world to love humanity, it becomes the Kingdom of man to perpetuate selfishness and its appetite for wealth, power, and ideological outcomes. Small and large churches that become corporate business enterprises are structured for-profit or nonprofit endeavors. In the name of separation of church and state, Reinhold Niebuhr championed imbued theological legitimacy to the State and advocated arrangements of public theology for the welfare of people. Inevitably, the church accordingly becomes relegated to activity contradictory to the interests of the State, and it becomes suppressed while members privatize their faith.

As matters become worse and tyranny grows among segments of society, and minorities, the same minorities plea and protest for liberation. They become subjected to oppression, poverty, injustices, and indifference that bring about immeasurable suffering.

It is simply not enough, or acceptable, to form policies and legislation around social, political, or special interests where the State assumes for itself theological rights to govern. There must emerge a unity of the Church adjacent to disparate doctrines about a constitutional model of governance. Reminiscent of Augustine’s The City of God (c.f. Books XX Ch.30 through XXI entire argument), there must become social awareness and imperatives for fulfilling theological mandates within the Church for spiritual liberation. The reason empires or governments are permitted to exist, survive, and prosper is to satisfy the purposes and will of God.

YHWH Himself asks of ancient rulers,

“Vindicate the weak and fatherless.
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
Rescue the weak and needy.
Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. “
-Ps 82:2-4

It is proclaimed that the nations belong to God, who rules over them with the presence of His new covenant Kingdom on the Earth. To restrain evil is one of the functions of the Church, and as our LORD Jesus, Himself decrees to Peter, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it“ (Matt 16:18-19). While there is certain to be interpersonal conflict and larger-scale disputes in opposition to the interests of Christ’s Kingdom (Matt 10:34), the Church is meant to prevail as Jesus decreed. Spiritual and worldly forces shall be unable to withstand its work as it reclaims people and spiritually liberates them through the Gospel and sanctification.

It is of urgent necessity that Protestant and Catholic churches make disciples. It is of utmost importance for Christians to become spiritually engaged and integrated into society at large for its sake because of otherwise damning consequences. Forever lost are people without Christ as they seek their interests or the interests of the State as they do their best to survive and make a living with a sense of purpose and meaning. Christians must become spiritual activists at every level, from the bottom-up and top-down. We would eat, sleep, and breathe all things under the Lordship of Christ and His commission to make disciples and teach people all that He has instructed.

The modern political process needs intervention from Christendom. Through a strategy that it executes in unison with doctrines left intact to restrain evil, mitigate structural sin, and ease the unacceptable suffering of people who need the Gospel and lovingkindness. Through the Holy Spirit, we are entrusted to bring people under the Lordship of Christ. We are to hold up a welcome banner of Godliness, truth, justice, mercy, freedom, and love for all people through the exertion of will that reaches into the realm of political, social, and economic domains of interest. Enough is enough; everything must become spiritually, theologically, and politically charged to advance God’s Kingdom and fulfill the great commission.

This is not to advocate theocratic forms of governance. Instead, it is to model constitutional accountability and a framework portable to geographies and people groups even at local levels to build environments or fields of harvest to accomplish the objectives we are given by the mission of Christ and His people. The Kingdom of God is not a domain of societies within an unachievable utopian setting on Earth. For example, secular initiatives to elevate “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” in an attempt to satisfy Social Marxist objectives (social justice) would bring about a significant removal of freedoms, loss of life on an enormous scale, and reduced access to people for Kingdom objectives. Moreover, Jesus informs us that the poor will always be with us (Matt 26:11). From an eschatological perspective, there will be “wars and rumors of wars” (Matt 24:6), “famine” (Luke 21:11), and other ongoing catastrophes until He returns. It is one thing to build Christendom by church planting. Still, it is quite another to form governance and authoritative responsibility around people under the mission of God.

Without attachment to world values, Christians must become politically active, speak up, go to church, share their faith, live their lives of faith in public, and live out loud lives of service and worship. Enough is enough with the privatization of faith and the fear of being seen as a devoted believer in Jesus as LORD and King.

Continue Reading ·

Contours of Particularity

By James Austin in Theology

People’s religious convictions inform their social, cultural, and political perspectives and preferences. What people highly care about is significantly influenced by what they believe, either through faith or humanistic concern. Even secular people have religious questions about atheism or agnosticism (i.e., everyone is spiritually vested in what they care about).

Everyone has a “religious” commitment. In a loose sense, secular and faith systems’ values bear on social and political matters of interest. Particularly around culture and what rights, liberties, and freedoms exist to live with the power to impose and live as one wants with progressively deepening immorality, destruction of the family, cultural chaos, and perpetual war. Secular worldview categories of subjectivism and relativism are means by which divisions of thought and understanding exist to ply their will through policy and distribution of resources.

In a general sense, subjectivism is a way to limit knowledge to personal or private meaning and experience. While subjective facts are valid, subjectivism as the target of secular reason toward belief systems isolates and attempts to erode absolute truth. It’s a way of thinking that exalts itself against God because it’s a way of thought that says what is supremely good and right can only be ascertained by individual feeling or apprehension.

Relativity is another concept that is valid in a limited sense. However, relativism as a secular theory denies humanity any ability to possess objective truth and universally meaningful knowledge concerning metaphysical realities (i.e., God, Creation, spiritual realm, supernatural incidents, etc.). Relativism is a way for secular humanity and culture to insulate themselves from ultimate truth to escape moral absolutes. Meaning and truth become relative to each culture, person, situation, relationship, and outcome.

Both subjectivism and relativism are subordinate to religious and secular pluralism theory and doctrines. They’re together systems of contradiction against absolute truth, moral certainty, and unwanted political power. To develop and maintain social cohesion and order, religious diplomacy, not interfaith initiatives that give an equal weight of credibility, is, in my view, the most sensible and orderly way to preserve freedom and conviction of absolute truth. While love for God and people is not mutually exclusive from a Christian perspective, secular society doesn’t have the authority or capacity to steer Christianity to keep itself safe from Islam or other harmful religious beliefs. The godless mind is subject to the absolute interests of God.

Excerpt:
Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism Continuum

Isolating the philosophical theory called religious pluralism raises a question. If religious pluralism is one class of meta-religious theories about religious variety, are there other classes? The typical typology of responses to religious variety contrasts pluralism with two other general classes of meta-religious theories called “exclusivism” and “inclusivism.”¹

[[[ Religious exclusivism maintains that only one religion is genuine or true; only one faith actually brings a believer into contact with God. For a Christian exclusivist of the strongest sort, God will save only people who hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, know about his death on the cross, and explicitly confess him as Savior. This strong form of exclusivism is also called “restrictivism.” ]]]

Exclusivism comes in various subtypes. First, one sub-form of exclusivism modifies restrictivism by allowing for a few exceptions. One such exception is a provision for the universal salvation of all who die before they reach some cognitive age of accountability. Second, another sub-form of exclusivism asserts that God ensures an opportunity to believe for those who he knows would believe. This uses a middle knowledge view of divine foreknowledge (where God knows what every person would do in every hypothetical situation). God makes sure that the message of salvation gets to every person who would believe if he heard the gospel. God ordains that all who would receive salvation if given the chance actually do get that chance.² Third, yet another sub-form of exclusivism affirms that all people have an opportunity to hear the gospel, and this could include the chance to receive salvation after death.³

As a midway point between exclusivism and pluralism, some follow religious inclusivism. Inclusivism agrees with exclusivism that only one religion is ultimately true. But it shares with pluralism the conviction that sincere adherents of religions other than the true faith may still come into contact with God, find spiritual life, or achieve the religious goal. So, for example, a person who adopted Muslim inclusivism might say that Islam is actually the only true faith, rooted in the one, valid revelation of the ultimate Reality, Allah. Still, this hypothetical Muslim inclusivist might say, a faithful Jewish follower of the Mosaic law could still receive a heavenly reward, if he is faithful to the dictates of Judaism. For the Muslim inclusivist, Judaism is not the true faith, and yet the faithful Jew who follows Torah may still go to paradise. Paradise is achievable due to such things as the Jewish believer’s religious sincerity or piety, the truth of Islam, and the good will of Allah. For the Christian inclusivist, Christ is the ultimate revelation of God. Salvation is possible for people who explicitly follow other faiths. But this salvation is always from or through Christ.

Inclusivism also admits of sub-divisions. The most important is a distinction between “constitutive inclusivism” and “normative inclusivism.” In both versions of inclusivism, Christian inclusivists agree that a person can be saved without explicit saving knowledge of Jesus. Constitutive inclusivism affirms that Christ’s work is the necessary ground of all salvation, and other religions cannot provide the ontological power for salvation. Anyone who is saved receives salvation only because of the power and atonement of Jesus Christ. Yet someone could fail to accept Jesus Christ, follow a religious path that is in no way Christian, and still receive salvation by following what light she does have. Again, the metaphysical ground of this salvation is always the work of Christ.

A version of constitutive inclusivism called the “implicit faith view” is closest to exclusivism. The Christian version of this view says that a person can be saved if he meets these conditions: he knows nothing of Christ, he rejects the false religion around him, and he follows any valid natural revelation he does have. He implicitly follows Christ by worshiping the Creator. This is the most restricted form of constitutive inclusivism because it holds that anyone who explicitly rejects Christ cannot receive salvation in this way, irrespective of his sincerity. In other words, those who have never heard of Christ, and so never have a chance to reject him explicitly, can trust him implicitly by following whatever light they do have. So, unlike more liberal inclusivists, defenders of an implicit faith view will say that a person who does not explicitly follow Christ can be saved in spite of, but never because of, anything that another faith might offer him. Even though historical accident keeps him from hearing explicitly of Christ, he may receive salvation by rejecting the false religion he sees around him and calling on God. And he is saved solely on the basis of the reality of Christ’s work.⁴

Normative inclusivism goes well beyond constitutive inclusivism. A Christian defender of normative inclusivism will deny the necessity of Christ’s work for salvation. Instead, Jesus offers one valid religious path among several. Initially, this sounds like a form of pluralism. But it differs slightly. In normative inclusivism, one religion is the “norm.” This one normative religion is the best, the clearest, the least ambiguous path to God. Still, other religions possess validity though to a lesser degree. So the one valid religious path is the first among several valid equals. This norming religion functions as the normative example, the paradigm, by which all paths to God are judged as more or less salvific. But it is not the only path through which people may come to God.

The three-part typology—exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, along with the various subtypes—is not without difficulties. Though many people use this vocabulary for discussing the relationships among religions, it is subject to several objections. First, some object to a priori typologies in general. Paul Griffiths, for example, pointed out that those who develop general typologies of responses to the world’s religions are often not sufficiently knowledgeable about the religions to categorize them adequately.⁵ And he rightly warned us to look at how the theological axioms of an interpreter’s religion influence his definitions of the categories.⁶ But while Griffiths’ point is valid, it is also limited. His argument cuts against analyses developed by people who lack a complete knowledge base. But it should not undermine typologies developed by people who do have the requisite knowledge. It does not point to some in principle difficulty with developing typologies. And the fact that our typologies will always fall short of perfect categorization, with no gray areas between categories, does not mean that typologies are completely useless. The lesson here is that while typologies are useful, their categories should not run roughshod over carefully researched descriptions of the world’s religions. Fair enough.

A second and much more important objection is this: different thinkers use the threefold continuum to answer two entirely different questions. This leads to different accounts of the meaning of the three categories. This is a major problem that causes significant confusion. Take exclusivism, for example. On the one hand, Alvin Plantinga defined ‘exclusivism’ in this manner: “the tenets or some of the tenets of one religion—Christianity, let’s say—are in fact true … [and] … other religious beliefs that are [logically] incompatible with those tenets are false.”⁷ On the other hand, John Hick used ‘exclusivism’ in this way: “only those who follow the teachings of a particular religion are saved.”⁸ In the abstract, these two definitions themselves are perfectly in order. Both Plantinga and Hick describe relatively clear meta-religious, philosophical ideas. But they offer very different definitions of ‘exclusivism’ because they tacitly use the threefold typology to answer two conceptually distinct questions. Both of these two questions are attempts to analyze the theology of religions discussion. But the two questions analyze very different aspects of the theology of religions discussion. It is very easy to get them confused.

[…..]

Having sketched a representative way of explaining the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism (along with some subtypes), I turn to the core issue of prolegomena: What are the implications of these theories for evangelical theology? The fact of religious variety and the rise of varied philosophical interpretations of that fact pose questions that need answers in their own right. This is the issue of religious pluralism per se. But as evangelicals, we are unalterably committed to the uniqueness of Christian revelation. This certainly includes exclusivism and may allow for constitutive inclusivism. [….] Yet commitments to pluralism are pervasive in our postmodern cultural milieu. So that leads to the fundamental question for theological methodology.

[….]

Finally, if we do conclude that evangelical theology is a rationally responsible discipline in this context, then how should we live in a pluralist world? Can evangelicals live as neighbors with adherents of other faiths as well as those who reject all faiths? Gilkey says that the awareness of religious variety requires a new ethic of relationship that includes respectful dialogue, acknowledgment of truth in other perspectives, and a willingness to listen and learn. But does the awareness of religious variety require religious pluralism? In the minds of some contemporary people, exclusivism is incompatible with an ethic of respect and dialogue. This is true both of some pluralists who value respectful dialogue (and therefore reject exclusivism) and of some exclusivists who disavow pluralism (and therefore renounce respectful dialogue).

David K. Clark and John S. Feinberg, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 320–324.

Clark Citations
___________________________
¹ The standard threefold typology can be traced back to Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983). Race himself argues for pluralism. But in “John Hick’s Pluralist Philosophy of World Religions” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 1999), Paul Eddy points out that the essence of the threefold typology was implicit in John Hick’s “Copernican Revolution” a decade earlier, for example, in Hick’s God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Macmillan, 1973).
² William Lane Craig, “Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism,” Sophia 34 (1995): 120–139.
³ This view draws on 1 Peter 3:19–20
⁴ This is built on A. H. Strong’s suggestions. For discussion, see David K. Clark, “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation?” in Through No Fault of Their Own, ed.
⁵ Paul Griffiths, “Modalizing the Theology of Religions,” Journal of Religion 73 (1993): 382–389; idem, “Encountering Buddha Theologically,” Theology Today 47 (1990): 39–51; idem, On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1986).
⁶ Idem, “A Properly Christian Approach to Religious Plurality,” Anglican Theological Review 79 (1997): 3–26.
⁷ Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” in Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, ed. Thomas Senor (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995), 194.
⁸ Examples of others who assume a soteriological definition are Anne Hunt, “No Other Name? A Critique of Religious Pluralism,” Pacifica 3 (1990): 45–60; John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992); and the authors of More Than One Way? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995).

Continue Reading ·

The Pluralistic Hypothesis

By James Austin in Theology

“The Pluralistic Hypothesis” is a chapter in a book entitled An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent by John Hick. It concerns a defense of religious pluralism from a secular perspective. John Hick (1922-2012) was a very well-known British philosopher of religion who held controversial views about many theological beliefs. He was subjected to heresy proceedings by his presbytery. He was eventually admitted to the Presbyterian church with some persistence after objections from ministers who examined his errant positions on theology, confessions, and tradition. John Hick accepted the influential worldviews of Kant and Schleiermacher to produce the eventual disintegration of his earlier formative Christian commitments.

“This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.’ There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” – Acts 4:11-12 NRSV

As one reads Hick’s thoughts about religious pluralism, it becomes clear why there were numerous refutations against his views. His written work is often found as companion books about liberation theology and feminism from currently active authors. Hick came to reject a number of basic doctrines from the apostolic and prophetic witness as given by the authority of Scripture. Rather than place himself under the authority of Scripture and the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit about who God is, he chose to set himself outside of what God has revealed to align with humanistic approaches to religion. The secular institutions where he studied had a significant bearing upon his withdrawal of exclusive faith in Christ.

There is an unsettling underlying thread through Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis. Rather than approach truth, or “the Real,” to explain divine Reality from a divinely revealed perspective (which he says we can’t by faith), he attempts to set up categories of human-centered reason to engage in idolatry through the acceptance of other religions as having salvific merit. He inferred that people who do not accept as true the doctrines and traditions of Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism (whether of personae or impersonae divinity) will have no option but to affirm a pluralistic religious experience (i.e., it becomes inevitable). To further infer a same shared deity, to whom Hick’s ruminations are exploratory across religions, is an eventual outworking of religious departments among secular universities today.

Once private and public universities and colleges removed the academic discipline of theology and replaced it with “religion,” they sought to aggregate or lump together belief systems antithetical to naturalist pursuits. “Religion” as a term is a secular recasting of the historical meaning of theology from a secular worldview as it has abandoned the pursuit of revelatory spiritual truth. The worldview that cannot comprehend or explain human consciousness and where it comes from attempts to hold itself out and produce speculative thinkers such as Hicks. This is specifically the fruit that is meant to appear among bad trees (Matt 7:18), where the true faith of Christianity eventually becomes diluted, marginalized, and dismissed as illusory.

Once private and public universities and colleges removed the academic discipline of theology and replaced it with “religion,” they sought to aggregate or lump together belief systems antithetical to naturalist pursuits. Religion as a term is a secular recasting of the historical meaning of theology from a secular worldview as it has abandoned the pursuit of revelatory spiritual truth. The worldview that cannot comprehend or explain human consciousness and where it comes from attempts to hold itself out and produce speculative thinkers such as Hicks. This is specifically the bad fruit that is yielded from among bad trees (Matt 7:18), where the true faith of Christianity eventually becomes poisoned.

Hick’s rationale is spiritually vacant as he sets up arbitrary categories of personally subjective thought around the religious beliefs of billions. That is, to somehow converge them and assign commitments with doctrines as having equal or distributed weight while they contradict one another. Hick’s use of Aquinas, Calvin, and Maimonides as sources to proof-text his rationale on isolated points of support for plurality leaves out the context that these early writers and philosophers spoke about. Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis, taken as a whole, contradicts the body of their work to include many others. Moreover, it is the Creator God who voiced, “thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:1-2) and “for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Ex 34:14).

Continue Reading ·

The Unquenchable Thirst

By James Austin in Theology

Without guiding moral principles centered upon objective truth, political and social interests invariably serve a social and individual thirst for power, resources, wealth, and survival. In a fallen and sinful world of decay, selfishness, violence, despair, and abuse, a utopian society, or even an approximation, will never be remotely possible.

Political Theology

Political theology is characterized by its orientation toward the future, a hope for shaping society, and the public impact of religion. It returned to attention during Vatican II and became of greater interest during European and American political movements during the 1960s. After World War II, there were two streams of prevailing interest toward the development of political theology. Namely, theology and philosophy to engage in biblical eschatology to include social and political criticism. Key individuals’ conversations and theological research to revive and develop political theology led to further interest and dialog between German and Marxist ideologues around utopian aspirations. There were specific and common approaches to theological interests concerning political theology. The focal areas were the cultural and social views of religion in society, criticisms of earlier 20th-century theologies, and the use of eschatology toward social and political life.

There were various observations about how the market economy up to and after World War II led to the privatization of religion. As a religion or selective faith became an object of consumption from the market, it resulted in a loss of substance concerning its society, culture, and institutions. There was a perception that Christianity was dismissed and held no relevance toward the highest goals of society. The prevailing view among Political theologians was that market forces led to secularization, which caused the privatization of religion. To thereby make room for the nonsense proclamation “God is dead,” Hegel, Feuerbach, and Nietzsche’s philosophical implications gained a footing that permitted conditions ripe for National Socialism, a World War, a Holocaust, and two nuclear weapon strikes. Not to mention a severe weakening of the Christian faith in Germany and Europe as it became secularized by a hollowed-out religion.

Johann Metz

As a student of Karl Rahner, Johann Metz (1928-2019) was a German Catholic priest and theologian. He was a professor of theology at Münster and a consultant to the synod of German dioceses. His contributions to Catholic theology largely centered upon criticisms of Christian Anthropomorphism and the secularization of society. His view was that the Christian perception of the world, with its emphasis on history and humanity, was a causal factor in the origin of modernity (Livingston, 278). The anthropocentric philosophy and theology of Aquinas and Rahner were inferred as contributing factors.

Metz believed that a political theology that focuses on the person as the subject could form a positive outlook and disposition toward secularization. To Metz, Christ as the center of a Christological understanding was better placed to society itself as it was necessary for secularization and religion of eschatological concern to coherently relate to one another. However, over time, Christianity would develop a favorable view of secularization that led to the privatization of faith, worship, and devotion of believers. Metz was displeased with the unintended outcome as he proposed the development of a political theology with the kind of foresight that might have afforded his views credibility.

Metz goes on to advocate political theology as fundamental theology. In answer to the Enlightenment, the Roman Catholic Church instituted a Fundamental theology as a body of disciplines as a philosophy of religion, apologetics, and prolegomena (critical analysis as a book introduction) to systematic theology. His specific conviction was to bring political theology into the domain of fundamental theology to effectively respond to the dire situation brought about by the European Enlightenment. Fundamental theology wasn’t an internal discipline to the Church. Still, it was to engage culture and society to give meaning to Christian beliefs and truth claims because of its historical and eschatological concerns.

A central focal point for Metz’s theology is suffering. He was critical of Rahner’s inattention toward a transcendental theology that led to conditions that gave way to the holocaust. Social engagement by the Church was insufficient to make relevant theological truths that could have affected the political discourse of National Socialism that gave a path of power to Nazi Germany. Attention to the historical developments of Society and the suffering of people could have better shaped Church theology as more inclusive to alleviate suffering in recent centuries (particularly the holocaust). To this end, Fundamental theology is the consideration and practice of Church existence to attend to the subject of man or people for worship and ministry together in an increasingly secular world.

Jürgen Moltmann

As described by Metz’s theology of the Cross, Jürgen Moltmann (1926- ) also holds to a theology of suffering, but more so concerning the trinity. He supposes that God, who suffered insofar as its trinitary relationship as One, has a social interpretation of that occurrence caused by Christ’s redemptive and atoning work at the crucifixion. Moltmann’s rationale is that there is solidarity from God with those who suffer; as He has suffered, He is present in the abandonment and desolation of humanity. As understood through the Trinity and instrument of the Cross, the suffering of God serves as a model for people to abide in shared suffering, and to a lesser extent, common burdens with society as a matter of a fundamentally theological endeavor.

The purpose isn’t to valorize suffering (Livingston, 287), but to view it as a component of discipleship. To suffer others in solidarity is to bear their interests as an anthropocentric shift in attention. Moltmann writes further about eschatological conditions from a human perspective in contrast to the traditional end-of-time doctrine of Creation. He explicitly calls attention to the human condition where each individual is subject to death, the immortality of the soul, and resurrection to glory or condemnation. Moreover, Moltmann incrementally draws attention to civil societies and cultures that have issues such as religion, war, violence, etc.

While Moltmann attracts unconventional attention, he is subjected to criticisms about his soft views on modernity and the Enlightenment. Arne Rasmusson (protestant) argues that Moltmann’s political theology supports and propagates Enlightenment assertions among societies otherwise subject to outreach and recipients of the shift in theological approach. In the absence of biblical exegesis, others have criticized Moltmann’s theories about the state, being, or relationship of the Holy Trinity. Lastly, there are serious questions about Moltmann’s theodicy concerning the suffering of God.

Latin American Liberation Theology

Liberation theology in Latin America is distinct from the liberation theology of Europe. It doesn’t concern itself with the values of European liberation theology, which involves secularization and privatization of religion, but instead liberation from dependency and exploitation. Within the Western hemisphere, many among Latin American countries stood out as incredibly impoverished and helpless. There was a minority who were affluent as their assets accumulated as a result of foreign colonialism for natural resources. Still, the indigent of Mexico, Central America, and South America existed in a continuing state of abject and desperate poverty. The economy of the few did not support the populations in need, nor was that the desire of liberation theology proponents. They wanted economic freedom and participation when existing governments and industries structurally made it impossible for the neglected and exploited majorities to arise from imposed and unjust conditions.

In the 1960s, there were initiatives from hundreds of Bishops, priests, and experts who met in Latin America to produce guiding principles and courses of action to help Latin America transition from dependency to freedom as a matter of liberation. Not as a developmental effort to build upon existing resources but to complete restructure and originate a way forward for the people among Latin American nations.

Gustavo Gutiérrez

The pioneer of Latin American Liberation Theology is Gustavo Gutiérrez (1928- ). He is a Peruvian philosopher, Catholic theologian, and Dominican priest, and he is one of the founders of Latin American liberation theology. Gutiérrez studied in Lima and in Europe to earn his academic background. As a priest in Lima, he developed his pastoral capabilities as he wrote the highly influential A Theology of Liberation. It is the go-to reference text on the subject concerning Latin American liberation theology. Gutiérrez proposed a historical Jesus whose teachings, preaching, lifestyle, and eschatological message carry political implications. The role Gutiérrez saw of Jesus in Scripture was anthropocentric as he focused on the relationships between Jesus and those of His time in history. His view of Jesus was about the messiah’s historical, social upheaval as political activism.

Gutiérrez also adopted Rahner’s perspective about the Church. As the Church was reiterated in the divine plan of salvation in the Constitution of the Church of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium), it declares itself as the one true Church. Gutiérrez concurred that the Church was the “visible sacrament of saving unity” and the “universal sacrament of salvation.” The Church was a sacrament of God’s saving plan for the world, according to Gutiérrez (i.e., not explicitly Christ, but the Church). It would appear that Gutiérrez’s notion of salvation in this respect is different in the sense that it is of liberation theology and not salvific from God’s wrath against sin per se. To involve people in the cause of liberty (i.e., freedom from dependency and poverty) is a meaningful and necessary endeavor, but to mix that effort in the idea about what it is to be saved is to dilute the gospel of Christ. The gospel meaning and message stand on their own with a dedicated focus on what it takes to get people right before God through Christ. Otherwise, people will become confused or misled about becoming justified and set toward a biblical path of sanctification. The gospel is not an instrument to produce activists or change for liberation theology or political theology of any type. In Scripture, Christ did not live and die to rescue people from Roman oppression or dependency and poverty due to structural exploitation.

Juan Luis Segundo

Segundo (1925-1996) was a Jesuit priest and Uruguayan theologian who studied in Argentina and Europe, both philosophy and theological studies. The Livingston text doesn’t explicitly indicate that Segundo studied sociology, but he formed an Institute of Social and Theological Studies once he returned to Uruguay. He was as much of a sociologist as a theologian in the cause of Latin American liberation theology. Much of his work concentrated on ideology, evolution, and technology, which are of specific interest to individuals with a liberal worldview. Specifically, Segundo was interested in the relationship between faith and ideology compared to the typical approach of faith and reason concerning standard Catholic doctrines on Aquinas. Segundo goes to great lengths to converge evolutionary theories with culture and social attitudes of the West with religious faith to form new methods and traditions into ways of actionable thinking to support liberation theology unique to Latin America.

It was of high interest that Segundo was to liberate theology itself. With a backdrop of political ideology closely adjacent to socialist Marxism, Segundo’s theology was anthropocentric to society and not merely an individual per se. His Scriptural hermeneutic was one of suspicion as he believed readers of the biblical writers did not consider essential data. Segundo’s view that ideologies surrounding the poor and oppressed within Scripture weren’t a point relevant interest within society to influence interpretation and application. He advocates that readers of Scripture should read and interpret the Word of God from the perspective of the poor and oppressed, not from the intended meaning and perspective of biblical authors. It is necessary and important to read and understand the biblical authors in their cultural context. However, to read, interpret, and apply Scripture by what is read eisegetically into it doesn’t attend to the intent and purpose of its meaning. In fact, there is a high risk of contradiction to God’s Word. Segundo advocated a reader response hermeneutic of Scripture to advance the cause of Latin American liberation theology.

Leonardo Boff

To further reinforce the anthropocentrism of Latin American liberation theology, Leonardo Boff (1938- ) also became a prominent figure as a Brazilian theologian, philosopher, writer, and Catholic priest. He was a professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Rio de Janeiro State University. Boff, like Gutiérrez, accepts the view that the Church is a sacramental institution meant for the world. However, Boff extends the sacramental vision of the Church to have social and political implications. His view was that the Church symbolizes the love and peace between God and humanity to the extent that it makes tangible social and political institutions (Livingston, 299). To Boff, the purpose of the Church was for the world and not as the conventional theological as it is the body of Christ. Again, social anthropocentrism is the prevailing interest as compared to the claim of Christ’s Kingdom upon the Church. The Livingston text doesn’t indicate that Boff positions these functions and purpose as mutually exclusive, but at best, they’re interwoven where social interests make the Church into its image. That is, by its political and social implications to include traditions, doctrines, and aspirations.

Boff’s views are also unique as it concerns the inception of the historical Church. His view was that Christianity began post-resurrection, or at Pentecost, with the arrival and presence of the Holy Spirit upon the early Church. Compared to the conventional idea that the Church was formed and began the Christ and His work on Earth through prophetic fulfillment and by the apostolic witness. The Livingston text refers to Boff’s views as a “post-Easter situation,” which indicates an absence of the term and meaning of the resurrected Christ. The Livingston text’s subtle use of pagan holiday terminology diminishes its credibility on the subject matter and elsewhere as it selectively applies language to its own secular bias.

Conclusion

The views of political and liberation theologians, including the Livingston text, is that a Social Gospel is of no concern as liberal activism is a necessary life practice of a disciple of Christ. Meaning, to be an authentic disciple, one must be engaged in caring for the widow, the poor, and the oppressed. In their view, it is a political and religious matter to advocate for social justice concerns with as much weight as the biblical principles of justification and sanctification. To some within the liberation theology worldview, the Kingdom of God is just as much for society as it is for God and His interests. To others, it’s purely about what God and the Church can do for “me” (or us and society which is oppressed, marginalized, dependent, and exploited).

While care for the poor and neglected is of utmost urgent necessity, to reshape the gospel of the Kingdom to a Social gospel for socially favorable outcomes is a false gospel and entirely errant. The Kingdom of God is not a domain of societies within an unachievable utopian setting on Earth. To condition, the gospel, the Church, and the Kingdom toward social justice initiatives for political purposes toward worldly equity is an abomination.

Continue Reading ·

Totality of Self-Transcendence

By James Austin in Theology

The theology of transcendental Thomism in the 20th-century is a fascinating course of study among Catholics of the 19th and 20th-century. They more meaningfully sought to engage tradition and culture at large. The impetus of the Enlightenment, naturalism, and secularism drove attitudes of modern thought that affected philosophers and theologians who wanted to bring into fuller meaning the church’s understanding of its positions of teaching and theology. There was a succession of individuals who developed methods of reason who relied upon well-known philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and various others. They combined preceded contributions to the overall theological and philosophical discourse to further deepen Church views about modernity, modern philosophy, critical issues, supernatural transcendentalism, and existentialism.

Advocates of Neo-Scholasticism wanted to reconcile theology and naturalism with the Enlightenment. The philosophical inclinations among seventeenth and eighteenth-century intellectuals of Western civilization gave a footing to Immanuel Kant to allow for a “coming of age” mindset throughout society. The Enlightenment brought an intolerance to knowledge developed by external means other than human reason. Consequently, the Enlightenment-era ushered into society’s misgivings and skepticism about external sources of authority and claims concerning religious doctrines. To counter this suspicion toward antipathy that has taken root within Western society, theologians and philosophers made numerous inroads to innovate new and explanatory forms of religious and existential thought.

Roman Catholic theology held to traditions and theology that contradict the mood of secular society that were aligned with modernity and, consequentially, naturalism and rationalism. As an answer to the Enlightenment, Neo-Scholasticism in the 19th-century directed its efforts after a rationalistic approach to theology to account for the effects of the Enlightenment upon the Roman Catholic Church. The advances of Neo-Scholastic advocates in the formation and defense of their theology drew traditional convictions about religious claims and supernatural revelation away from individuals and communities to reform or abandon traditions and beliefs that were a detriment to the Church. Neo-Scholasticism embraced elements of the Enlightenment to oppose it, and it adopted naturalism and rationalism to fight its philosophical effect upon people.

As the Enlightenment and Neo-Scholasticism had a corrosive effect on the faith of believers, a new theology (nouvelle théologie) emerged to counter human-centered reason with a Thomistic polemic. It was a different form of reason that applied the faculties of realism, as originated from the Divine, which produces love and faith. Both substantiate belief and credibility as fact concerning the origin and sources of truth claims believed and validated. Moreover, modern philosophy had no way of overcoming the epistemological concern of believers and their human spirit pressing for the realism of absolute transcendence. Human spirit pre-disposed to spiritual encounter with the unlimited being who orients them is interpreted as pure actuality. As pure act, God, as the unlimited being, gives concrete objects their being plus the knowledge of their existence and activity. As an apologetic, in defense of Catholic tradition and further reconciling its theology with the Enlightenment, Neo-Scholasticism produced a natural and supernatural duality. This separation translated to unintended consequences that had a negative bearing on the faith and belief of people.

Karl Rahner (1904-1984) was a prolific author, lecturer, theologian, and philosopher guided by a transcendental Thomist tradition. He was a German Jesuit priest and one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th-century. He brought considerable reflection to the discourse against the Enlightenment era by advocating Thomistic realism, where human self-consciousness and self-transcendence are ultimately situated and existentially determined by God. As Rahner’s theology developed, his work centered around Christology as God’s work in the world through the Spirit and the Word. While Catholics will espouse the primacy of sacred Scripture, as opposed to sola scriptura, Rahner makes no use of it within the Livingston text to give weight or authority to his voice and epistemological perspectives. Namely, human reason and intellect produce imagination that strives toward an infinity that transcends the world. Experiential conditions drive presuppositions of metaphysical reality, and events upon the human spirit are reminiscent of Schleiermacher’s views about human religious experience. There are clear distinctions, but their views are close enough to make comparisons to recognize what is unique concerning Rahner’s theology. Ultimately, Rahner seeks to show that metaphysical knowledge of God and Christian revelation are existential.

Rahner’s theology of transcendental Thomism led to the formation of a theological model linked to his Christology and anthropology. By the presence of Being to itself and beings as a plurality of actuality, religious experience to Rahner historically spans humanity’s consciousness as participants of Creation. This is transcendental Thomism, or more specifically, the ontological structure of reality and the classic Christian doctrines of God, Trinity, Creation, and Incarnation (i.e., the ontology of Karl Rahner). As the Word is God’s self-communication that entails Creation while Christ symbolizes God, Christianity is posited as a symbolization of God’s grace and presence universally manifest.

“With Rahner, persons through their decisions make a decision for or against the transcendence that is God. A decision for that transcendence is an implicit affirmation of God and God’s grace that is explicitly symbolized and thematized by the Church. God’s saving will and offer of grace is universal; therefore, God’s grace is implicitly present everywhere though it is categorically and explicitly symbolized in salvation history and in the Church” (Livingston, 213).

Some of the criticisms of Rahner’s theology and metaphysical ontology have to do with inattention to historical Christian revelation. Whether by Barthian tradition about the absence of the written Word within Rahner’s rationale on the metaphysics of existence or philosophical objections as they concern the relation between historical language and experience.

Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) was another transcendental Thomist who was unique concerning human freedom along the Molinist line of thinking. Luis De Molina (1535-1600) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian and priest who defended human liberty by Divine grace. Lonergan integrated both divine transcendence and human freedom that guided his further philosophical and theological work. He is known for an explanation of falling in love with God. That is, religious conversion as coming to a totality of love where it is an efficacious grounding of all self-transcendence. As the knowledge of God appears at religious conversion (self-transcendence), it appears in the pursuit of truth, human values, and virtues as they link together in love, personal knowledge, and desire.

Edward Schillebeeckx (1914-2009) was a Belgian Roman Catholic theologian of the Dominican order who was viewed by many as a liberal Catholic. He was known for his contributions to the discourse of Catholic theology involving phenomenology and sacramental theology. Some criticized his writings concerning phenomenology as a New Theology that pronounced a subjectivism which caused deconstructed faith of believers on a large scale. For example, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist sacrament becomes contested as a phenomenological encounter where the appearance of Christ’s body and blood is what it means to its subjects (people) and not the actual objective truth of the thing. Where appearances invoke emotion and perception as a philosophical difference that helped highlight Nouelle Théologie’s influence upon him. Edward Schillebeeckx’s later historical approach to Catholic theology moved beyond phenomenology to situate itself as theologies of Christological correlation.

As with various others of the Catholic faith, those of the Thomistic tradition and beyond made continuing efforts to adapt, renew, and make itself more relevant in the face of modernity and secularized culture. Along the way, based upon history, tradition, philosophical interpretation, literary analysis, political pressures, and cultural changes, Thomists became relegated to a narrower set of theological adherents through compromise to Liberalism. A great multitude has since left the Catholic Church because of the destructive theologies that influential Liberal academics have pushed. It was concerned about what culture thinks of the Church and truth as revealed by God through Scripture and the Holy Spirit among believers in Christ.

Continue Reading ·

Barth & Bonhoeffer

By James Austin in Theology

The theologies of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer bring about an experience of wider knowledge concerning 20th-century theologians who were thought leaders in the arena of faith, freedom, and truth. The background and contribution of both Barth and Bonhoeffer are of utmost regard as their views and written work serve as points of deep and lasting value to build upon.

Barth

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was an exceptional theologian of the 20th-century, and the reach of his work extended far into various Catholic and Protestant traditions. He made a significant impact on Christianity as it pertains to biblical interpretation, Christology, and divine election. Further work around social ethics and its associated political theology were of paramount importance during the Nazi era within Europe. Particularly during the socialist lead up to World War II, including the rise and fall of the National Socialists of his day. Moreover, over time, his work influenced both Evangelical and Roman Catholic theologians as it concerned their constructive theologies that developed across decades of thought and activity. Karl Barth leaves a permanent and lasting legacy as it affects the theological development of humanity.

Over a period of decades, Barth’s views and convictions transformed as external social and political forces weighed upon him. Beginning as a younger socialist with aspirations to explore theological truth, he wrote and lectured profusely. In later years, some of his work was self-corrected, primarily due to the harmful effects of socialist pressures that weighed upon him and the Church. To include a commentary on Romans, his work would later become revised as he began to see flaws of reason about unwarranted philosophical presuppositions that he later in life repudiated. He did not renounce his work but the human-centered backdrop that served as a premise of understanding, interpretation, and regret. He updated his work and public discourse as a way to make clear his pursuit of theological truth from the divine revelation of Scripture and his disdain for human and socially centered formulations of reason. Barth relied on Anselm’s historically valid assertion that belief and theological development remain the Confessing Church’s function. Any externally grounded philosophy or anthropology that concocted a way of understanding theological truth was never a valid foundation to settle upon premise to build structures toward or around truth. Barth’s contribution to reformed epistemology was of staggering significance, especially as it concerns the authority and sole primacy of the revealed Word of God as written through Scripture. Barth was so against human inclination to originate divine truth from itself that he rejected the inference of Systematic Theology and instead entitled his most significant work as “Church Dogmatics.” He wanted to make it abundantly clear that social interest in theological matters of truth was not subject to varying depths of flawed reason, corruption, perversion, or profane thought. The Church retained its authority through apostolic witness, and the Word of God recorded in Scripture.

With the lead-up and installation of “Führer” Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany, Barth stepped up his work with a sense of urgency to form a Dialectical theology (neo-orthodoxy) with Emil Brunner (1889-1966) and Friedrich Gogarten (1887-1967). Once a Democratic Socialist that contributed to the rise of National Socialism of Nazi Germany, he eventually became opposed to its guiding principles as they claimed as orders of existence as a nation, a race, and folk. Particularly as it concerned the isolation and genocide of Jewish people throughout Europe. Barth had witnessed the formation of a grave evil throughout society, and he recognized the theological contributions were human-centered or socially adapted. He sought to do his part in reversing course. However, it was too late as idolatry of the State to support the population’s desire for socialism was too far advanced.

As Nazi Germany made efforts to harness the evangelical Church in Germany, it did so in an effort to transfer its faith and devotion to God to instead the national mission of the socialist nation. Nazi Germany claimed it was their God-given right as it was committed to them as orders of creation. The State situated itself against the Church’s freedom to hijack it toward its nationalistic aspirations. In opposition to the hostilities of Nazi Germany against the Church, German Christians began to form, and they organized a Pastor’s Emergency League. This organization became the foundation of the Confessing Church, and its first Confessing Synod in 1934 of Barmen Germany included 138 delegates. From that meeting, the famous Barmen Declaration was written by Barth as a theological statement. The Livingston text doesn’t adequately cover the material, so the articles of the Barmen Declaration for personal reference are as follows.

The Barmen Declaration

“In view of the errors of the “German Christians” of the present Reich church government which are devastating the church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:”

Article 1:

“Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in holy scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.” (John 10:1,9; Jn 14:6)

Article 2:

“As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures. We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.” (1 Cor 1:30)

Article 3:

“The Christian church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.” (Eph 4:1-16)

Article 4:

“The various offices in the church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the exercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.” (Matt 20:26-26)

Article 5:

“Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the church also exists, the state has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfils this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things. We reject the false doctrine, as though the state, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the church’s vocation as well. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the state, thus itself becoming an organ of the state.” (1 Pet 2:17)

Article 6:

“The church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church in human arrogance could place the word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.” (2 Tim 2:9)

“The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of confessional churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.”

These articles place the Church and State in subordination to the Word of God as given within Holy Scripture. These articles also served as a position of the Confessing Church. As further developments transpired beyond the Barmen Synod, the dialectical theology of Barth, Brunner and Gogarten eventually dissolved as Brunner and Gogarten theologically and indirectly aligned themselves with the National Socialists of Nazi Germany. As disputes around natural law and natural theology between Barth, the Catholic Church, and Brunner mounted, further erosion between Barth and Gogarten continued concerning “political ethics.” Gogarten had concerns about God’s intended meaning around law, orders, authority, and peace, where the State was an instrument to exact “orders of creation” within a sinful society. Gogarten viewed the sin that required justice were offenses against God. At the same time, Barth knew that the offenses were what the State would use to apply injustice and gain power to reach its murderous and blasphemous goals as millions were killed by socialism and Nazi Germany.

Barth’s commitment to social ethics did not begin with his opposition to socialism and Nazi Germany. As he further thought through disputes with his colleagues, the issues around natural theology convinced him that it contributed to the National Socialist attitudes and behaviors that produced a pervading worldview outside the Church. Barth was insistent, by theological development, “God is known only by God” and that civil law is an outworking product of the Gospel. God’s gift of freedom is a product of grace through the Gospel of Christ as people were to become obedient to God by explicit imperatives as revealed by His Word. Barth’s further attention to social ethics was demonstrated by his opposition to nuclear warfare. The threat of weapons of mass destruction was of deep concern to Barth while he served in the Swiss militia for a short while. He was a peace activist for a short time, but he accepted the necessity of warfare. His social ethics activism in the form of synodal involvement and theological development essentially took shape during the growth of National Socialism.

Barth was aggressively opposed to Liberal theology because of its inherently corruptive disposition and inclination toward eventual chaos and misery. While he undertook the initiative to write “Church Dogmatics,” he sought to make “dialectical shifts” of emphasis along with corrections of errors in earlier work. Without yet a way to validate Livingston’s coverage of Barth’s theologies, they are outlined as three major themes of his work: the doctrine of the Word of God and its Interpretation, Christology, and the doctrine of Election.

To Barth, the Word of God comes by no other means outside these three areas. Outside human expression, reason, or insistence that self-declares special revelation as the Word of God rejected by Barthian theology, and more specifically concerning the doctrine of Scripture. Barth held that the reality of the Word of God is given in three forms to narrow how anyone can recognize the doctrine coherently and authoritatively. The Word of God is exclusively characterized and given in the following three forms listed here.

As revealed in Jesus Christ
As written in Holy Scripture
As proclaimed by the Church

In defense of his position elaborated upon within his “Church Dogmatics,” he wrote guidelines and stipulations concerning interpretation through exegesis and proper hermeneutical application. Where human reason, concepts, and ideas were in subordination to the apostles, prophets, and patriarchs written text under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. By the Word, Barth wrote that people were obligated to place themselves under the authority of Scripture in obedience as it produced freedom through grace as given by God. The individuals‘ presuppositions brought to Scripture included grace, prayer, and faith for wisdom, godly living, and obedience to imperatives explicitly and implicitly interpreted. The Livingston text points out that cultural and philosophical presuppositions controlled by the text of Scripture have validity without an affirmation from Barth. It appears that the Livingston texts want the philosophical forms of thinking to serve as a meaningful way of interpretation and application when Barth elsewhere warns about schemes of understanding that are human originated.

The Christology of Barth involves Jesus’s preeminence in all of creation to include humanity. He clarifies that Christ is the God of and for humanity as His Word is inseparable from revelation through His incarnation. Barth also clarified that the doctrines of creation, election, anthropology, and reconciliation are Christological. Moreover, Barth’s entire theological focus was Christological. To understand God and humanity, it was and is necessary to recognize and understand Christ. According to Barth, it wasn’t required to undergo anthropological research to understand the origins of humanity, nor was it essential to look toward the fallen Adam. To Barth’s theology, Christ is the prototype of humanity. He elaborates about the functional work of Christ as messiah and savior in a context of sin and evil by comparison as “nothing” and an “impossibility” to withstand God’s intended plan and purpose of redemption.

Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a theologian of the 20th-century who authored numerous books, lectured among academic institutions, collaborated at seminaries, and participated in social work to include covert activism against National Socialist Nazi’s that ended in his capture, imprisonment, and death. At age 39, he was hanged in a Nazi concentration camp at Flossenbürg just days before liberation from American forces. Bonhoeffer’s interpersonal footprint was in numerous geographical locations within Europe and America. His occupation as a teacher, speaker, and author, gained him notoriety as he developed his theological work around systematic theology, sociology, and ethics. He had ecumenical interests he pursued with the Catholic church while doing civil charity work involving poverty and unemployment relief. He became engaged in American “Social Gospel” work through Liberal professors at Union Theological Seminary.

Like Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer was opposed to Liberal theology, and he wasn’t impressed with the theology that originated from the American institutions he visited. As his theology developed during his life, his early writings and relationship with Karl Barth were of significant influence on his contemporaries and those of later generations. The influence upon Bonhoeffer was widespread and fragmented in areas of philosophy, epistemology, revelation, and existentialism. His work as “Sanctorum Communio” (communion of the saints) drew upon his background in both disciplines of sociology and theology as he wrote to elaborate upon the relationships between the individual and the Church. He went on to describe what the Church’s relationship is with God and the world as it consists of social beings. The idea Bonhoeffer wrote about concerning “Christ existing as community” drew much attention. It appeared that statement contradicted the biblical account of God’s incarnation as Jesus in the flesh of an individual. Bonhoeffer rejected transcendentalism or the “wholly other” perspective about God’s existence. His view about “Christ existing in community” was an attempted answer to the Catholic Thomists and Heidegger to describe God’s continuous presence in this world. Barth merely agreed with Bonhoeffer to the extent that Christ’s revelation exists within community. And to understand that God’s freedom involved is co-presence in the world, not that He is fully incarnate within the spiritual community of believers.

Another one of Bonhoeffer’s main theological themes pertains to Christology. His view of Jesus concentrates upon his humanity, his fleshly condition (humiliation), what He does for His people, and His role and presence within the Church throughout history. Bonhoeffer placed significant weight upon the historicity of Jesus to validate the faith of the community. He didn’t outright reject the assertion that theological dogma about Jesus required historical confirmation. Bonhoeffer was sympathetic to a Social Gospel, which is what makes his theology attractive to liberals today.

Bonhoeffer’s written work was shaped by his circumstances as a believer, the Church, and academia. His convictions further developed around ethics and discipleship. His love of Christ was made evident through this life and publications such as The Cost of Discipleship and Prisoner of God. In The Cost of Discipleship, he wrote of exclusive devotion to Christ and how the Church was together in its fellowship and activity. Through a love ethic, he inspired people to live authentic Christian lives in freedom and charity. He believed that Christology was bound up in discipleship, and he saw the enduring value of unity in the Church before God reconciled to serve Him and the world in a more meaningful way. He understood and made clear to his readers and listeners that the penultimate in the world exists for the ultimate. Even if the penultimate exists independently for self-development apart from God as a natural course of existence, it was his view, contrary to Protestant theology, that the natural life had its place as it is common to the entire human race. He understood that people embrace the freedom and joy of the natural life, and it was the unnatural as the enemy of Christ. He made clear by his theology that the natural life wasn’t a means or a right but a gift of Jesus Christ.

Toward the end of Bonhoeffer’s life, while in prison, he went into deeper reflection about his thinking on modernity. As the modern world was coming of age at the time, he came to believe that Jesus wouldn’t regret or prevent that from occurring. Bonhoeffer felt that secularization was pervasive and growing, and he wanted to find a way of interpreting Christianity without religiosity or religion itself per se. His non-religious inclinations of the Christian life were about the individual who would live Christianity out loud but do so in a way that would connect with people. Conversely, if individuals in the Church were unable to connect authentically, they should live their faith in private while vulnerable, and inner reflection and belief. To communicate with unbelievers, it was in a person’s life and goodness that expressions of non-religious faith would be recognized as strength. The world coming of age meant a reduction in the practice of religion and religiosity toward the world and growth in the meaning of personal faith in Christ and care and service toward others. As a secret discipline, the life of a non-religious Christian in a modern world meant living a life of humility, reserve, prayer, unheralded person action, or of silence if a person is to be kept from the profane of the world.

Bonhoeffer looked back on his life and expressed doubt about what he learned, wrote, and spoke about. Yet, he developed relationships among socialists, both liberal and conservative theologians, including philosophers of his day. Bonhoeffer continues to stimulate a lot of thought as a product of his search for truth. He was well-studied and a model of an intelligent believer who lived his life of faith with conviction and purpose. Dietrich Bonhoeffer still carries a meaningful voice for many who seek to grow closer in their relationship with God and others.

Continue Reading ·

The Burden of Epistemic Reason

By James Austin in Theology

African American Christians who hold to any form of Liberation theology must come to understand and accept the biblical gospel that explicitly informs us of the redemptive work of Christ. While there is tremendous motivation to support and contribute to African Americans’ theological work and interest, this entire effort must be made in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24, 8:31-32). Systemically denying the apostolic witness by not listening to it from Scripture is to dwell in a spirit of error (1 Jn 3:24). There is no question that America’s past was steeped in racism as it has caused neglect, exclusion, abuse, and trauma across the entire spectrum of black society. Yet, as with everyone, the pressing necessity is the right relationship with God for redemption and salvation while attaining social equality by biblical justice.

Within the 20h-century various influential figures made a lasting and ongoing impression about the development of Black Theology in America today. To say that “black theology” is a single monolithic study and practice of understanding and living sapiential truth would be a mistake. Aside from black theology, there is a range of traditions that span from historically erroneous exegetical and hermeneutical methodologies to many black Americans who today are entirely orthodox and abiding by meaningful Protestant and Catholic theologies that demonstrates a correct and productive path of discipleship and Godly living. By comparison, to understand the unique nature of black theology, with its current and ongoing challenges, it is essential to comprehend and accept the conditions by which it formed.

The historical enslavement and oppression of African Americans are deeply offensive. It was egregiously sinful, and a betrayal of the freedom given by our Creator for all people to live well, love God, love people, and function as productive individuals in search of meaning and truth. Enslavement and unjust predatory oppression in any form toward anyone is an attack on the Imago Dei. On the other hand, Western norms of constitutional society with Judeo-Christian formation, traditions, and heritage require a peaceful and law-abiding society commensurate with biblical principles in support of justice. Lawlessness and self-destructive behaviors shall never be tolerated either by civil society or the population at large. Efforts by segments of America (including African Americans) to subvert biblically founded constitutional principles to obtain a form of socialistic order (i.e., pockets of socialism or balkanization within a free capitalistic society) must be dismissed or destroyed if it should ever arise. Implementing Marxist ideology to correct for America’s historical or present evils is not acceptable as remedial action would become far worse than the condition. Reparations in the form of Marxism shall never succeed. Striving toward a cause that imposes historically defunct State ideologies would only bring about a far greater range of death, misery, and suffering.

From the Livingston text, the African American response to injustices of the 20th-century involved activists involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Various African American individuals arose to become thought leaders and advocates of equal rights and rightfully used Christian doctrines and traditions. Black Americans sought to exercise Christianity’s principles to obtain equal treatment and access toward economic well-being, education, public privilege, employment, justice under the law, and other social, civil, and religious functions. The freedom to associate and contribute to society on an equal footing as everyone was the pressing motivation of black Americans within the Church and society.

Three key influences had a bearing on Martin Luther King, Jr. Together they helped form an ideology rooted in liberalism, nonviolent resistance, and civil disobedience (Livingston, 444-445). Consequently, King placed his attention on Liberal Theology which had a significant bearing upon this worldview of humanity. He believed that people, or the world, are basically good. His rationale was that if people could overcome ignorance and become informed or educated about the injustices that were antithetical to what God intended, his cause would yield the right kind of social justice fruit. Coupled with his views about God’s love for humanity, Mahatma Gandhi (not Christ) stood out as a model toward the dignities and self-respect of people who would practice nonviolent resistance in the face of structural racism. Finally, Henry David Thoreau’s influence on King brought insights into what disobedience of unjust laws would look like. As King’s political views changed, his fundamental convictions in these areas remained consistent. To such an extent that he endured periods of incarceration as he acted upon what liberalism (and its commensurate liberal theology), nonviolent resistance, and civil disobedience shaped within his thinking.

To those within the civil rights movement, the period of overt enslavement of Africans was over, but they were captive to injustices that remained for decades to follow. The continued drive for liberation became ingrained among many African Americans, where much of its culture influenced its theology. Their rejection of theologies centered upon the protestant reformation from European-originated nationalities was primarily evident as African American Christians sought to attain liberty through means supporting their cause. Liberation in the natural sense to improve the conditions of African Americans was of utmost necessity in addition to absolute freedom that Jesus informs us about (Jn 8:31-59).

Further development of Black Theology made its way into American society as cultural influences of black Christians grew toward greater prominence in the 1960s. Black clergy and laymen organized and produced black liberation doctrines that some would mix into a “Black Theology.” Namely, “The Black Manifesto” and “The Statement on Black Theology” contained principles of “Black Power” (July 31st, 1966) as the term was assigned to evoke theological meaning. “Black Power” was to set in place a way to install unique theological and social meaning and describe its efforts to produce potential and kinetic forces for outcomes concerning Black liberation. It calls out the white men and the white church as corrupted and unable to correct structural injustices. The Black Manifesto itself articulates that Black Theology is a theology of black liberation. It was declared that Black Theology was a theology of “blackness” and an affirmation that emancipates black people from white people and white oppression. More specifically, freedom is the gospel, and liberation from white people is the imperative (“The Statement on Black Theology,” in Black Theology: A Documented History, I, p. 38).

To build Black Theology as an ideology of liberation coupled with Christian values, liberal institutions, such as Union Theological Seminary (New York), supported the voices of African American academics who sought to further the cause of its liberation initiatives. Coupled with selected areas of relevant and helpful theology, Black Liberation Theology was formed to serve many African Americans’ spiritual and social interests who sought justice and freedom from oppression by exclusion, abuse, and historical trauma. The Black Theology of James Cone of Union Theological Seminary was a significant influence with his written work from 1969 to 1991. He authored several books concerning Black Theology.

Further distinctive reasoning arose out of Black Theology centered around black feminism in support of black liberation efforts. Namely, Black Womanist Theology arrived as a response to sexism that was evident within Black Theology churches. While Womanist theology was a spiritual endeavor, it was also a black feminist rejection of patriarchy—just the same as the rejection that exists with white feminists. Womanist theology, and Feminist Theology, operate from a liberal worldview with its opposition to oppression with grievances against racism, sexism, and class injustices. Womanist and Feminist theologies do not adhere to conventional exegetical methods with proper hermeneutical practices to interpret and apply scripture as intended. Instead, experiences involving the Spirit are relied upon for theological utility for more favorable social outcomes.

Black Theology is a cumulative response from among many African American Christians. From deep oppression arising out of present-day injustices and the enslavement of indigenous African people from centuries ago, African American Christians are reaching for spiritual and physical remediation for unacceptable hardships that they have endured.

Continue Reading ·

The Fruits of Disorder

By James Austin in Theology

For decades, since the 1960s, there has been a pressing desire for females to assert their status for equality, differences, or preeminence, depending upon what liberal philosopher, liberal theologian, or historical figure was most outspoken about oppression. The consistent theme among all feminists thought and theology variances beginning in the 1960s was opposition to Western male dominance and patriarchy throughout history, including modern and postmodern societies. After World War II, independent-minded women within liberal ideologies were outspoken about their stature in society as held down, isolated, excluded, or marginalized by men.

With longstanding scriptural definitions about gender distinctions between male and female, Christian tradition, doctrines, and institutional norms, God’s created order was set toward biological, physiological, and social structures of humanity. Functionally ordered to fulfill a purpose defined by the Creator of people within the human race, there are specific roles necessary to satisfy in an effort to fill the Earth, build societies, love, honor each other, and glorify God. Fulfilling God’s design for humanity and its unique cultures must be accomplished through a framework of order, justice, morality, and truth.

The four female persons of interest within Livingston’s coverage of Feminist Theology were of significant and growing interest as their notoriety became more widely known. Their perspectives concerning the feminist cause were especially diverse about realizing or attaining desired objectives while within social conditions that were assailed as oppressive from a range of self-ascribed causes and viewpoints. Mary Daly, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Sallie McFague, and Luce Irigaray were all intellectually, emotionally, and socially persuaded by Liberalism. They did not place any weight upon the whole meaning of Scripture. Elizabeth Fiorenza sought to reinterpret Scripture to cast a different perspective on the anthropomorphic identity of God (i.e., as female, or something other than male). Moreover, between Daly and Fiorenza, they applied significant thought about the nature of the holy trinity to shape speculation about gender identity and the form of relationship within the perichoresis.

A common thread between all four liberal feminists appears to be about grievance, equal rights, and privilege to compensate for male-dominant conditions placed upon them. By feminists, the female, or women as a whole, were thought of as a class of inferiority, where great and irreversible changes were necessary. Feminist theology as a form of liberal opposition to conventional and proper hermeneutical interpretation of divine revelation through scripture abandons male authority and socially interrelated constructs such as language, identity, premise, functions, and traditions. With sympathy and support from other structurally oppressed or marginalized classes, the feminism of Daly, Fiorenza, McFague, and Irigaray aligns unorthodox, perverse, and evil perspectives against the male patriarchal figure.

Feminism, or feminist theology, doesn’t merely take the form of these four individuals who pioneered their personal campaigns within academia and society in general to their discovery and sufferings. There are numerous iterations of feminist ideals as a social justice endeavor without a common cause other than just opposition to patriarchy. More specifically, while educated in a prestigious Dominican seminary in Switzerland (Fribourg), Mary Daly experienced male traditions and assumptions that set her on a path of feminist separatism in the abandonment of Christian orthodoxy and Scripturally originated theology. She was a post-Christian feminist. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza sought to re-interpret Scripture by using hermeneutical methods favorable to reframing the meaning of relationships. More generally, superior and subordinate references to males within familial obligations (i.e., father, mother). Fiorenza objected to “kyriarchal” oppression and even formal organizations that involve lordship, mastery, or male figures who have authority to apply power.

There are numerous ways to compare the four feminists in Livingston’s coverage of Feminist Theology. The historical background, philosophical differences, education, and life experiences of women who approach female liberation generally do so from a desire to correct injustices that arise from the male-dominated world that has existed for thousands of years. A modernist and postmodernist approach to theology as distinctly aimed toward disparate female interest represents a limited peace about created male and female order. Not from just oppression of sinful and unacceptable male behaviors, expectations, or attitudes, but simply by outright unwanted differences that bring distress or a need for feminism to assert its place. Numerous continuing manifestations of opposition or counter-perspectives appear to a person who has objections to male authority, power, and its prevailing mandate to “subdue the earth” (Gen 1:28) together with the female.

From the examples seen in the text and examples in society today, females who advocate feminist theology generally originate various formed alternatives to patriarchy or male leadership in the absence of insistent egalitarianism. For example, Sallie McFague advocates for changes in metaphorical language to account for sexist terminology (e.g., refer to YHWH as having female gender) or Luce Irigaray’s call for a feminine deity to center women around to gain power and access to status, resources, and self-realized sexuality as a form of divinity to project maternal, or matriarchal, recognition, and power. As there are intended differences between the female and male genders, there is a uniquely observable “hardwired” physiological separation characterized and made evident by masculinity and femininity norms.

There were and are many iterations and types of feminist objections to patriarchy and male dominance. Analyzing the theories, speculations, and interpretations of influential feminists who had grievances about the structured reality of gender is an often personal and exploratory exercise to determine what sources of systemic social injustices there were toward women. To craft a theology unique and exclusive to women as a feminist or separatist endeavor to achieve a favorable liberal outcome is to dilute and become amiss about the purpose of the gospel and work of Christ. It was Jesus Himself who prayed on behalf of His followers, “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me (Jn 17:20-21).”

NOTE: This chapter of the Livingston text makes reference to an article by Valerie Saiving Goldstein entitled, “The Human Situation: A Feminist View” (reference The Journal of Religion 40.2 (April 1960), pp. 100-112). Observations and impressions about the article are as written here:

I must confess that after reading through about 1/3rd of Goldstein’s paper, I stopped listening and put on my boots so to speak. I read it to acknowledge the points made, and the author’s views are very well thought out, but there are subtext inferences between the lines that are meant to cast a contentious “(human) situation” about men. Goldstein calls attention to the use of “man” in the generic sense to highlight the use of language under dubious pretenses about being “on guard” concerning sources of theological work. When, really, the point was to mark the use of the term “man” in the article to diminish the value of masculinity and the unique role of the male gender in the remainder of the paper. She doesn’t refer to “man” in a generic sense when she turns her attention to females (women) later toward the end.

Sin is spoken of as a condition that all men can’t help themselves about, but only seek to overcome it by a pursuit of power, righteousness, or knowledge.

Goldstein goes on to catalog the sins by the male gender. She doesn’t state as much, but the article reads as offenses against the female and not as heavily weighted sins against God and humanity. She doesn’t list the same detail for the female, other than the planned mention of “will-to-power” and “pride.” The author, a student of theology, doesn’t make use of scripture, early church authorities, or tradition to reinforce her views or support her convictions. I understand this is a pioneering work from 1960 just before the sexual revolution, and it might be a misread from me, but the paper reads like a work of analytical resentment couched as a “situation.” I have more to learn about feminist theology, but the feel of the paper is confrontational and just isn’t productive.

The catalog of the sins of the male gender:

a. The article assumes the arrogance of all men
b. Men are generally driven to objectify
c. Men are manipulative by nature
d. Sin pervades everything man does

True, or not, the rationale appears that this catalog of sins gives cause to further explore the need for scrutiny of the human condition (i.e., male oppression).

The author also speaks from an assumed premise that women come from a position of inferiority. While equating sexuality with a person’s identity, Goldstein doesn’t write about gender. So this confuses me since she was a theologian and would know that the identity of female believers rests within Christ.

Positive and favorable perspectives of Goldstein appear within the paper as well. She highly values motherhood and childbearing, the God-given inclination to find joy and peace in her work, and a prevailing quality of empathy as a trait of femininity.

Continue Reading ·

The Kerygma of Desideratum

By James Austin in Theology

The legacy of modernity and its challenges toward historical theology has brought a sense of relief and clarity as to the developments that have come about as a result. The pernicious and corrosive effect of subjective liberal thought that developed into a flawed intellectual ethos proved chaotic. It yielded no meaningful substance as it concerned significant themes about the essence of Christianity in the 19th-century.

Increasingly, by the impetus of Kant’s call for “autonomy,” individual reason and conscience became the arbiters of religious truth. Romans rejected but shifted to religious experience (pg. 2). Tradition emerged from the working of the “Divine Spirit” or religious experience of the Christian community. Others relied upon authority from antiquity (i.e., the early Church fathers) as they regarded the doctrine of apostolic succession as the guarantor of tradition of the ancient and undivided Church. Roman Catholicism fell back to Papal infallibility (1870) to secure the Church against modern rationalism, subjectivism, ecclesial chaos, and schism (as supported by John Henry Newman).

Albert Ritschl (Protestant scholar) rejected Schleiermacher’s appeal to the authority of religious feeling and experience and the orthodox rationalists’ appeal to reason and rational “proofs” as mediated through the Christian community (i.e., “consensus fidelium” or the collective mind of the people of God). Where authority is concentrated correlates to power and the source of it. Therefore, it is of interest to people and spiritual principalities who do not want the authority of the biblical authors (i.e., revelation by Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit) over their preferences around tradition or social feelings and imaginations.

Church Doctrine was a point of unification for the Church and, more broadly, Christianity. Eventually, the spectacle of doctrinal pluralism became an issue due to differences or disagreements about interpreting, understanding, and applying Scripture. As immutable truths were sought that theists could agree upon, a search for commonality was diluted to such an extent that orthodox unity around doctrine could be achieved. As matters grew worse, particularly during the unstable time of Zeitgeist, some began to insist that there were no immutable, unchanging, or normative doctrines. An inability to arrive at a consensus about the authority of doctrinal beliefs was a source of significant attention in the Church during the 19th-century.

Over the span of decades, Friedrich Schleiermacher (Protestant) and John Henry Newman (Catholic), among other Catholics, separately sought to find common ground about doctrinal belief in the face of significant differentiation and a plurality of traditions or faith practices. Schleiermacher drew his attention toward the affections and doctrines of expression to support a common interest as illuminated in the life of the Church. Livingston points out that the same “illumination” was present upon the early Church as given by the exegetical analysis of the New Testament. However, Livingston does not refer to the social or communal leanings of Schleiermacher concerning authority that rests upon the subjective nature of people and their interests (i.e., rather than Scripture). Conversely, with Newman, the Catholic Church places significant attention on the historical development of dogma in an effort to understand and define the essence of the Church. The rationale between both the Protestants and Catholics was that God’s truth could not be divided against itself (Livingston, 4) even when Protestants and Catholics remain separate within the body of Christendom (notwithstanding Eastern Orthodoxy).

Both Liberal Protestants and Catholics refused to return to the Bible as the source of authority to understand Christian essence. It was Newman’s view that “the essential Christian idea” was formative over the centuries and Scripture was a corruption of the apostolic witness from the first century Church. The opposition of immutable dogma from Liberal Protestants and Catholics focused on the rejection of Scripture. In contrast, Scripture held primacy, but not sole authority, to define the essence of Christianity and its expression within the Church. As propagated through centuries, preeminent tradition itself came in the form of Scripture testimony, Church doctrines, liturgy, worship, and the priestly organization. To John Henry Newman and Johann Adam Mohler, Christianity tradition carried equal distributed weight to define Christian essence.

Later in the 19th-century, further efforts were made to consolidate human reason and philosophical rationale around Christianity’s historical development. From pervasively errant understanding about the corruption of early canonical writings, it was of the utmost interest to spread the notion that authority was in revelation of Scripture, historical traditions, and Christian philosophy attending to human feeling and action. It was the role of the will and conscience to cultivate a knowledge of God.

Human intuition, experience, and feeling were prominent features of Liberal theology. These were the primary route to God as recorded by Schleiermacher and poets of the time. Natural expression through people and creation were in witness to God, and human understanding about Him was revealed primarily through those means. Kant and Albrecht Ritschl highlighted another route to belief in God to involve the demands of moral obligation, reason human freedom, and the world of Spirit. From “the will to power” (Nietzsche) to “will to believe” (William James), the philosophical views of Kant, Bergson (vitalism), and Blondel’s (L’Action), there was inevitable push-back against idealism and subjectivism. Princeton Theology (Protestant) and Neo-Thomism (Catholic) directed their counterarguments against agnostic, fideistic, and pragmatic thought as they both traced the chaotic intellectual ethos to Immanuel Kant and his influence. Both Protestants and Catholics drew much attention to both faith and reason, where each was complimentary and not in contradiction. Both schools of theology made substantial inroads with the support of Aristotle’s inductive and scientific realism and Scottish empiricist philosophy. Today, debates concerning faith and reason about the existence and authority of God and His revelatory work continues.

As the search for historical Christianity developed over the last two centuries, numerous challenges and competing interests were at the forefront of theological debate within the modern context of scientific and historical disciplines. From first-century A.D. Christianity, there was substantial and eternal value among the claims of testimony, early witness, tradition, and Scripture. Those claims were contested because of the anthropomorphic language of Scripture and the miracles espoused by historical accounts among theologians and philosophical leaders. Even simply, the historicity of the life of Christ and the Christian life were countered as probative questions were posed about modern Christianity while adapted to the Enlightenment period. It was questioned, as it is now, whether Christianity today is the same as the religion founded by Jesus and the apostles.

D.F. Strauss’s book, Life of Jesus in 1835, explored the historicity of Jesus against the theological presuppositions of early Jewish messianic traditions and preconceptions of the later and more modern interest in His life. The historical Jesus of the New Testament is distinguished from records of the antiquity of Him as early Jews looked back upon his identity as a legendary figure within Hebrew literature. Krauss also demonstrated that our view of Jesus is from a modern consciousness that the earliest Christians did not have. Their recognition and interest in Jesus were from a pre-scientific point of view as they interpreted Jesus from a mythopoetic standpoint. As a further interest to validate the historicity of Christianity developed, a new standard pursuit emerged where The historical Jesus must withstand the theological Jesus who produced signs and miracles. The same was true, vice versa. Strauss found that the historical Jesus was left untouched by harsh criticism and inquiry, especially concerning the supernatural Christ of Scripture.

In a further effort to find authority and validate New Testament claims about Jesus, later advancements were made by research through Form criticism. As this led to new doubts about the use of the Gospel records and getting a historical understanding of Jesus’s inner life, there remained a highly desirable understanding of Jesus’s personality and inner psychological life. This was the desideratum of the Life of Christ at about the turn of the 19th century. The life of Jesus from a historical context to recover details about His character, personality, and life from outside the New Testament was the desideratum for theologians of later years of the 19th-century and well into the 20th.

There were four pronounced efforts to pursue the historical Jesus and challenge theological and religious claims. Each effort was distinct in its way as they all had different objectives.

Comparative Religions (Religionswissenschaft)

“History of Religions” is a science to explore religion’s origin, growth, and commonalities to include Christianity. Exhaustive development of methods and materials to understand what themes or similarities existed to explain the historical value and merit of faith and follower claims of any given religion.

Eschatological Interpretation

The notion that Jesus could be properly understood within the apocalyptic framework of ancient Jewish traditions and expectations. As Jesus recognized an imminent catastrophic end to the present age, He gave Himself up to death in desperation to usher in the new supernatural Kingdom of God to which He would more immediately return.

History of Religions School (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule)

As a new generation of Jesus critics arose to explore the historicity of Christianity, a new crop of historians sought to interpret Jesus through its beliefs, Judaism, and Hellenism. As new scientific tools (e.g., textual criticism) were applied to historical research of Jesus, derived observations and comparisons were made to the social and cultural conditions of His time. Namely, a complex mixture of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, Hellenistic Judaism, Greek and Eastern Mysticism, Stoicism, Gnosticism was formulated to arrive at a Jesus beyond the reach of meaningful historical analysis about His inner person. Instead, He was viewed as Jesus the Kyrios, or Christ the divine Lord and Savior.

Form Criticism (Formgeschichtliche Schule)

While prior pursuits of organized research came up empty to understand and recognize the historical Jesus, further work was undertaken to develop a critical method around a Framework of the Story of Jesus (K.L. Schmidt (1891-1956), Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu). Schmidt concluded that the traditions of Christianity were arbitrary and artificial while there was considerable geographical detail within the gospel of Mark. Time and place weren’t so much of a synchronized historical account of the life of Jesus but more of a story to support tradition.

Another approach to Form criticism involved the work of Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) entitled From Tradition to Gospel (Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 1934). Here Dibelius traced the different forms of oral traditions to include paradigm, novelle (tales), legend, parenthesis, and myth. From among the five forms, Dibelius found that paradigms to illuminate the sayings of Jesus were the clearest way to understand the historical Jesus.

Form criticism further advanced through the efforts of Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1966), who wrote History of the Synoptic Tradition (Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition, 1921). This was a radical approach to Form criticism. Bultmann observed that there were traditions in the Gospels written to meet the needs of the early Church. This meant that the written synoptic text wasn’t a collection of historical documents as such, but a compilation of writings to satisfy a spiritual need as confessions and instructions for life and worship. It was clear that Jesus to know was through the apostolic witness, proclamations, and traditions given in the Gospels of the New Testament. This was the kerygmatic theology that neutralized pursuits of the historical Jesus that was out of reach. The kerygma was unquestionable, and it served as the bedrock for Dialectical theology in the years to follow.

When it comes to Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), during this era of historicism, and research, about historical Jesus, the essence of Christianity, the absoluteness of Christianity (among other religions), Christology, and theological rationale, his pursuits and ideas appeared detached from Scripture. As he relentlessly pursued the historical Jesus, it doesn’t appear that he placed authoritative weight on Scripture. He did not concern himself with the historicity of Jesus much farther than comparisons among other religions, sociopsychological influences, traditions, and other means outside of the revelatory discourse of Scripture. Karl Barth was right; Troeltsch’s efforts were a “dead-end street” in the absence of what facts were revealed in Scripture to attain clarity about the identity of Jesus. Through various methods of Christological understanding from Scripture, there is much to explore as it concerns Jewish ideas of messianic rule, kingly accession, ceremonial customs, familial relationships, economic status, refugee trials, and other hardships in Scripture to develop a portrait of Jesus. History is simply the backdrop or canvas by which events occurred across time. In contrast, the social, geographical, and historical conditions were subordinate and in service of the theological intent and meaning of Christ’s work. Christ’s identity and historical significance are best placed upon the kerygmatic interpretation of divine revelation.

Continue Reading ·

The Locus of Triangulation

By James Austin in Theology

This post attempts to collect in one place various belief systems, traditions, and theologies by name and description. As an open-ended post, it will be edited over time to add, delete, change, and format changes as they come about. The purpose is to set in place a personal record of who’s who of given theological and eschatological protestant beliefs. Individuals listed appear among the various systems are notable and historically of some significant contribution or influence to the widely distributed perspectives that are less than obvious.

This post is simply a component among others to map how individuals, churches, agencies, and institutions organize around historical interpretations of faith and a more coherent understanding of humanity’s existence and relationship with God and His creation. The numerous individuals listed as having a personal alignment are a matter of historical record. Within context to understand what systems and theologies fit together among persons with other adjacent beliefs and commitments that have a bearing on worldview, credibility, and truth or error.

Belief Systems

Title	Description	Personal Alignment
Arminianism [4]	A theological system based on the teachings of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius and his early followers, the Remonstrants. After Arminius’s death, the Remonstrants issued five articles summarizing their beliefs in opposition to Calvinists, who countered with the Canons of Dort, much later summarized by TULIP. While originally condemned as heretics by the Synod of Dort, the Remonstrants later obtained legal toleration in Holland, and many Protestants still adhere to Arminianism today. While it has many doctrines in common with Reformed theology, it differs significantly in its teaching on predestination, free will and atonement. The system follows Arminius’s original teachings that God’s election is conditional on his foreknowledge of human free choice, that God provides prevenient grace to everyone in order to enable people to choose faith in Jesus, and that believers are able to lose their salvation since they always have the free will to accept or reject Christ. Contemporary Arminianism includes a wide variety of viewpoints on key issues, like whether the governmental or penal-substitutionary atonement is more accurate. Arminians today also differ at times with Arminius’s own views, such as his support of infant baptism, which is now opposed by most Arminians.	Abraham, William J. Andrews, Herbert T. Basinger, David Basinger, Randall G. Carter, Charles W. Cottrell, Jack W. Craig, William L. Earle, Ralph Evans, C. Stephen Findlay, George G. Finney, Charles Forester, Roger T. Fritz, Guy Graham, Billy Headlan, Arthur Lewis, C. S. MacDonald, William G. Mantey, Julius R. Marshall, I. Howard Marston, V. Paul Melanchthan, Philip Miethe, Terry L. Miley, John Montgomery, John Warwick Osborne, Grant R. Pinnock, Clark Reichenbach, Bruce R. Rice, Richard Sanday, William Sanders, John E. Shank, Robert L. Simpson, Albert B. Taylor, Vincent Turner, George Allen Walls, Jerry L. Wesley, John Wiley, H. Orton
Calvinism [4]	As a synonym for the Reformed tradition, this term highlights the influence of John Calvin and his work in Geneva in shaping the movement. While Calvin did wield considerable influence, Calvinism is a complex tradition shaped in its early stages by many leaders, including Ulrich Zwingli, William Farel, Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, and John Knox. Calvin himself was interested in reconciling with Lutheranism, which shared similar concerns for sola scriptura, justification by faith, rejection of a corrupt and theologically errant papacy, and the marks of the true church. By the mid-sixteenth century, however, differences had solidified, and the Reformed or Calvinist perspective was demarcated by a commitment to the comprehensive sovereignty of God, a view of the Lord’s Supper distinct from Lutheranism, an emphasis on the positive third use of the law and a distinct practice of church polity. It is difficult to generalize, however, because as the theology and cultural system of Calvinism spread from Switzerland to France, the Netherlands, Scotland, Ireland, England, Hungary, and eventually North America, it continued to develop and adapt to particular localities, controversies, and personalities. The Canons of Dort were a benchmark for distinguishing the movement from Arminianism, although numerous confessions of faith had previously outlined Calvinist belief and practice. Consequently, while some identify TULIP as an accurate summary of the five points of Calvinism, these doctrines alone actually limit, and in some cases even caricature and misrepresent, the complexity and breadth of the tradition.	Adams, Jay Edward Alexander, J. A. St. Augustine Bavinck, Herman Beeke, Joel Berkhof, Hendrikus Bloesch, Donald Boetner, Loraine Boice, James Bridges, Jerry Buswell, J. O. Calvin, John Carson, Donald A. Dabney, Robert L. Dever, Mark Duncan, J. Ligon Edwards, Jonathan Ferguson, Sinclair Filson, Floyd Vivian Frame, John Hacket, Horacia Haldane, Robert Haykin, Michel Hendricksen, William Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Charles Horton, Michael Hughes, Philip Johnson, Phil Keller, Timothy Kik, Jaboc Marcellus Lawson, Steve Lecerf, Auguste Luther, Martin MacArthur, John Malone, Fred Marcel, Pierre Martin, Albert Mohler, Albert Moore, Thomas V. Moule, H.C.G. Murray, Andrew Murray, John Nicole, Roger Orr, James Packer, J. I. Pieters, Albertus Pipa, Joseph A. Piper, John Robertson, O. Palmer Rushdooney, R. J. Ryken, Philip Graham Ryle, J. C. Schaeffer, Francis Sproul, R. C. Steele, David N. Storms, C. Samuel Strombeck, J. F Strong, A. H. Thiessen, Henry Clarence Thomas, Curtis C. Van Til, Cornelius Ware, Bruce Warfield, B. B. Watson, Thomas Well, David White, James Whitney, Donald Wilson, Jeffrey B.
Molinism [5]	Molinism is a view of the relation between God’s grace and human free will, emanating from the Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (1535–1600). Molina asserted that God has a special kind of foreknowledge of human free acts, which are the basis of God’s gracious gift of salvation. Molinism was widely adopted by Jesuits and opposed by Dominicans. After examination by a special congregation in Rome (1598–1607), both views were allowed in Catholic schools. According to Molinism, God has three kinds of knowledge: natural, middle, and free. 1.) Natural knowledge is God’s knowledge of all possible worlds. This knowledge is essential to God. It is concerned with the necessary and the possible. 2.) Free knowledge is God’s knowledge of this actual world. After a free act of his will, God knows these things absolutely, but such knowledge is not essential to God. 3.) Middle knowledge or scientia media is distinctive of Molinism. God cannot know future free acts in the way he knows other things. God knows some things absolutely, but future free acts are known only contingently. “God, from a most profound and inscrutable comprehension of every free will in His essence, has intuited what each, according to its innate liberty, would do if placed in this or that condition” (Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, 460; see FREE WILL). Unlike natural knowledge, this middle or intermediate knowledge is in some sense dependent on what free creatures choose to do. God’s omniscience “waits” to see what a free creature does “before” he selects those who will be saved. Since God is eternal, the sequence is only logical, not chronological.	Craig, W.L. Molina, Luis de

Primary Theologies

Title	Description	Personal Alignment
Covenant Theology [6]	Also known as federal theology, this form of biblical theology focuses on the way God relates to his creatures through covenants—binding relationships between God and humanity involving mutual promises and responsibilities. In Reformed theology, this perspective traces back to Zwingli’s emphasis on God’s covenant with Abraham, which he used in defense of infant baptism. Bullinger wrote the first full Protestant treatise defending a unified biblical covenant, although Calvin similarly stressed the unity of God’s covenant of grace and continuities of law and gospel in both Testaments. The covenant theology of Johannes Cocceius, who built on the work of Calvin, Zacharias Ursinus, Caspar Olevianus and others, is important because of the distinctions he developed between an eternal covenant of redemption between Father and Son and two basic redemptive-historical covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. God established the covenant of works with Adam and Eve, promising life conditional on obedience, but after Adam and Eve’s disobedience, God established the covenant of grace as a promise to bring victory over the devil (Gen 3:15). This covenant is reiterated in various forms throughout redemptive history and culminates in the new covenant of Christ. Cocceius’s perspective was widely received by Reformed theologians and found expression in the Westminster Standards. Covenant theology continued to be a prominent theme in Reformed theology in contrast to dispensationalism, although significant debate emerged regarding the distinction between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, which was rejected by Karl Barth and John Murray but accepted by others in the tradition.	Allis, O. T. Bass, Clarence B. Bear, James Berkof, Louis Carson, Herbert Cotton, John Fuller, Daniel Paxton Gerstner, John Goodwin, Thomas Hendricksen, William Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Charles Ladd, George Eldon Lincoln, C. Fred Mauro, Philip Murray, John Orr, James Owen, john Payne, J. Barton Poythress, Vern Robertson, O. Palmer Sproul, R. C. Van Gemeren, Willem Van Til, Cornelius
Dispensational Theology [7]	Dispensationalism, a periodization of human history into distinct time periods, or dispensations, during which God relates to humans in unique ways, was popularized in Darby’s frequent trips to America and contributed to the rise of fundamentalism. A theological system dividing the history of redemption into separate periods (dispensations) in which God relates to his people in unique ways, first developed by Englishman John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) and primarily popularized in the United States through the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism differs from covenant theology by identifying two separate peoples—Israel and the church—to whom God relates in distinct ways, thus introducing greater discontinuity into the biblical story than normally affirmed in the Reformed tradition. Given its wide-ranging influence, however, dispensationalism has been affirmed by some Reformed theologians, particularly in North America.	Barnhouse, Donald Grey Brooks, James H. Chafer, Lewis Sperry Darby, John Nelson English, E. Schuyler Feinberg, Charles L. Gaebelein, Arno C. Gaebelein, Frank Graves, J. R. Hoyt, Herman Ironside, H. A. Kelly, William MacArthur, John Mackintosh, C. H. Mason, Clarence E. Mayhue, Richard McClain, Alva J. Pache, Rene Pentecost, J. Dwight Pettingill, William Ryrie, Charles Sauer, Erich Scofield, C. I. Scroggie, W. Graham Walvoord, John F.
Ultra-Dispensational Theology [8] (Church began with Paul, not at Pentecost)	In modern times, the term dispensationalism is most often associated with nineteenth-century theologian John Nelson Darby, who was associated with the Plymouth Brethren Church in England. Darby’s key work, Synopsis, clearly delineated human history into well-defined time periods called dispensations. In each dispensation, God demands different expressions of faith from believers. In the dispensation of law, for example, the faithful were obedient to the Mosaic code, but this no longer applied after the death of Christ, when the dispensation of grace began. Later teachers, such as C. I. Scofield (1843–1921), expanded the number of dispensations to seven periods. Each dispensation ended in judgment, and only a few, a remnant, survive that testing to begin the next dispensation. Important to this view is the idea that Israel is distinct from the church and the promises and covenants made to Israel do not necessarily apply to modern-day believers.	Baker, Charles F. Berean Bible Society Bullinger, Ethelbert W. Gelesnoff, Vladimir Knoch, A.E. McGee, J. Vernon O’Hair, J.C. Sellers, Otis Q. Stam, Cornelius R. Welch, Charles H.

Secondary Theologies

Title	Description	Personal Alignment
Antinomianism [9]	A form of spiritual anarchy, which rejects the law as having any place in the Christian life, whether as instructor or as assessor. Paul’s teaching that Christians are free from the law is sometimes misunderstood as antinomian. But Paul reveres God’s law, and teaches believers, who are free from the law as a system of salvation, to keep it out of gratitude for salvation freely given, and because holiness, as defined by the law, is the Christian calling.	Agricola, Johannes Brearley, Roger Crisp, Tobias Eaton, John Hutchinson, Anne Saltmarsh, John, Traske, John Towne, Robert
Black Theology [10]	Derived from both traditional African-American religion and the historical process of liberation, Black Theology focuses on God in Christ as deliverer of oppressed people, and blackness as the key to understanding that deliverance.	Cleage, Jr., Albert B. Cone, James Roberts, Deotis
Charismatic Renewal [11] (Generally Arminian)	Neo-Pentecostalism – The classical Pentecostal movement usually traces its origin to New Year’s Day, 1901, when Agnes Ozman first spoke in tongues in Charles F. Parham’s Bible school in Topeka, Kansas. The movement that ensued was ridiculed by many outsiders as the religion of the economically deprived, the socially disinherited, the psychologically abnormal and the theologically aberrant. However, by the 1960s many sociological, psychological and theological theories had given way under the increasing evidence that Pentecostals were becoming middle class and educated. At the same time, their characteristic teachings were gaining acceptance among Christians within mainline Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic Church. As the national media publicized this new movement, American Christians began to grapple with a phenomenon that would come to be known as the charismatic, or neo-Pentecostal, movement.	Benett, Dennis Braham, William Bredesen, Harald Christensen, Larry Coe, Jack duPlessis, David Harper, Michael C. Irwin, David Osborne, Tommy Lee Roberts, Oral Smith, Chuck (Calvary Chapel) Wilkerson, David
Creation Spirituality [12]	New Age Movement (NAM) – The NAM is both eclectic and syncretistic, drawing on sources as diverse as Vedantic Hinduism, assorted varieties of spiritism and avant garde theories in quantum physics. It is best viewed not as a unified denomination, sect, cult or conspiracy—although these factors are not lacking—but rather as a world view shifting away from both monotheism and atheistic materialism, and toward the “ancient wisdom” or “perennial philosophy” (A. Huxley) of various Eastern religions (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.), pre-Christian Western religions (e.g., Druidism), Christian heresies (Gnosticism, heterodox mysticism) and the occult (e.g., divination, magic, spiritism). In the 1980s the Dominican priest Matthew Fox was teaching what he called “Creation Spirituality” in books such as The Coming of the Cosmic Christ (1988) and through his Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality. Clearly a proponent of the New Age perspective, in October 1988 Fox was ordered silenced by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.	Matthew Fox (Catholic)
Feminist Theology [13]	Feminist theology has an unmistakable ideological slant (Colin Grant, “Feminist Theology Is Middle Class). It is patently tied to the women’s revolution in society, which insists on equal pay for equivalent work and presses for the liberation of women from male domination. God becomes the Empowering Matrix (Rosemary Ruether) that enables both men and women to realize their full potential as sons and daughters of a new age in which sexual differences are no longer a barrier to economic and political advancement as well as to spiritual leadership. The immanentalistic bent of feminist theology is tied to its reconception of God as the vital force within nature rather than as Sovereign King or Lord (Cf. Dorothee Sölle: “God is our capacity to love … the spark that animates our love.”). Feminist theology converges with process theology at many points, for both mirror the new wave of democratic egalitarianism that seeks to eradicate all hierarchy in human relationships.	Bilezikian, Gilbert Frymer-Kensky, Tikva Gundry, Patricia Hardesty, Nancy Jewett, Paul Mollenkott, Virginia Myers, Carol Ogden Bellis, Alice Scanzoni, Letha Spencer, Aida Bensancon Trible, Phyllis Williams, Dan
Liberation Theology [14]	The term “liberation theology” is attributed to the Latin American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. In 1970, Gutierrez published A Theology of Liberation, in which he offers a theological perspective “from the underside of history” (Huebner, Introduction, 466). According to Thiselton, a liberation hermeneutic shares these common themes with feminist and womanist hermeneutics (Thiselton, New Horizons, 410): 1.) They critique frameworks of interpretation. 2. ) They offer alternative reinterpretations. 3.) They unmask the ways in which interpretations are used to serve the interests of those in power. Liberation theologies and hermeneutics find expression in critical scholarship, but more so among theologians in active, missional movements that derive their theology from an “ecclesial location,” such as Gutierrez who is known for theological reflections located in stories from his life among the poor (Gutierrez and Muller, On the Side). Juan Luis Segundo, a Uruguayan liberation theologian, suggests that the key to a “this-worldly” hermeneutic (and not an “other-worldly” one, meaning one that is practicable now) is the kingdom—preached, lived, and initiated by Jesus (Segundo, Grace, 73). Liberation theology and hermeneutics attempt to inform a kingdom of justice, which is often described as a spirituality that holds in tension divine transcendence and human action, gift and initiation (Segundo, Grace, 73).	Boff, Leonardo Gutierrez, Gustavo Miguez-Bonino, Jose
Lutheranism [15]	The theological and ecclesiastical tradition based on the teachings of Martin Luther (1483–1546), who is credited with launching the Reformation in Germany. Luther’s “tower experience” convinced him that the essence of the gospel is that justification comes only by the gift of God’s grace appropriated by faith (see sola gratia; sola fide). According to Luther, God declares the sinner righteous through Jesus’ death rather than through human merit or works. Faith entails trust in and acceptance of God’s gift of salvation through the “merits” of Christ.	Althaus, Paul Bornkamm, Heinrich Chemnitz, Martin Forde, Gerhard O. Gerhard, Johann Jensen, Robert Kolb, Robert Lohse, Bernhard Luther, Martin Maier, Paul L. Melanchthon, Philip Montgomery, John W. Pieper, Franz Preus, Robert Sasse, Hermann Veith, Gene Edward Walter, C. F. W. Wengert, Timothy
Mercersburg Theology [16]	Mercersburg Theology was a German-American theological movement that began in the mid-19th century. It draws its name from Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, home of Marshall College from 1836 until its merger with Franklin College (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) in 1853, and also home to the seminary of the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) from 1837 until its relocation to Lancaster in 1871. A significant aspect of the Mercersburg Theology is the view of history and theology found in Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism. In this work, Schaff takes a Hegelian model of history and applies it to the history of theology. Theology must come to one final synthesis, as Schaff expressed in his remark that “the Reformation must be regarded as still incomplete. It needs yet its concluding act to unite what has fallen asunder, to bring the subjective to a reconciliation with the objective.”[4] By this, he proposes a reunion of the subjective doctrines of Protestantism with the objective character of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, an outworking of this belief is a generous ecumenism extended toward all, especially toward Roman Catholics. The Mercersburg Society was founded in 1983 to maintain the sacramental and ecclesial approach of the theology.	Nevin, John Williamson Schaff, Philip
Liberal Theology [17] (Neo-Liberalism) (Existential Theology, Existentialism)	American liberal theologians in the early twentieth century emphasized Scripture as experience. Standing in the tradition of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) and Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930), these theologians sought to reconstruct traditional orthodoxy to meet the challenges of the modern world. They viewed the Bible as an ancient document written by fallible, human writers who were “religious geniuses.” These inspiring writers produced a literature that conveys religious experience to its readers as it brings them into contact with the great questions of human existence. Thus the liberal pulpiteer Harry Emerson Fosdick spoke of the Bible as presenting “abiding experiences and changing categories.” This means the basic human experiences of which the Bible speaks will be the same in any age, though expressed in various concepts and frameworks at different periods of history. Theologians must search out the abiding experiences that underlie biblical categories and express them in ways appropriate to the present times. For liberal theology, God is revealed in the events of history and especially in Jesus Christ. Humans may open themselves to this revelation and find the ring of truth in Scripture as biblical experiences coincide with their own religious experiences.	Bultmann, Rudolf (existential) Coffin, Henry S. Gilkey, Langdon Van Dusen, H.P Schleiermacher, Fredrich Fosdick, Harry E. Kierkegaard, Søren (existential) Ogden, Schuber Niebuhr, Reinhold (“post-liberal”) Tielhard de Chardin, Pierre Tillich, Paul (existential) Tracy, David (Catholic)
Neo-Orthodoxy [18]	The Swiss theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are associated with neo-orthodox theology, a movement which characteristically speaks of Scripture as witness. Barth, reacting strongly to the liberal theology in which he was schooled, developed a dialectical theology that in its early stages stressed the great contrast and distance between the transcendent, holy God and finite, sinful humanity. In Jesus Christ, this gulf was bridged. Christ is God’s self-revelation so that to say revelation is to say the Word made flesh. Barth spoke of the threefold Word of God as the Word revealed (Jesus Christ), the Word written (Scripture) and the Word proclaimed (preaching). Scripture “becomes” God’s Word when, through its proclamation, it witnesses or points to the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. The inspired writers of Scripture were witnesses to God’s revelation. Barth could speak of “verbal inspiration” in the sense that the witnesses to God’s revelation recorded their witness in words. But these were fallible words of humans, having “the capacity for errors,” yet nevertheless used by God to accomplish his own purposes. Scripture gains authority insofar as the Holy Spirit takes human witnesses and through their witness creates faith and obedience to Jesus Christ.	Barth, Karl Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bunner, Emil
New Covenant Theology [19]	A position teaching that the person and work of Jesus Christ is the central focus of the Bible. One distinctive assertion of this school of thought is that Old Testament Laws have been abrogated or cancelled with Jesus’ crucifixion, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant. It shares similarities with, and yet is distinct from, dispensationalism and Covenant theology.	Wells, Tom Zaspel, Fred Lehrer, Steve Reisinger, John
Pentecostalism [20]	Pentecostalism is a movement that began in the early twentieth century that emphasizes a post-conversion “baptism in the Holy Spirit” for all believers, with glossolalia (speaking in tongues) as the initial evidence of such baptism. Historically, Pentecostals have been missionary-minded people, due in part to the fact that the first Pentecostals taught that one central purpose of baptism in the Spirit was to endow the believer with power for evangelism.	Hayford, Jack Mason, Charles H. McPherson, Amy Semple
Pietism [21]	Pietism as it is now widely understood has its roots both in the magisterial and radical phases of the Reformation, as well as in the emphasis on “godliness” of many Puritans. It gradually comes into view in what is sometimes referred to as “precisianism” in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands. Among the Dutch Reformed it was represented by men like Willem Teellinck (1579–1629); the scholarly Gysbertus Voetius (1509–1676); Jadocus van Lodensteyn (1620–1677); as well as the Brakels—Theodor Gerardi (1608–1669) and his son Willem (1635–1711). Among separatists with a Dutch Reformed background, mention should be made of the former Jesuit Jean de Labadie (1610–1674) and his gifted disciple Anna Maria van Schurmann (1607–1678).	Arndt, Johann Francke, August Hermann Spener, Philipp Jakob Zinzerdorf, Count Von
Process Theology [22] (Panentheism)	Panentheism is not to be confused with pantheism. Pantheism literally means all (“pan”) is God (“theism”), but panentheism means “all in God.” It is also called process theology (since it views God as a changing Being), bipolar theism (since it believes God has two poles), organicism (since it views all that actually is as a gigantic organism), and neoclassical theism (because it believes God is finite and temporal, in contrast to classical theism).	Cobb, John B. Hartshorne, Charles Peters, Eugene H. Whitehead, Alfred North
Prosperity Theology [23]	Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith) is a religious belief among some Protestant Christians that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one’s material wealth. Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver security and prosperity. The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God’s will for his people to be blessed. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through donations of money, visualization, and positive confession.	Capps, Charles Cho, Paul Copeland, Kenneth Hayes, Narvelle Hagin, Kenneth Kenyon, Essek William Osteen, John Price, Frederick K. C. Savelle, Jerry
Puritanism [24]	A reform movement heavily influenced by Calvinism but initially part of the Church of England that had its zenith in the seventeenth century in England and North America. The stereotype of a Puritan as someone who is prudish and legalistic is quite misleading; Puritans enjoyed their beer and knew how to laugh. They were agents of cultural renewal in spheres as diverse as poetry and political philosophy, and they left a lasting imprint through the colonies founded in New England.	Ames, William Baxter, Richard Bolton, Robert Bridge, William, Brooks, Thomas Burroughes, Jeremiah Bunyan, John Charnock, Stephen Clarkson, David Cotton, John Flavel, John Goodwin, Thomas Gouge, William Hooker, Thomas Manton, Thomas Owen, John Perkins, William Rutherford, Samuel Shepard, Thomas Sibbes, Richard Swinnock, George Ussher, James Watson, Thomas
Scholasticism [25]	Through their intense study of the Bible and their preservation of ancient manuscripts, the monks did much to keep the spirit of learning alive during the Dark Ages. The cathedral and monastic schools were centers of study that served as seed beds for the later universities. Scholasticism refers both to the revival of learning that occurred during the Middle Ages and the method of study by which it occurred—the process of careful, rational scrutiny, logical deduction, and the systematic ordering of truth.	Abelard, Peter Anselm Aquinas, Thomas Bonaventure Ockham, William of
Secular Theology [26] (“God is Dead”)	Secular theology rejects the substance dualism of modern religion, the belief in two forms of reality required by the belief in heaven, hell, and the afterlife. Secular theology can accommodate a belief in God—as many nature religions do—but as residing in this world and not separately from it. Historians such as Charles Freeman hold that the AD 325 Council of Nicaea did much to establish dualism in Christian thought. Dualism has greatly influenced not only religion but science as well. By desacralizing the natural world, dualism has left it vulnerable to exploitation and damage. The field of secular theology, a subfield of liberal theology advocated by Anglican bishop John A. T. Robinson somewhat paradoxically combines secularism and theology. Recognized in the 1960s, it was influenced both by neo-orthodoxy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox, and the existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Secular theology digested modern movements like the Death of God Theology propagated by Thomas J. J. Altizer or the philosophical existentialism of Paul Tillich and eased the introduction of such ideas into the theological mainstream and made constructive evaluations, as well as contributions, to them.	Altizer, Thomas Cox, Harvey Hamilton, William Robinson, John A. T. Rubenstein, Richard L. (Jewish Rabbi) Vahanian, Gabriel
Social Gospel [27] (Liberal Theology, Liberalism)	The Social Gospel was a social movement within Protestantism that applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environment, child labor, lack of unionization, poor schools, and the dangers of war. It was most prominent in the early-20th-century United States and Canada. Theologically, the Social Gospelers sought to put into practice the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:10): “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. They typically were postmillennialist; that is, they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. The Social Gospel was more popular among clergy than laity. Its leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the progressive movement, and most were theologically liberal, although a few were also conservative when it came to their views on social issues. Important leaders included Richard T. Ely, Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch.	Ely, Richard T. Gladden, Washington Rauschenbusch, Walter
Third Wave Movement [28]	Although Wagner has been influential in the wider evangelical world, his extensive research into and writing on the Pentecostal and charismatic movements have given him particular expertise in these areas. Through his longtime association with the charismatic leader John Wimber, leader of the Vineyard Movement, and their joint teaching of a controversial course on charismatic ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary entitled, ‘MC 510 Signs and Wonders’ (1984), he became identified with the charismatic movement. He is credited with originating the term ‘third wave’, to designate the increased openness among other evangelicals to the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit and joint ministry with Pentecostals and charismatics.	Wagner, C. Peter Wimber, John
Wesleyan Theology {Wesleyan Quadrilateral)	The various groups and churches associated with, spawned by, or that look for their genesis in John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) and his theology. These include the various Methodist churches, the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism. Wesley’s theology attempted to balance the doctrine of justification by faith with an emphasis on the Spirit’s ongoing process of sanctification in the life of the believer. Wesleyans are often known for certain doctrines, including entire sanctification and the second blessing. Wesleyans tend to be Arminian as opposed to Calvinist in their understanding of the dynamic of personal salvation. The four “sources” on which Wesleyan theology is often constructed and defended: Scripture, reason, tradition and experience. There is some debate today as to whether the Wesleyan quadrilateral actually dates to Wesley himself, although there is general agreement that it does represent Wesley’s own theological approach.	Allen, Richard Asbury, Francis Coke, Albert C. Varick, James Wesley, Charles Wesley, John

Eschatological Systems

Derived from the combination of the Greek eschatos, meaning “last,” and logos, meaning “word” or “significance.” Refers to the biblical doctrine of last things. The doctrine of last things normally focuses on a discussion of the return of Christ at the end of the age, the coming judgments, various expressions of the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, the nature of the glorified body, and the prospects for eternal destiny. Generally, eschatology sets itself apart as a theology of the future and in juxtaposition to both history and the present age.[1]

Millennialism

This expression, taken from Latin words, means 1,000 years. The Bible passage that mentions the “thousand years” is Rev. 20:1–7, where the word appears six times. The Latin Vulgate uses mille anni and its variant renderings to translate the Greek chilia ete. Various theological proposals have been offered to explain this passage from Rev. 20 as well as various other Scriptures that might be taken to speak to the same issue. One’s view on this text will be determined by one’s approach to interpreting predictive prophecy and by one’s view on symbolic and apocalyptic language.[1]

Title	Description	Typical Association	Personal Alignment
Amillennialism [2]	The belief that the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 do not represent a specific period of time between Christ’s first and second comings. Many amillennialists believe instead that the millennium refers to the heavenly reign of Christ and the departed saints during the Church Age. Amillennialists usually understand Revelation 20 to mean that the return of Christ will occur at the end of history and that the church presently lives in the final era of history.	Amillennials usually commit to Covenant theology	Adams, Jay Edward Allis, Oswald T. Augustine Bass, Clarence B. Beckwith, Isbon T. Bennett, T. Miles Berkof, Louis Berkouwer, G. C. Bowman, John Wick Brown, David Calvin, John Charles, Robert H. Colclasure, Chuck Ellison, Henry L. Farrar, Fredric W. Ferguson, Sinclair Foster, Richard J. Gerstner, John Gifford, Edwin H. Hamilton, Floyd E. Hendricksen, William Hoekema, Anthony A. Hoeksema, Herman Kik, Jacob Marcellus Laetsch, Theodore F. K. Lenski, Richard Leopold, Herbert C. Luther, Martin Machen, John Gresham Mauro, Philip Morgan, George Campbell Morris, Leon Pink, A. W. Pusey, Edward B. Ridderbos, Herman Riddlebarger, Kim Sproul, R.C. Summers, Ray Swete, Hanry Barclay Van Til, Cornelius Vos, Gerhardus Waltke, Bruce Warfield, B. B. Young, Edward J
Premillennialism [2]	The view that the millennium follows the return of Christ, which therefore makes his return “premillennial.” In the teaching of some premillennialists, the millennium will begin supernaturally and cataclysmically, preceded by signs of apostasy, worldwide preaching of the gospel, war, famine, earthquakes, the coming of the antichrist, and the great tribulation. Jesus will then return and rule on the earth with his saints for one thousand years, during which time peace will reign, the natural world will no longer be cursed and evil will be suppressed. After a final rebellion, God will crush evil forever; judge the resurrected, nonbelieving dead; and establish heaven and hell.	Historic premillennialists usually commit to Covenant Theology, with post-tribulation eschatology. Dispensational premillennial is generally pre-tribulation.	Alford, Henry Amerding, C. A. Anderson, Robert Beasley-Murray, G. R. Bengel, _ Blackstone, William E. Bonar, A.A. Bowman, John (Historic) Chafer, Lewis Sperry Culver, Robert D. Darby, John Nelson DeHaan, Martin R. Ellicott, C.J. English, Eugene Schuyler Erickson, Millard (Historic) Fausset, A. R. Feinberg, Charles L. Fuller, Daniel Payton (Historic) Gaebelein, A. C. Gill, John Goodwin, Thomas Grudem, Wayne Hiebert, Davis Edmond Hoyt, Herman A. (Disp.) Ironside, H. A. Jennins, Frederick C. Jeremiah, David Keach, Benjamin Kromminga, D. H. Ladd, George E. (Historic) Lange, John Lightfoot, J.B. Lillie, (John?) Luck, G. Coleman MacArthur, John MacIntosh, C.H. Mauro, Philip (Historic) Mayhue, Richard McClain, Alva (Disp.) Meyer, F.B. Morgan, George Campbel Mounce, Robert Newell, William Reed Ottman, Ford C. Payne, J. Barton (Historic) Piper, John Ross, James Robert (Historic) Ryle, J.C. Ryrie, Charles (Disp.) Seiss, Joseph A. Smith, Jacob B. Smith, Wilbur M. Steir. _ Stevens, W. C. Stifler, James M. Strombeck, J. F. Tatford, Frederick A. Tenney, Merrill C. Tregelles, Samuel P. Unger, Merril Walvoord, John (Disp.) Westcott, B.F. Wiley, H. Orton
Postmillennialism [2]	The view that Christ’s second coming will follow the millennium; that is, his return is postmillennial. Postmillennialists assert that the millennium will come by the spiritual and moral influence of Christian preaching and teaching in the world. This will result in increased conversions, a more important role of the church in the world, earthly prosperity, the resolution of social ills and a general adoption of Christian values. Evil will diminish until the time of Christ’s second coming, which will mark as well the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment.		Alexander, Archibald Alexander, Joseph A. Barnes, Albert Boettner, Loraine Brown, David Dabney, R. L. Dabney, Robert T. Edward, Jonathan Fairbairn, Patrick Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Charles Marcellus, K. K. J. Murray, John North, Gary Shedd, W. G. T. Snowden, James H. Strong, Augustus H. Warfield, Benjamin B

Rapture

God’s taking the church out of the world instantaneously. The Latin term rapio, which means to “snatch away” or “carry off,” is the source of the English word. While there are differing views of the millennium (Rev. 20:2–7) in relation to Christ’s second coming (e.g., premillennial, postmillennial, and amillennial), nevertheless, all evangelicals affirm a literal return of Christ to the earth preceding the eternal state. In premillennialism, however, the distinct event of the rapture is often emphasized.

The main biblical passage for the rapture (Gk. harpazo) of the church is 1 Thess. 4:15–17. Other texts often used to support the doctrine of the rapture are John 14:1–3 and 1 Cor. 15:51–52. There are three main approaches to understanding the rapture in premillennialism:

Title	Description	Personal Alignment
Pre-Tribulational [3]	In the pretribulational view, Christ raptures the church before any part of the seven-year tribulation begins (Dan. 9:24–27; Matt. 24:3–28; Rev. 11:2; 12:14). Upon Christ’s coming in the air, which is distinct from and that precedes His coming to the earth, believers will be “caught up together … in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17). In this view, believers are delivered “from the coming wrath” (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10) by being taken out of the world.	Harrison, Norman B. Hogg, Charles F. Stanton, Gerald B. Theissen, Henry C. Vine, Howard Frederick
Mid-Tribulational [3]	A midtribulational view also sees the rapture as a distinct event that precedes Christ’s second coming and delivers believers from the last half of the seven-year period, the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:15–28; Rev. 16–18).	Peters, George N. H.
Post-Tribulational [3]	A posttribulational view holds that the rapture and the second coming occur at the same time. Therefore, the church remains on earth during “the time of Jacob’s distress” (Jer. 30:7 NASB). Unlike the world, however, believers who go through the tribulation will be protected from the devastating outpouring of God’s wrath and judgment (1 Thess. 5:9).	Erickson, Millard Ladd, G. E. Lang, George H. Tenney, Merrill C.

Citations

[1] Doros Zachariades, “Millennium,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1127.
[2] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 8–9.
[3] Pete Schemm, “Rapture,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1366.
[4] Kelly M. Kapic and Wesley Vander Lugt, Pocket Dictionary of the Reformed Tradition, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 29–30.
[5] Norman L. Geisler, “Molinism,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 493.
[6] Kelly M. Kapic and Wesley Vander Lugt, Pocket Dictionary of the Reformed Tradition, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 38–39.
[7] Ibid, 41.
[8] Nathan P. Feldmeth, Pocket Dictionary of Church History: Over 300 Terms Clearly and Concisely Defined, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 52–53.
[9] Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: Martin Manser, 2009).
[10] Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Donald G. Bloesch, Freedom for Obedience: Evangelical Ethics in Contemporary Times (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 266–267.
[14] Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, “Liberation Theologies and Hermeneutics,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[15] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 74.
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercersburg_theology
[17] Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[18] Ibid.
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_theology
[20] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 90.
[21] Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[22] Norman L. Geisler, “Panentheism,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 576.
[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
[24] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 98.
[25] David S. Dockery, ed., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 865.
[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology
[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
[28] D. Hedges, “Wagner, Charles Peter,” ed. Timothy Larsen et al., Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 691.
[29] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 120–121.