Archive | Theology RSS feed for this section

Of Continuity & Coherence

While reading through The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers again, I noted various points of interest that I found helpful. There were many excellent points I wrote out separately while reading the book’s chapters. This outline is of some perspectives that stood out and serve as valuable examples.  

  • Jesus drew upon the logic of the OT writers
  • Jesus adhered to principles from the old covenant that extended to the new covenant
  • Jesus recognized the biblical writer’s claims and roles in redemptive history
  • The gospel writers were in thought continuity about OT subject matter
  • Christ’s claims instantiated the grounds that the gospel writers interpreted and applied OT Scripture (i.e., recognition of new and progressive revelation) to derive imperatives and illocutionary force
  • The biblical writers attached new and consistent meaning to earlier authors’ authority
  • The presuppositions of biblical authors were informed by the continuity of OT covenants, humanity’s redemptive history, and YHWH’s soteriological purpose

Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.
– Hab 1:5

  • Look, see, wonder, and be astounded at what God has done during redemptive history during OT and NT revelation

Making Coherent Scripture Connections

Let Scripture illuminate Scripture. There are numerous allusions, echoes, citations, and quotes between the biblical writers. Let’s recognize them to interpret and understand what they meant. The continuity of the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic rests upon the logical biblical writer’s expression of Scriptural intertextuality. They were models for believers today who seek to interpret and understand revelation according to proper methods of interpretation. The development of biblical theologies is guided by what God wrote through a corpus of texts by authors He appointed. Let’s abide by what He brought together through them for generations who seek Him by His Word.

The Master’s Seminary posted a video series (31-lectures) of Dr. Thomas Schreiner’s course of Biblical Theology. In the first lecture, he briefly points to James Hamilton’s work (very end of the video). Notably, concerning the trace work of passages that concern biblical concepts that extend to further passages through historical and theological development. While Schreiner spoke of the Biblical Theology of God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment text, he also made a vague reference to Hamilton’s paper The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15. Anyone can download the paper (PDF copy) from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I highly suspect that Hamilton’s paper about Genesis 3:15 from 2006 had a bearing on his biblical theology text as it was published in 2010. In the Genesis 3:15 paper (The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15), Hamilton wrote about biblical connections; not explicitly as an example of a method, but of substance.

Dr. Abner Chou’s hermeneutics text is an excellent complementary view about the how with Hamilton’s textbook example concerning the what and why. To unearth the treasures of biblical theologies from God’s appointed writers. — So, in this case, and in many places, the crushing, smashing, and puncturing of the head of the enemy, beginning from Genesis 3:15, shows up in various canonical texts to definitively record what would happen again and again both literally and figuratively. By this connect the dots approach, Hamilton demonstrates that the OT canon as a whole is a messianic document with soteriological continuity straight from the garden. Which is utterly amazing. 

In addition to the Hamilton paper I read this afternoon, I also highly recommend Schreiner’s Biblical Theology 31-lecture series he gave to TMS some while back. 

I also gathered quite a bit from Dr. Chou’s book concerning the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic. To where their hermeneutic becomes the Christian hermeneutic. Having read Dr. Chou’s book twice, the intertextual relationships between the biblical materials are important to grasp.

There really is quite a bit there when running a topical course as a biblical theology of interest. For example, here are a few screen captures below from the Logos application I use to visually see what relationships exist. Many theologians, exegetes, pastors, and students use this tool. A lot of bible students use this application and I highly recommend it.

Conducting intertextual analysis is much more efficient this way and all the links of NT to OT and OT to NT are visually mapped with active multi-dimensional links between all passages in the canon. This example below, among very many, is about Jesus from both testaments intertextually linked bringing to the surface contours of meaning. As patterns of continuity among the biblical authors (such as comparing what Isaiah said about Messiah as compared to Ezekiel). From the New Testament’s use of the Old alone, there are 2,574 total allusions, citations, echoes, and quotations definitively mapped. However, there’s quite a bit more from a lateral perspective. 

Example – The Intertextuality of Biblical Christology

Example - The Intertextuality of Biblical Christology

Example – The Christological Intertextuality of Isaiah to the NT

Example - The Christological Intertextuality of Isaiah to the NT

Example – The Christological Intertextuality of Hebrews to the OT

Example - The Christological Intertextuality of Hebrews to the OT

Of course, any book combination between the OT and NT can be selected. And once a link (or strand) is clicked, a grid of reference listing is rendered for the patterns, contours, citations, quotations, allusions, and echoes. As we traverse specific topics to recognize and understand biblical theology, it is with limited results since the text is translated to English. But the breadth and depth are more comprehensive this way to get a rich and full meaning. In my view, full immersion within these tools is time well spent. 


The Well of Coherence

It is a healthy thought exercise to reflect on how the biblical writers change our perspective on Scripture. The hermeneutic of the prophets and apostles is a hermeneutic of surrender. A surrender to the authority and intentional meaning of Scripture from its authors. A reader response hermeneutic is, by comparison, a subjective way of reading the text of Scripture to suit preferences and to shape messages or meaning toward inner personal thoughts, desires, or objectives. Efforts to conform the meaning of Scripture incidental or contrary to the biblical writers’ intended messaging toward instruction, counsel, or pastoral agendas is a defective and unacceptable approach to “interpretation.” The biblical writers extensively sought the intended meaning of what the patriarchs, prophets, and poets wrote and did. Rules of proper hermeneutical interpretation were applied for obedience, faith, and practice to include the development of further narratives and genres to form Spirit-inspired Scripture.

The extent to which the biblical writers were expositors of Scriptural truth cannot be overstated. Their contribution to Scripture’s theological and exegetical groundwork is thoroughly abundant and significant, as made evident by the depth and range of intertextual synthesis. From the Old Testament and the New, biblical writers were thoroughly immersed in Scripture present in their time, and they were exceptional exegetes. Each was able to assemble meaningful theological thoughts from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and by conscious interpretive efforts to produce theologies that would extend to millions across generations. The prophets and apostles developed theologies that provide a framework for continuing biblical interpretation of immeasurable value. Not only of enormous historical significance but of covenantal weight that assures God’s glory and redeemed humanity’s salvation.

There is a continuity of basic, deep, and intricate Scriptural meaning interwoven throughout the Bible. The patterns by which biblical writers wrote, inferred, referenced, overlapped, reinforced, and synchronized theological messaging are interrelated across time, languages, and translations. Scriptural intertextuality is the relationship between texts in a coherent sense of the reading. Still, there is more to its structural value because God’s Word, the Bible, is a supernatural book. As it is written, the implanted word received has the power to save souls (Jas 1:21). It is also a record of Jesus’ life and His work, miracles, teachings, and transformative power. The Word is a source of spiritual nourishment (Deut. 8:3, Matt 4:4). It reports on the fulfillment of ancient prophecies and foretells apocalyptic warnings and promises. It is a self-witness testimony to the wisdom of God, and it shall never pass away.

From the pactum salutis to the ordo salutis, the biblical writers wrote expressions of God’s mercy, grace, and wisdom for people who hunger for Him and objective truth. It’s not an academic book. Or merely a guidebook on godly living. God’s Word is a treasure. It is a storehouse of promises. It is a well of living water. It is a conduit to peace. It bears the fruit of praise for worshipers who love the living and triune God.


The Doctrine of Justification

What is justification? Or justification before God by faith? To quote, justification is “a forensic (legal) term related to the idea of acquittal, justification refers to the divine act whereby God makes humans, who are sinful and therefore worthy of condemnation, acceptable before a God who is holy and righteous. More appropriately described as “justification by grace through faith,” this key doctrine of the Reformation asserts that a sinner is justified (pardoned from the punishment and condemnation of sin) and brought into relationship with God by faith in God’s grace alone.”1

Justification According to Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Romans

The walkthrough of Paul’s letter to the Romans concerning the doctrine of justification is especially helpful in reinforcing personal convictions about the truth of God’s Word and His covenant promises. The author, Andrew Naselli, offers an exceptional essay about what Paul meant about justification among crucial principles throughout his letter to the Romans. The theological messaging of Romans, as presented by Naselli, is thoroughly contextual as various relevant passages are traversed across both the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, as justification by grace is widely supported by the work of Christ and various New Testament writers, the author details how Paul’s theology contributes to the doctrine of justification.

Naselli’s paper isn’t an exposition of the book of Romans as a commentary or a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter it contains. The author sequentially takes large sections of the book to fully develop the meaning of justification to the church in Rome, but more widely to those of Asia-minor during the first century. Paul’s exhaustive letter concerning justification and soteriology applied to the early church just as it does today. To build the faith and development of believers, Paul makes a persuasive and compelling case about the differences between the Old Covenant and the New before he writes about implications beginning in chapter 5.

The condition and circumstances of sinful humanity condemned before righteous God characterizes the desperate situation relieved by the mercies of God through Christ Jesus, His Son (Matt 3:17). As Paul begins his letter about the sinful condition of people inclined to self-destructive and offensive behaviors, he further reveals the righteousness of God the further he progresses toward good news for those who believe and abide in Christ. Paul’s recitation of the Old Testament that all people are sinful and no one does good (Rom 3:10,12, Ps. 14:1–3; 53:1–3) shows that intervention apart from the law was clearly and desperately needed. The old covenant law has taught us that Christ was necessary to bring us to God so that we might be justified by faith (Gal 3:24). The need to transition from law to grace becomes apparent as people become justified by faith alone, just as Abraham was. As the spiritual children of Abraham, heirs to the Kingdom of God, attain justification just as he did by faith or believing in God. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Christ by His imputed righteousness to those who believe in Him by faith. Even the ungodly, as made clear from Romans 4:5.

Justification by Faith

The means by which God imputes righteousness for justification is through faith (Rom 3:25). Supported by how Abraham was justified and counted righteous by believing in God, Paul would have to assert that what applied to Abraham applies to his offspring (Gal 3:29). Specifically, external righteousness that comes from faith is transferrable to his offspring as the righteousness of Christ becomes imparted to believers. Even while Abraham was a wandering Aramean, his belief in God informed him and his family where to go and that pleased God, where righteousness was imputed or infused into an ungodly man. While there were various errant and sinful behaviors of Abraham during his journeys recorded in Genesis, there was the presence of grace upon him from God. Since he believed in God, Abraham was credited as righteous by grace through faith as a gift (Eph 2:8-9).

As Paul wrote to the Church in Rome, we can infer that he spoke to both Jews and Gentiles. Everyone was given a path to peace with God as reconciliation became possible through faith in Christ, who died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6). As justification was accomplished through Jesus’ blood, the Messiah’s sacrifice was pleasing to God (Isa 53:10; see BDAG) as believers in Christ were saved from His wrath (Rom 5:9). Naselli makes further observations about what Paul wrote about the outcome of justification. He indicates explicitly that believers have peace with God and access to Him through Christ. Those who abide in Jesus rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, their sufferings, and God Himself.

After Paul’s brief parenthetical account of the law and sin (chapter 7) and its devastating consequences, he pivoted to a theological understanding of condemnation and justification as opposites. Where Christ either perfectly fulfilled the law, or people keep the law through Spirit’s enabling, depending upon your perspective, the sovereignty of God is at work to call people to Him as justified and without condemnation. The certainty of believers before God includes their justification within an unbreakable chain of inevitability. Namely, the well-known golden chain of redemption from beginning to end assures the final eschatological completion of each person in Christ (Rom 8:28-30). God’s actions redeemed people are foreknown then predestined, called, justified, and glorified as an astonishing sequence of theological beauty. In fulfillment of total reconciliation, His people attain justification and are made righteous through faith to become secured in the love of Christ (Rom 8:35-39). No one can condemn His people redeemed to Him through Christ or bring a charge against them as the favor of God rests upon those reconciled (Rom 8:32-34).

Finally, Naselli focuses on a remaining section of Paul’s letter to the Romans concerning justification. Romans 9:30-10:13 specifically aims to contrast believing Gentiles to unbelieving Israel, who were God’s chosen people. To demonstrate the difference between a right standing by the faith of believers or alienation by works of righteousness, Israel tried to satisfy the Mosaic law. It was an impossible and futile effort as they had failed to satisfy all earlier covenants as a nation many times before. Israel did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah but rejected Him. In the Old Testament, God’s people of Israel didn’t accept His gift of righteousness and justification by faith.

Theological Facts of Justification

—Naselli’s narrative discourse on the theology of justification is adapted to a table assembled below for ease of review about theological facts.2

ItemJustification Theological Facts2References
1MeaningJustification is judicial, not experiential.Rom 5:15-19
2MeaningJustification includes forgiveness.Rom 4:6-8
3MeaningJustification includes imputation.Rom 4:1–8; 5:15–19
4MeaningJustification is vertical, not horizontal.Rom 1:17; 3:21–26;
Rom 9:30–10:13
5NeedJustification is necessary because all humans without exception are sinners under God’s condemning wrath.Rom. 1:18–3:20
6BasisJustification is based on God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners —which is possible because of propitiation.Rom. 4:1–8; 5:15–19
Rom 3:25–26
7BasisJustification is based on God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners—which is possible because God raised Christ from the dead.Rom 4:1–8; 5:15–19 Rom 4:24-25
8BasisJustification is based on God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners—which is possible because of union with Christ.Rom. 4:1–8; 5:15–19 Rom 3:24; 5:12–21; 8:1
9MeansJustification is a gracious gift that sinful humans cannot earn.Rom. 2:5–16; 3:9–20, 24, 27–28; 4:1–5; 5:16–17; 9:30–10:5
10MeansJustification is accessible by faith alone in Christ alone.Rom 1:17; 3:22, 25; 4:3–5, 9–25; 5:1–2; 9:30–10:13
11MeansJustification occurs through redemption.Rom 3:24
12Accessibility Justification is accessible to everyone without ethnic distinction.Rom. 3:22–23, 29–30; 4:9–17; 10:11–13
13ResultsJustification is now inseparably connected to freedom from the law.Rom. 3:19–21; 7:1–25; 9:30–10:13
14ResultsJustification is inseparably connected to peace with God.Rom 5:1
15ResultsJustification is inseparably connected to the most deeply rooted and satisfying rejoicing.Rom 5:2-11
16ResultsJustification is inseparably connected to progressive sanctification.Rom 6:1-23
17ResultsJustification is inseparably connected to assurance that God will finish what he planned, accomplished, and applied.Rom 8:28-39
18FutureJustification is definitive and will be final when God publicly vindicates believers.Rom 2:13; 5:18; 8:30, 32-34
19GoalJustification ultimately glorifies God.Rom 11:36

Jesus accomplished these feats of redemption to bring out immense heartfelt gratitude. Where we have nothing but surrender to His kindness and immeasurable love. The theological treatise Apostle Paul sets forward to the Romans applies to everyone today who would confess Christ, invite Him to live within, abide by His teachings, and every day abundant mercies.

The Means of Salvation

Author Brandon Crowe of Westminster Theological Seminary wrote a paper entitled, “By Grace You Have Been Saved through Faith.” This title corresponds to what Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8a, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (ESV), to echo how the whole passage begins. The remainder of the verse reads, “And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8b-9). With complete clarity about what it means to be justified before God (i.e., “saved”), what God spoke through Apostle Paul’s words carries soteriological significance. Because of God’s active involvement among people, both grace and faith are together a gift for individual salvation resulting in eternal life with Him. To walk by faith while under grace as a means of justification is thoroughly supported by additional Pauline letters to the early church.

This very well-known passage concerning justification is supported by letters from Paul he wrote while traveling to developing churches along the Aegean sea and the surrounding interior cities of Asia Minor. He spoke of principles with confidence and authority about what it was to attain salvific standing before God from congregations, towns, homes, individuals, and while in prison. The principles were directly related to God’s acts of justifying the ungodly to return people to Him who were otherwise forever lost. Believers in Christ redeemed through His redemptive work who live lives of faith have the grace to attain salvation in life and from God’s wrath against sin.

Inclusive of all people, both Jews, and Gentiles, the spread of the gospel from Galatia to Corinth and back across the Mediterranean, the specifics involving the work of Christ are especially explicit from 1 Cor 15:1-4, where Paul writes of the gospel message that extends to everyone along his missionary journeys. This gospel message is about the ministry and sacrificial death of Jesus on a cross and His resurrection, ascension, and coronation. The gospel is about reconciliation to God through faith and repentance. Where faith is necessary for justification, Paul consistently spreads the gospel message to the churches in Galatia, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and numerous specific individuals recorded within scripture. Not to mention the various unrecorded locations he visited and individuals he spoke to, there was a pattern of Paul’s gospel message reflected in scripture elsewhere (e.g., Troas, Berea, Tarsus). Everywhere he went, the point of the gospel was reconciliation and justification to involve numerous additional theological teachings such as sanctification, social inclusion, eschatology, church formation, and church discipline.

Of particular interest was Paul’s instruction concerning false teaching and the message of grace that did not include human merit or performance. In contradiction to works of the law, Paul spoke of God’s grace that characterized new covenant faith and practice. The new nature of people free from sin previously held captive by the law was now under grace to produce justification and sanctification through repentance. As Paul wrote each letter addressed to specific churches by geographical locale, the forgiveness of sins and deliverance from sinful living were brought out as a matter of pressing instruction and attention for corrective action or as an underlying subtext about fruitful living and more well informed theological understanding.

Crowe organizes his paper about salvation by grace through faith by each of Paul’s letters. He does that to highlight the point that the doctrine of justification is not a stand-alone perspective from his letter to the Romans. All of Paul’s letters as a corpus of doctrine are necessary for a robust and defensible understanding of justification. Each geographical category Paul addresses pertains to circumstances present during their ancient cultural context, but even today, intended for scriptural truth about God’s total redemptive work as a whole of humanity. Through sovereign intent, the principles that reinforce the work of justification through Christ involve the pastoral epistles and the non-Pauline texts of scripture.

The Doctrine of Justification to the Churches in Galatia

The formative churches within Galatia were East of the Aegean Sea and North of the Mediterranean coast, where modern-day Turkey is. The churches of Galatia included the locations where Paul traveled during his first and second missionary journeys from Antioch to bring the gospel to people. After establishing churches and fellowship of believers was formed among the towns, he wrote to them about various topics. A key among them was concerning justification by faith. The church then and today, informed by Galatians 2:16, reveals the most essential scriptural point that works of the law do not justify a person. While Paul’s message concerned works of the law about Jewish requirements of the Mosaic covenant, the reader of his letter further reads later, “for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Written or interpreted more concisely, only faith working through love counts for anything. As the basis for good works, love is not salvific but purely evidence of authentic faith that justifies a person before God.

Further, throughout the letter to the Galatians, Paul sets up an exhaustive refutation of works-righteousness to destroy its value of interest among people who may continue to think that salvation is achieved or earned. Justification is not a synergistic effort as one somehow “partners with God” to attain salvation. Salvation is given by grace through faith and not from “works” an individual does. A careful examination of Greek Lexicons (BDAG and LSJ)3 specific to the grammatical use of “works” within Ephesians 2:9 renders definition as an action, deed, duty, or accomplishment. Definitively, Paul completely removes any faint notion that justification, and therefore salvation, is merited by deeds, actions, fulfillment of duty, achievement, or accomplishment.

The Doctrine of Justification to the Churches in Corinth & Thessalonica

As previously noted above, it was to the Corinthian church that the gospel was again presented to readers who were not regenerated (1 Cor 15:1-4). The message of redemption that involved justification was stressed in Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth as contentious issues were present from the leadership at the time. While the church was addressed with specific issues involving discipline and various doctrines of the faith, the matter of justification was touched upon as it was with the Galatians. A few sections of Paul’s letter bring further attention to justification by inference in various passages as follows.

A careful reading of 1 Corinthians 1:30 brings into view a phrase that is less than obvious about justification. The verse reading that includes the terms “in Christ” specifies a positional statement inferring justification.4 The text “in Christ” within 1 Cor 1:30 corresponds to the same language earlier in the letter as “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Cor 1:2). At both locations of the text, Paul uses the terms in Christ to indicate a unity with Jesus as saints are recognized, sanctified, and holy just as He is. Therefore, by inference and reason, it is concluded that justification is attributed to the representative righteousness of Christ to believers. While this is likely better suited to a discussion about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness upon believers, it doesn’t serve a reader well to miss the point of justification by indirect association.

In Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, he does specifically use the term justification, nor does he use the language of the doctrine as he does later in his letters elsewhere. Current research indicates that 1 Thessalonians was one of the first letters he wrote.5 As Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, he spoke of the necessity of escaping God’s wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:9–10; 2:16; 4:6; 5:1–11; 2 Thess. 1:8–9). To infer the urgency of justification made secure from eternity past (Rom. 10:20–21; Eph. 1:4; 1:5; 1:11), the “brothers loved by God” (1 Thess 1:4) are sanctified by the Holy Spirit among God’s sovereignly elected by grace through faith. The justification of God’s chosen people by means of faith was established from eternity past as the firstfruits of a new humanity. Those divinely elected to be saved were marked as sanctified “by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thess 2:13). Therefore, this “marking” is the event or process of justification accompanied by sanctification to present God’s people holy before Him.            

Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 is key to the meaning and efficacy of salvation. More specifically, “To this” directly appeals to the crucial understanding of salvation appointed to Christians who were called and chosen through the gospel. Justification made certain through the course of redemptive events assured the calling of the saints to the glory and pleasing interests of God. The Father elects, the Son loves, and the Holy Spirit makes holy while unbelievers are marked and excluded from salvation.6 Accordingly, the means by which Christians were to escape God’s wrath involved the sovereign necessity and urgency of justification. The process God uses to bring His people to Him through Christ involves appointed belief and the work of the Spirit as necessary for salvation. In between the points of believer election and glorification are justification and sanctification.

The Doctrine of Justification from the Prison Epistles

Paul’s letters to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon were written from prison while he was in captivity. By divine will, Paul underwent a period of trials and sufferings for the gospel (Acts 9:16), and the sovereign intent of Paul’s isolation while in prison included the work of his letters for formative instruction, theology, exhortation, training, and correction that would positively affect millions through time. Beginning with each church in Asia Minor, the development of the Kingdom of God grew from seeds of inspired truth to involve the doctrine of justification.

To the Church in Ephesus

To be delivered from the wrath of God, justification is necessary. And for justification to be accomplished, the forgiveness of sins is required to satisfy God’s justice (Eph 2:1-9). The gift of God is given to the elect who believe by both grace and faith in Christ. Christ Jesus claimed God’s people through His death and resurrection to make clear the gospel message where appointed people are brought to God to salvation by belief (i.e., grace through faith). Populating the Kingdom is the work of God (Eph 2:10) to justify those appointed to Him by His love, wisdom, and mercy. By faith alone, people are delivered from God’s wrath and made spiritually alive. As made possible by the forgiveness of sins by the atonement of Christ, the human contribution to this process is the gift of grace and faith. The gift accepted is a vehicle by which God justifies through Christ.

To the Church in Philippi

Technically speaking, the meaning of “justification” comes from a forensic (legal) term related to the notion of acquittal for a crime committed by divine act where God makes sinful humans subject to wrath acceptable before Him who is holy and righteous. The righteousness of God (Phil 3:9) stands separate from the righteousness of the law as the old covenant transitions to the new. Acceptable to God is only the righteousness that comes from God (i.e., faith in Christ) to justify believers. The righteousness attained by faith in Christ is the “righteousness from God” that justifies. There is no scriptural support to indicate any other contributing factors toward justification.

On the contrary, “righteousness from the law” serves to illuminate the inadequacy of works as people are entirely unable to satisfy its requirements. Christ has satisfied the law, and it is by His righteousness that His people become justified by faith in Him. For this reason, believers must reject their own works as having salvific merit and instead become “found in Him” (Phil 3:9) as Paul was to attain the forgiveness of sins and justification. To imitate Paul in this regard is to have one’s righteousness originate from Christ based on faith. Conformance to Christ in this way is to accept His righteousness and God’s forgiveness through Him to attain justification for salvation leading to eternal life.

To the Church in Colossae

Paul wrote at length about the forgiveness of sins as a requirement for acceptance before God. And Paul’s letter to the church at Colossae is no exception (Col 2:13-14, 3:13). He wrote of justification in this letter concerning the deliverance and the forgiveness of the sins (Col 1:14) of people appointed to eternal life through faith in Christ. Moreover, Paul speaks of deliverance from an evil age (Col 1:13) or “domain of darkness” (ESV) to Christ’s kingdom. As the process of redemption constitutes transfer from one state of being to another, the work of justification is necessary to undergo rebirth from being dead in sin to alive in Christ (Rom 6:11). Through Paul’s letter, he also stresses the need to put to death the work of sin as the deliverance concerns both an escape from death but also the wrath of God (Col 3:5-7).

The Doctrine of Justification from the Pastoral Epistles

The written work of Paul to the churches in Rome, Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia-Minor is a body of work about justification that must be taken together for a comprehensive meaning of the doctrine spanning hundreds of years. However, as scholars continue to pick at Paul’s written work and the authenticity of New Testament epistles, it is inexcusable to dismiss the letters to Timothy and Titus, who were both written about during his travels and missionary work. These letters carry the weight of canonicity and are a necessary contribution to the entire biblical testimony of Christ, faith, and practice.

Letters to Timothy & Titus

As Paul was a spiritual father to Timothy, he confided in him about his own sinfulness. Paul wrote of himself as the foremost of sinners. That is to say, he confessed to being the chief of sinners who blasphemed and violently persecuted the church (Acts 8:1-3, 1 Tim 1:13, 15; 1 Cor 15:9-10). In contrast, Paul also wrote that he was blameless regarding the law (Phil 3:6) and bore a clear conscience before God (Acts 23:1, 24:16). So what is the difference between the two?

On the one hand, he was chief of sinners, but on the other hand, he held a clear conscience before God. Was Paul sinless after his conversion on the Damascus road (Acts 9:1-8)? No, because he still contended with his flesh and was being made perfect. However, Paul was in perpetual grace, cleansed, forgiven, and justified before God through Christ. Not that Paul would then ignore the law or live a life of antinomianism, but he did believe in Jesus for eternal life to receive mercy. He was set free from sin, and Jesus selected him to become the Apostle to the Gentiles and serve as an example of Christ’s perfect patience to those who would believe in Him (1 Tim 1:16). Since Paul was the chief of sinners, Jesus makes a remarkable statement in the life of a highly sinful man about what He does to justify people for reconciliation and redemption by grace through faith apart from the works of the law.

Believers in Christ must abide in Him and persevere as He justifies everyone according to the Spirit who has vindicated Him (1 Tim 3:16). Said another way, you cannot out sin the grace of God and the perfect work of Christ by His death and resurrection. Putting to death sin and fighting it toward sanctification is made fruitful as believers who remain in Christ abide in Him. He has accomplished redemption and justification for everyone in Him as He lived a perfectly sinless life. Since He lived as Man who encountered temptation without sin, yet died to carry the sins of people to the grave while He was without sin, He rose from the dead to take with Him the sin He carried on behalf of everyone who believes for justification by faith.

It was Christ’s perfect obedience and holiness taken with Him to the cross where the sin of everyone who believes in Him would be abolished for all time (2 Tim 1:8-14). The forgiveness and abolition of sin make possible justification by faith in Christ Jesus, who reconciles believers to God. Furthermore, Jesus brought with Him the sin of believers where the spiritual consequences of death were crucified. Just as sin was abolished, so was death to produce spiritual immortality through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10). So anyone who believes in Christ and is found in Him benefits from His death and resurrection to eternal life (1 Cor 15:21).

Finally, Paul’s correspondence to Titus is consistent with previous letters carefully read to understand justification by grace through faith. To press the point further, Titus 3:7 specifically echoes the same terminology of Eph 2:8, “by grace,” as justification makes believers heirs of eternal life. According to the mercy of God, believers in Christ are saved not because of works, as earlier made clear, but by justification by grace through faith, for the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

The essay from Stephen J. Wellum entitled Behold, the Lamb of God is described as “Theology Proper and the Inseparability of Penal-Substitutionary Atonement from Forensic Justification and Imputation.” The author makes numerous scripturally supported claims that the atonement of Christ was a process of redemption that involved a payment of legal penalty by payment through substitution. Christ paid for people’s sins through His payment of the penalty to force an acquittal through declarative justification. The clear biblical support for Christ’s redemptive work as substitutionary support has Old Testament precedent and theological grounding. As justification is by faith in Christ (Rom. 3:28, 30; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 24), people escape condemnation and attain peace with God (Rom. 4:2; 5:1; 8:1).

The author makes the case that justification is possible through substitutionary atonement and the imputation of righteousness. The theory of penal substitutionary atonement (or “vicarious atonement”) is a theory prominent among protestant evangelicals who believe that Christ died in the place of sinful people to appease the wrath of God. Where the penalty of sin is death, Christ Jesus paid the penalty at His crucifixion on behalf of people guilty of sin who are subject to judgment. Another legal term, imputation, carries a meaning of credit or debit in a religious sense to believers who attain justification by atonement. As given by the biblical example of Leviticus 17:4, the death of an ox, lamb, or goat killed outside the camp was to become a bloodguilt imputed to the man guilty of the killing if the dead animal is not offered to the LORD as a gift. This imputation upon the guilty man represents the transferability of a debit to the man found in violation of God’s law concerning sacrificial offerings. Regulations concerning atonement in Leviticus are loaded with inferences concerning imputational atonement around sacrificial sin offerings.

A further point made is that justification and imputation go beyond the forgiveness of sins. There are two scriptural principles of justification that have a bearing on redemptive status and understanding beyond atonement. First, there is freedom and reconciliation where God has no further animosity or wrath toward sinful people whose sins are covered (Acts 13:39; Rom. 4:6–7; 5:9–21; 2 Cor. 5:19). Second, as justification involves redemption, there is a purpose to which believers become heirs as God’s children. The theological support from Paul’s letters to the church is clearly articulated for interpretation according to their intent. Romans 5:1-2 is a single pair of verses that reinforce both principles of justification to include access to God with joy through Christ Jesus.

The Reformers and some patristics held to substitutionary atonement among alternate atonement theories. Compared to the Governmental and Socinian views of the atonement, penal substitution is restorative to holy God who requires justice and truth to satisfy necessary retribution due to His nature. As full justification before God requires complete payment for sin, justice is satisfied by substitutionary for atonement, and Christ’s perfect obedience becomes imputed to believers for redemption and reconciliation. In the Arminian view, God could have chosen another method or means of justification other than through God as Christ Jesus having the blood of a perfectly innocent man to satisfy retributive justice from holy God by His nature. Perfect obedience and complete payment of sin are not required to satisfy God’s justice to prevent necessary wrath because of who He is. It is on these grounds that Christ’s imputed righteousness is rejected. To the Arminian (Methodist, Nazarene) view of justification, sinners are justified before God through Christ, satisfying God’s rectoral justice plus faith and repentance from a believer. Christ does not bear the penalty of divine retributive justice for us, nor is our guilt imputed to him and his righteousness to us (Wellum, 367). And Christ suffered and died, not as a satisfaction for the exact penalty, but as a token of God’s concern to uphold God’s moral law. The governmental view of atonement favors rectoral justice over retributive justice as it “dismisses the atonement of Christ as an exact payment of the penalty demanded by the retributive justice of God and His expressed law” (Wellum,368). This difference is a striking point of opposition as God withdraws the necessity of full payment and imputed righteousness and instead receives the repentance of believers directed toward Him by faith in Christ.

The penal-substitutionary position requires an inseparable relationship between it and forensic justification and imputation. In contrast, the Socinian-Classic Liberal Postmodern view of justice denies the sacrificial death of Jesus to satisfy fully God’s justice to prevent His due wrath against sin. The Socinian view also denies imputed righteousness to sinners. The repentance of believers is elevated over the position of Christ’s imputed righteousness as God forgives sinners and raises to eternal life believers who follow Christ and live virtuously. The Socinian view of Christ’s atonement emphasizes God’s love, mercy, and grace over justification. To Socinians, Christ died as a moral example, and there are various other reasons for His death other than to satisfy God’s retributive justice against sin.

There are three points of interest to consider for a plausible warrant and coherent view of penal substitution and the doctrine of justification. All three center around the triune God and the relationship that exists within His being. First, the trinity includes the Son, who is in eternal relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit. The Son has an immeasurable weight of significance as He redeems humanity to reclaim God’s chosen people through belief. Christ’s integral work within triune God demonstrates the love of God (John 3:16) and the presence of the Spirit at the cross. Second, the pactum salutis is the covenant of redemption that exists to fulfill the plan of salvation for those who would believe and become redeemed (Ps. 139:16; Eph. 1:4, 11; 1 Pet. 1:20). The satisfaction of justice the holiness of God requires is not detached from the trinitarian intent of redemption from His sovereign will. The existence of sin in its rebellion against God cannot be permitted to exist or remain through His creation. Third, the triune God is LORD over all the universe. Everything shall be in subjection to Him, and His righteousness demands the punishment of sin. His nature is holy, righteous, and just and while He keeps His promises, He must remain true to His name, glory, and essence. Everything and everyone shall honor and adhere to God’s moral standard. Yet, since He is kind, loving, and merciful, He redeems people through a process of justification that requires atonement for sin. The presence of sin and evil must be fully accounted for to satisfy the necessary removal and destruction of all rebellion and rejection of truth. Sin is enmity against God, and it must be removed from His people through faith in Christ and His process of justification through the atonement He ordained.

Catholic Doctrine of Justification

An understanding of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification comes from a necessary awareness of what occurred at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ, 1999) that occurred much later. Ruptures of the catholic church during the Protestant Reformation and Eastern Orthodox separation were due to accretions in unbiblical doctrines. The grievances of Luther listed by the 95 theses nailed to the door at the church door of Wittenberg were indicative of the wild departures from apostolic tradition, doctrines, and faith practices. Through the centuries, Roman Catholic teachings about justification, Scripture, faith, sin, authority, and worship became contentious points of opposition insurmountable over the text of Scripture that informed and shaped Protestant theology.

The Council of Trent, or the Concilium Tridentium, was a gathering of the Roman Catholic authorities to establish a Counter-Reformation or response to Protestant theology emergent outside Catholicism. The Council of Trent was a 25-session council meeting held in Trento, Italy, situated squarely within the Reformation Era (1545-1699). Its objectives were to reaffirm and update Catholic doctrines to codify its views and traditions against Protestant beliefs and doctrines forming around Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others. While there were various points of contention, meritorious works were necessary as a part of saving grace. The doctrine of justification within the Catholic Church was a highly contested matter at the Council of Trent, where the teachings of Catholicism were affirmed along with various other matters of objection among the Reformers.

To elaborate further on the doctrine of justification within the Catholic Church, Trent referred to three stages or states of justification it held as necessary for salvation. First, human free will must assent to the grace God predisposes to people, which is only done through baptism or the desire for it. A person can either accept and cooperate with the grace of God to believe and become justified by faith or reject it. The second stage involves the work of a baptized believer who must work hard to maintain justification until the end of life. Faith and works accompany a person’s efforts to keep the commandments (free or forgiven of venial or mortal sin). That is to say, a person is not justified by faith alone, but a justification for salvific merit includes grace, faith, and good works. The third stage involves lapses in justification as persons fall into sin. The sacraments of penance, confession, priestly absolution, and making satisfaction remain necessary for continued justification that attains to salvation. From Trent, these three stages are the framework of the Catholic Church’s doctrine of salvation (i.e., to which a person is forgiven and placed into right standing before God and saved).

Before the JDDJ in 1999, the first and second Vatican councils convened as separate ecumenical efforts to soften its language and posture to evangelicalism, secularism, and modern culture itself. The first Vatican Council (Vatican I, 1869-1870) was called to deal with advances in science, liberalism, and rationalism. It sought to form a constitution (Dei Filius) around the divine inspiration of Scripture and the primacy of the Roman Catholic pope’s office and its infallibility (Pastor Aeternus). The second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965) was assembled to promote the Catholic Church’s renewal and update its teachings, discipline, and organization. At the same time, the outcome of Vatican II involved changes to its liturgy and how it engaged with other churches within the covenant community. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church Catechism on justification (Article II) specifies the necessity of faith as conferred in baptism (CCC 1992) and merit for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2010), or by inference, the necessary justification to salvation.

The JDDJ was an event that sought to bring healing and unity to the Christian community. The joint declaration concerning the doctrine of justification involving both Lutheran and Catholic churches was not by consensus. There were numerous objections from those among the Catholic ranks. The Catholic Church needed to make various equivocations, concessions, and clarifications after the JDDJ was signed and put into effect. No change to the Roman Catholic doctrine on justification was made, while Lutherans made concessions about the necessity of baptism for justification (article 28 of the JDDJ). The grace of Jesus Christ is “imparted” at baptism according to article 30 to render a person eligible or open to accept or reject. Therefore, JDDJ, while it sought Christian unity and healing, it upheld the Trent declaration that grace is within a synergistic process of salvation.

According to Anthony N. S. Lane, in his book Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment, the following 15 issues were analyzed and identified between Catholics and Protestants. Among all of these issues, no changes or adjustments in Catholic doctrine were made from the JDDJ. Together they involve the doctrine of justification and the unreconciled differences between Catholics and Evangelicals.

Unresolved Differences of the JDDJ

Analysis of Subject Areas
1. The status of theological language
2. Taking charge of the biblical tension
3. The interpretation of historical precedent
4. The role of justification in the overall theological system
5. The consideration of human inability
6. The definition of justification
7. Imputation
8. The permanence of sin in the Christian
9. Faith alone
10. Baptism
11. Law and gospel
12. Lapse and the restoration
13. Merit and reward
14. Assurance of salvation
15. Magisterium

For purposes of ecumenical unity, some interpret articles 5 and 11 of the JDDJ as complimentary, while others view them in tension with one another. Article 5 refers to the jointly accepted biblical doctrine of justification held by Protestants, but article 11 continues to recognize that cooperation of infused grace is necessary through baptism. More plainly, from the JDDJ, Catholics in article 5 recognize faith is necessary for justification, but it also accompanies a synergistic process of cooperation through baptism where a believer on his merit must perform. To conclude the difference between the Lutherans and Catholics who signed the JDDJ, justification is not by faith alone. Whereas Reformed theology maintains that salvation is attained by faith alone, Protestant interpretation of Scripture does not support the doctrine of justification as held by the Roman Catholic Church.

Second Temple Works Righteousness

The perspective that Second Temple Judaism was a grace soteriology runs counter to what Paul and the author of Hebrews wrote about old covenant stipulations concerning Mosaic Law that involved obedience, ritual sacrifices, and ceremonial obligations. In contrast, as the Abrahamic covenant included offspring and land, and his belief was counted as righteousness (Gen 15:6), there was later the period of levitical sacrificial offerings for remediation of sin and uncleanliness as a limited Old Testament form of atonement. Yet Old Testament sacrificial offerings could never take away sins, and the only thing that justifies people before God is Jesus Christ (Heb 10:1-18). The period of the law before Jesus’ ministry work was thoroughly about works of the law as the people of Northern and Southern Israel paid heavily for covenant disobedience as they would not return to God in repentance from idolatry, religious ritualism, and social injustice. The period of judgment was a means to demonstrate Israel’s inability to keep the law and that a new covenant would become necessary as foretold within the Adamic covenant (Gen 3:15).

The period of second temple Judaism overlapped with the arrival of Christ and His ministry during the first century. It was then the prophet’s message would become fulfilled about God’s law written on the hearts of His people (Ezek 11:19, 36:26, Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10). The fulfillment of the law arrived through Christ, who would usher in a covenant of grace to rest upon the Kingdom of God on Earth for those who would believe by faith in Him. Christ was the fulfillment of the law and prophets (Matt 5:17) so that grace, not law, would prevail within the hearts of His people as believers who love Him does what He says.

Writers and advocates of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) follow E.P. Sanders’ work of “covenantal nomism.” First introduced in 1977, Sanders’ work entitled “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” offered the terms Covenantal and Nomism to claim that second temple Judaism accepts salvation by grace as valid, but its maintenance was through Mosaic Law. Specifically, the Mosaic covenant involved the free grace of God, as shown to Israel, but it was necessary to sustain law-keeping and keep oneself in the covenant to inherit salvation. The term nomism (from the Greek nomos, law) originates from the notion that ethical and moral observance of the law involves personal conduct. In his Systematic Theology, Grudem defines Covenantal Nomism as the belief of Jews during the time of Christ who obeyed Mosaic laws out of gratitude to remain God’s people. Still, an initial inheritance of salvation was by election and grace. To remain the people of God, it was necessary to “stay in” or continue in the faith by satisfying the Mosaic law to maintain the covenant. Covenantal Nomism is correlated to a marriage covenant where marriage is maintained by effort, continued intimacy, and consummation once vows are made.

In contrast to Covenantal Nomism, Variegated Nomism involves Jews within 2nd temple Judaism who held that salvation was through law-keeping by various ideas. To both attain and maintain salvation, legalism extended through the lives of individuals by different means of covenantal adherence. The distinction between the two rests upon the various forms of Judaism that held a keeping of the law by covenant, gratitude, and faith, to set a person on a path of justification involving progressive sanctification for final eschatological salvation. Both reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and personal belief (union with Christ) as considered righteousness.

As Robert J. Cara sets the record straight about grace and works righteousness within the second temple period, he calls attention to numerous extra-biblical and ancient rabbinic sources. Writings discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), pseudepigraphical literature, the Mishna (rabbinic oral traditions foundational to Judaism), and the Tosefta (supplemental to the Mishna) offered exhaustive evidence about the necessity of righteous acts and merit by law-keeping to attain eschatological salvation. Cara further contests James Dunn’s views about “covenantal faithfulness” as he refers to the scheme of works righteousness contrary to biblical principles of salvation by grace through faith.

Cara further elaborates upon N.T. Wright’s perspective about “getting in” and “staying in” the new covenant provided you perform what is right and good before God.” (Cara, 163) N.T. Wright specifically writes (4QMMT C 30-32):

“If through prayer and the moral strength that God supplies (C 28–29) you keep these precepts, you will rejoice at the end of time, in finding that the advice given, this selection of commands, was on the right track. That is when (C 31) ‘it will be reckoned to you as righteousness when you perform what is right and good before him.’”

This position is works-righteousness theology. It contradicts the verbiage written concerning Abraham and God’s covenant with him, “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6, Rom 4:9). This “believed” the LORD is explicitly defined by the root manuscript Hebrew language to “have trust in, to believe in, God.” Moreover, Paul’s use of the term “faith” for justification coincides with that type of belief resulting in eschatological salvation.

For further in-depth review, see James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,” concerning The New Perspective on Paul, 339–45 (originally published in NTS 43, no. 1, 1997); and N. T. Wright, “4QMMT and Paul: Justification, ‘Works,’ and Eschatology,” in History and Exegesis ed. Sand-Won Son (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). Root rationale concerning works-righteousness theology stems from the contributions of Dunn and Wright as they build upon Sander’s insistence on justification through initial covenantal grace followed by required merit and performance for salvation.

Augustine of Hippo vigorously opposed the views of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright as the New Perspective on Paul advocates for a covenantal faithfulness to earn salvation. As the British monk Pelagius believed people were able to live holy lives to merit salvation by good works, Augustine recognized the theological error in contradiction to the authoritative perspective of Paul concerning salvation by grace through faith alone. While NPP adherents are not full-blown Pelagians, they are semi-Pelagians as they advocate a synergistic approach to the salvation of humanity. The synergistic work of God and mankind for individuals to attain salvation by works-righteousness infers a partial efficacy of Christ’s sacrificial work at His execution. Jesus fulfilled the law, and believers by faith who love Him live by the Spirit to abide in Him and do what He wants under the new covenant of grace.

Inseparability of Justification and Sanctification

The essay from R. Lucas Stamps entitled Faith Works is subtitled as “Properly Understanding the Relationship between Justification and Sanctification.” The paper examines three views of the relationship between justification and sanctification. Conflation, separation, and integration of the two are examined for their scriptural merit for understanding and practical rationale. First, to understand sanctification, a theological definition is in order. Sanctification is a process of being brought into complete conformity with Christ. It is the mode of being by which a person is set apart and made more holy. Christians spiritually transformed by justification are rendered holy through Christ but continually grow in sanctification as they strive toward holiness. Sanctification involves cooperation with the indwelling Holy Spirit within a believer’s life with participation in the disciplines of Godly living. To include immersion in the Word of God, prayer, fellowship, worship, training, outreach, charity, and more, the life of a believer becomes less in conformance to the values of the world to live a holy and moral life in honor of God. Further removed from sin, believers are sanctified in pursuit of holiness, as described by the Westminster confession.

Westminster Confession of Faith Definition of Sanctification

They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

With an understanding of the different perspectives around broad and coarse relationships between justification and sanctification, it’s necessary to recognize that Reformed soteriology is a distinct soteriological position where both are separated to achieve an intended purpose. Reformers separate the remission of sin and imputation of Christ’s righteousness (justification) from the practice of personal righteousness and the holy pursuit of living (sanctification). To the Reformers, justification is a conversion event for a change of positional status, while sanctification is a washing of regeneration and renewal of the inner person by the indwelling Spirit.

Reformers’ objections to the Augustinian tradition about justification brought strong opposition from the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent. While the Reformers held to a forensic (legal) understanding of justification for the remission of sins, the Tridentine model of atonement was, by contrast, an entirely different perspective from the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) from the Council of Trent saw justification as a curative or healing event or process to restore a person’s status before God. The canons and decrees from Trent that RCC adopted involved the following understandings about soteriological atonement: 7

“Justification translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Saviour.” [This movement from sinful nature to grace] “cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire.”

In this definition, a “laver” refers to a bowl of rinsing and washing for ritual use by a priest. And the author draws attention to the RCC’s adherence to Trent as it adopted its position of justification around regeneration as a curative matter that involved a spiritual washing at conversion. As Titus 3:5 makes use of the phrase, “by the washing of regeneration,” or more fully and explicitly, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” It is, therefore, apparent that justification and regeneration by washing are combined or fused into a single redemptive meaning. However, as Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, he separated the terms “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified” by the Spirit of God to make a point that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:11, 1-11). Therefore, the discontinuity between Scripture and the declaration of Trent that conflates the relationship between justification and sanctification does not appear to hold an exclusive claim on the nature of the relationship other than tradition in the absence of scriptural authority.

The second perspective on the relationship between justification and sanctification entirely severs the correlated necessity between them. Antinomian rejection of requirements of the new covenant responsibilities ignores the inner working purpose of sanctification and works of grace for personal holiness. A process of sanctification separate from saving faith renders it unnecessary in the mind of an Antinomian believer who holds to a “free grace” conviction. Saving faith from an Antinomian perspective views faith as mental assent to the truth of God. At the same time, the work of Christ for justification is limited in reach without concern for personal holiness and perseverance. Without a heart’s desire to live in holiness according to Christ’s instructions, the severed relationship between justification and sanctification contradicts what Scripture says about holiness or sanctification (Heb 12:14) that follows justification.

 Finally, Stamps brings attention to the integration between justification and sanctification from a position of Reformed theology. He notes that Calvin asserted that justification and sanctification are not separate. However, Calvin also maintained they are yet distinct. He went on to claim that justification holds a higher priority than sanctification. He viewed justification as foundational toward sanctification as salvation is necessary to assure a meaningful life of sanctified living. Union with Christ is necessary as a foundational position in which growth or a life course in sanctification takes place with necessary grounding. In this way, Calvin refers to both justification and sanctification as a double grace by necessity in which both are at work in a believer (Stamps, 518). As God is holy, He instructs His redeemed people to be holy (Lev 19:2).

The Ordo Salutis

Under the tradition of Reformed soteriology, the golden chain of redemption (ordo salutis) articulated in Romans 8:29-30 offers a sequence of thought around Pauline theology:

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” 

The clear separation between “conformance to the image of the Son” (sanctification) and “he also justified” indicates a functional partitioning by a definition of terms in this passage to indicate linear activity. Or the presence of concurrent and overlapping work to satisfy Christ’s desire to become firstborn among God’s offspring. In a sense, the salvific work of Christ is both from spiritual death and from captivity to sin after justification. There is a unity in the saving work of God that is inseparable.            

A believer that becomes born-again has a transformative experience that is followed by necessary work from the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit’s presence within a person isn’t passive but active to assure spiritual formation toward increasing sanctification for the interests of God where people progressively become satisfied in Him. From a careful reading of Ephesian 2:10, it is abundantly apparent that we are created as the workmanship of God to perform good works and so that Christ Jesus would “show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us” (Eph 2:7). God wants to be in fellowship with His people. He loves His children, and He wants to dwell among us. To do that, He has informed us about how He intends to do that through both justification and sanctification.

Citations

______________________
1 Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 69.
2 Andrew David Naselli, “The Righteous God Righteously Righteouses the Unrighteous: Justification according to Romans,” in The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. Matthew Barrett (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 230-235.
3 Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 683.; William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 390.
4 G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (GrandRapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 475.
5 Brandon Crowe, “‘By Grace You Have Been Saved through Faith’: Justification in the Pauline Epistles,” in The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. Matthew Barrett (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 261.
6 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2318.
7 The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. H. J. Schroeder (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1978), 31.


The Vertical Truth

In Matthew Barrett’s book, The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls, contributing author Andrew Naselli makes a stratospherically important point about the centrality of Paul’s theology on justification. He calls attention to Luther’s notes about the matter.1 Luther wrote of Romans 3:21-26 as follows, “the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle [to the Romans], and of the whole Bible.” Specifically, Naselli uses Moo’s observations about Martin Luther’s notes on Paul’s passage to the Romans. The passage is critical to our study of justification. The heart of the doctrine is “the righteousness of God that empowers the gospel to mediate salvation to sinful human beings.”2

So as a matter of course, this section of Romans 3:21-26 must be carefully parsed. To ruminate on it and let it saturate every part of our capacity to reason and accept truth. 

Romans 3:21-26   Justification by Faith

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ 23 for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Parsed Outline (Naselli, 221-222)

  1. God’s righteousness is revealed from the OT law and the prophets. (Rom 3:21)
  2. All have sinned yet have access to God’s righteousness through exclusive faith in Christ. (Rom 3:22-23)
  3. Source of justification made clear through faith in Christ received as a free gift to people redeemed by His blood to satisfy God’s justice and wrath (propitiation). “In-Christ-redemption is the instrument of grace to bring about justification.… Justification occurs through in-Christ-redemption, which is the instrument of grace.” (Rom 3:24-25a)
  4. Integrity of God plus his character as righteous and just to hold back His anger to appease righteous divine wrath against sin. The just and justifier gives righteous status to people as He passed over sins committed and atoned for through the blood of Christ. So here it is revealed the gospel is an expression of God’s attributes of righteousness and justice. (Rom 3:25b-26)

Just as Luther, Moo, and many other expositors have made super clear, Naselli offers the four-point review above of what Morris called the most important single paragraph ever written.”4  

The polemic to a proper understanding and acceptance of the doctrine of justification rests upon a new covenant biblical principle of soteriological meaning.

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is an effort to redefine justification as made clear by the apostle Paul (Rom 3:21-26). Not so much to affect what justification does in terms of its salvific merit but to redirect it toward the interests of cultural Marxism and liberation theology. In the form of Sanders’ covenantal nomism, NPP attempts to necessitate the maintenance of salvation by orienting it toward the cultural well-being of people (a State interest). Justification becomes fundamentally about ecclesiology and not soteriology (Cara, 231). Paul has explicitly and authoritatively informed millions over thousands of years that justification is vertical, not horizontal (Romans 1:17, 3:21-26, 9:30-10:13).

NPP is an effort to detach the meaning and warnings of scripture concerning justification to suit the interests of society, culture, and the State around liberation theology. A theology of grievance concerning the “marginalized” (i.e., feminism, marriage, sex, gender, and abortion activists coupled with ethnic and racial disparities that need attention). That which divides people of truth is diabolical. That which intermingles and draws them to darkness is satanic. 

Cultural Marxists who capture and guide woke social justice ideology shape progressive Christians to form various ecclesiological efforts. Marxism pushes toward a revisionist understanding of biblical justification through cultural pressures for reparational and restorative institutional and theological “justice” to acquire its desire for power. To NPP, justification is about social order toward the interests of liberation theology advocates who want unfettered lifestyles and egalitarian insistence contradictory to explicit biblical language about what’s unacceptable and forbidden to profane the Imago Dei. 

On April 14th, 2022, Carl R. Trueman posted an article entitled “Rowan Williams and our Sentimental Age.” In this article, Trueman makes it completely clear that the esteemed academic scholar (Williams) has advocated for State mandated LGBT lifestyle acceptance within the church. The current Arch Bishop of Canterbury favors same-sex “marriage.” N.T. Wright, a prominent advocate of NPP, is a bishop of the Anglican church. Many pastors and priests across all denominations advocate for the ghetto of theological exploration to recast doctrine toward social interests. Specifically to render people susceptible or trapped by the false social doctrine of NPP.

________________
Andrew David Naselli, “The Righteous God Righteously Righteouses the Unrighteous: Justification according to Romans,” in The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. Matthew Barrett (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 220–221. Here Naselli quotes Douglas Moo’s observations in the Luther Bible with Luther’s margin notes (Epistle to the Romans, 1st ed, 281n1). 
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 219.
Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 114. Campbell skillfully synthesizes justification and union with Christ; see 388–405.
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 173.


The Nicene Affirmation

It was entirely revealing to me that the criteria of Christ’s deity and biblical Christology are articulated in the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. Here we have an extra-biblical document that supports the doctrine of Christ’s deity before sola scriptura as framed by Martin Luther (1483-1546). Even while the creed was updated and made more explicit in defense of the Arian controversy, it was highly influenced by “Rule of Faith” teaching and experiences within the early Church. It was the foundation of all seven ecumenical councils while canonical formations ran concurrently.

Among other attempts to determine what’s authoritative, Athanasius comes along decades later (after Nicea) and works within the church body to form the canon of Scripture. Where an assembled 66-books set a standard for faith and practice. Over 1,000 years later, the Reformation arrives at the five Solas to assert the biblical grounding for Christological belief to become more distant from apostolic oral tradition, historical practice, creedal statements,1 and early Christian Hymns.2 Supposed errors in belief from first and second-century “Rule of Faith” approaches to the development of doctrine became an impetus toward the later hardening of Christology and the deity of Jesus.  

Nicene Creed (325 A.D.)
This council occurred before the formation of the canon of Scripture as the final recognized closed canon at the Third Synod of Carthage as shepherded by Athanasius. It was then and from there twenty-seven books of the New Testament were formed, recognized, and accepted. From the Synod of Carthage, the canon of Athanasius was locked in place AFTER THE NICENE CREED was formed. Prior to that, the OT was already settled as the 22 books within the closed canon to eventually constitute a single OT and NT codex.

HANDS: Five Criteria of Deity1
Honors: Jesus shares the honors due to God.
Attributes: Jesus shares the attributes of God.
Names: Jesus shares the names of God.
Deeds: Jesus shares in the deeds that God does.
Seat: Jesus shares the seat of God’s throne.

Nicene Creed Excerpt (to retroactively validate the deity of Christ according to Bowman):

We believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ [honors], the only Son of God, eternally [attributes] begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God [names]; begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father [attributes].

Through him all things were made [deeds].

For us and for our salvation [deeds] he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father [seat]. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead [deeds], and his kingdom will have no end [seat].

I have much more work ahead to understand what occurred from the patristics to include Clement, Athanasius, the Didache, those who attended Nicea, Constantinople, and various others. I have the 22-volume Ante and Post-Nicene library of writings. 

Proclamations, and doctrines of the reformation are foundational, but I think I’m going to check myself. —You know, trust but verify.— If I find out from the patristics that doctrinal truths are not as though they’re asserted, due to modernist or post-modern perspectives (to include the Reformers), I’m going to have questions and objections.

_______________________________
1
 Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007), 276.
Daniel Liderbach, Christ in the Early Christian Hymns (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998), 37.


A Defense of Objective Truth

Truth is subjective to many people and relative to Christians and atheists alike. Subjectivism, as such, is the rejection of objective truth for a wide array of reasons. Atheists and anti-theists generally share a secular creed tacit in nature to declare there is no God. There is no objective truth. There is no ground for Reason. There are no absolute Morals. There is no ultimate Value. There is no ultimate Meaning. There is no eternal hope.1 In the mind of those who hold a worldview of subjectivism, everything is permitted without social constraints—notably, including people who attend and lead churches who do not accept the authority and truth of Scripture as God’s word. To “believers” or “Christians” who live as there is only limited objective truth, do so from a position of upholding the mantra of diversity, equity, and inclusion as a necessary and overriding social doctrine to shape false faith and errant practices.

Anti-theists or atheists outright opposed or indifferent to the existence of God make it clear and consistent that Christians who believe in God are deluded, misguided, or just people who never really grew up. Christians, across the board among every denomination or tradition without exception, hold varying degrees of acceptance concerning the objective truth of the gospel and Scripture. Consequently, most congregations are egalitarian. Very many favor same-sex marriage, tolerate promiscuous lifestyles, advocate homosexuality, ordain female pastors, adopt critical theory, accede to social justice violence, liberation theology, feminism, and numerous other conditions of social decay within the church. In contradiction to Jesus, our Messiah, and Apostles James, John, Peter, Paul, and others were crystal clear about objective truth concerning the gospel, repentance, sin, and Godly living. A survey of social media interaction among too many clergies and laity across a wide swath of denominations, from conservative to liberal ideologies, informs the culture of social positions opposed to objective truth as made clear through the authority of God’s word as His voice of instruction, redemption, and warning to humanity. The poison of subjectivism is thoroughly ingrained within the culture and the church. Where C.S. Lewis informs his readers that beliefs about moral judgments which are exclusively subjective to the individual or community are the poison of subjectivism that eventually leads to the destruction of society, beginning with traditional Christian morality.2

This post offers a defense of objective truth as made clear through the intent and meaning of canonical Holy Scripture as transmitted from ancient manuscripts. Conversely, when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth,” he spoke from a position of cynically subjective understanding to show itself as spiritually vacant from Christ and His word as Truth. To define truth is itself an objectivist position. An alternative or relative definition of truth per se to the subjectivist is unwanted or strained at best. According to Aristotle, truth is defined in terms of ordinary people in a pragmatic sense, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.” 3

Jesus defined Himself as the embodiment of Truth (Jn 1:14, 17, 14:6, 1 Jn 5:20). As transliterated from Greek as alētheia, He spoke of Himself in conformance to reality. His being as the embodiment of truth concerns Himself as Messiah and all He claimed, especially about a person’s access to eternal life and God the Father. True God revealed in Christ Jesus was and is made objectively evident “as what is is, and what is not is not, is true,” as Aristotle has put it. Not from subjective rationale stemming from alternate theories of truth to escape revelatory details of actual reality with corresponding metaphysical and philosophical support. “Telling it like it is” corresponds to facts about a matter objectively ascertained independently of a knower and his consciousness. Truth, in general, presupposes commonsense notions of reality, and if anything does not conform to reality, as a practical matter, theory or otherwise, that is by definition false.4 Therefore, a person can consequently frame observation of reality and its corresponding truth in terms of denial or acceptance.

Alternative theories of truth to counter subjectivistic thought, or subjective truth, can offer some perspective as conversations involving disbelief among atheists or unbiblical and sinful behaviors from Christians become evident or come up in conversations. The “what is true for me is not necessarily true for you” holds no credibility in opposition to objective truth. Four theories are generally understood to render universal and religious subjectivism meaningless.

First, a pragmatic theory of truth is Truth that works relatively. It’s a relativistic form of thought that ultimately becomes impractical because it devolves into an unending pursuit of pragmatic or destructive outcomes as an ongoing means to an end until circularity or exhaustion is reached. Second, the empiricist’s theory of truth is what someone would view truth as a function of sensory perception. Without empirical evidence to support rationalistic assertions concerning God and spiritual or supernatural objects of faith, false conclusions are made a priori that such terms and meaning are incomprehensible. Third, rationalists’ view of truth concerns human reason as the judge of reality and must distinctly be understood within cognitive reasoning alone. It is the denial that many truths cannot be proved, such as the law of noncontradiction. Finally, the coherence theory of truth that considers various sets of ideas can yield contradictory conclusions that are actually incoherent. Facts the way they really are can correspond to coherence theory, while a situation evident from another perspective can demonstrate otherwise to produce another contradiction. Coherence theory generally relies upon presuppositions of truth without objective and comprehensive facts as evidentially valid.

Individual abandonment of objective truth would cause a further precipitous decay within society and civilization in general. Atheist and Christian denials of truth as revealed through Creation and God’s word for purposes of convenience, preferences, or social utility erode an ability to comprehend revelation by grace either way. People are not created as necessary beings, but contingent beings grounded by actual alētheic existence with objective truth as a divinely instituted construct and requirement. Without being in fellowship with God, who expects acceptance and adherence to objective truth, both atheists and professing Christians naturally arrive at a place of confusion and misery, often eternally. The objective truth of the gospel and Scripture points to Jesus, who wants people to accept objective truth and come into fellowship with Him and the Father for salvific purposes. People who deny objective truth, or passively dismiss it, have no room for repentance and recognition of sin as made explicit by the authority of Scripture.5 To deny objective truth is what Apostle Paul warns about as a matter of principle with eternally damning consequences (Rom 1:18-32).

Paradoxical truth does not contradict objective truth as revealed and made evident in a natural sense throughout creation. Collisions in faith and reason do not somehow run up against the consistency of logic, but merely point to an inability to process observations and arrive at coherent conclusions due to the limitations of human cognition. While Richard Niebuhr’s (1894-1962) theological work attempted to shape knowledge of objective truth within a relativistic framework, he reasoned that universal truth could be obtained through historical traditions and relativism. Partially to explain the Western drive of denominationalism, he took a specific long-term interest between unity and diversity within the church. It was splintering at a growing rate in the 1950s, and he sought to bring the church into wider cultural acceptance within secular society to suit modern life. 6 The proliferation of church denominations is in the thousands. The largest convention in the U.S. (Southern Baptist Convention) is in a crisis of unity due to its partial acceptance of objective truth. For the same reason, Episcopalian and Lutheran churches have lost hundreds of thousands of members over the course of recent years. Other denominations have become more fragmented.

By further comparison, John Stott (1921-2011), an Anglican priest of evangelical tradition, wrote, “In our post-modern era, the self-confidence of the Enlightenment has gone, the very concept of objective ‘truth’ is rejected, and all that remains are purely personal and subjective opinions.” He wrote this perspective in 2001 to indicate the trajectory of social culture downstream from the church. Consequently, the state of civilization is in upheaval with violence, gender dysphoria, political unrest, political corruption, wars, and corporate greed, unlike any time before in history. Every bit of which serves as evidence of a departure from objective truth as the grounding of faith and morality in obedience to God’s prescriptive order. Consider entertainment and the state of academic institutions. Consider the widespread and deep infestation of subjectivism within local churches at the hands of leaders who believe what God has revealed in His Word but have not surrendered to objective truth to the growing demise of society at large.

Citations

________________
1 Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 67.
2 Dr. Alan K. Snyder, “Lewis’s “Poison of Subjectivism” in Our Day” Southeastern University, Lakeland Florida, Accessed 11 April. 2022. https://ponderingprinciples.com/2017/12/16/lewiss-poison-of-subjectivism-in-our-day/
3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Books I–XIV; Oeconomica; Magna Moralia, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. Hugh Tredennick and G. Cyril Armstrong, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1933–1935), 201.
4 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 135.
5 John R. Franke, “Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible as Witness to Missional Plurality,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 288.
6 Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
7 John Stott, The Incomparable Christ (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 66.


The Deity of Christ

The book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ begins with Part one, entitled “The Devotion Revolution: Jesus Shares the Honors Due to God.” There are five parts of the book which correspond to a helpful acronym concerning the deity of Christ. HANDS, which stands for Honors, Attributes, Names, Deeds, and Seat, is a fitting and memorable way to retrieve biblical and decisive facts about Jesus’ deity. Part two is entitled “Like Father, Like Son: Jesus Shares the Attributes of God.” The following section is entitled “Name Above All Names: Jesus Shares the Names of God,” part three of the book. Next, Part Four is entitled “Infinitely Qualified: Jesus Shares in the Deeds that God Does.” Finally, Part five is the last section of the book entitled “The Best Seat in the House: Jesus Shares the Seat of God’s Throne.” While all five areas consist of numerous chapters, the authors make a comprehensive Old and New Testament case about the deity of Christ before presenting their conclusions.

The Honors of Christ

While the book’s title intends to evoke provocative interest, it is a somewhat culturally cynical way of situating a reader’s view about the rightful place and status of Jesus as God. Some chapters similarly communicate ideas to introduce the subject matter, but the book is not without exceptional subject matter and substance at both academic and theological levels. The book is a treasure of meaningful value concerning the deity of Jesus and is not to be taken lightly. The text is replete with intertextual references to Jesus as God well beyond His earthly offices as Prophet, Priest, King, and Messiah.

As the beginning of the book traverses Scripture to detail the numerous ways Jesus is glorified and worshiped as God, various participants are highlighted in explicit detail. Background facts concerning the historical practice of worship involved numerous New Testament references back to the Old Testament that connects to Christ Himself before He was born. Moreover, the methods of worship given in songs or by doxology and praise reference back to the same styles of reverence. Biblical writers persistently call attention to the due recognition and attention to Jesus the Messiah as Christ of the New Testament. Glory, Honor, and Praise was directed exclusively to Jesus, as made evident during the new covenant looking back through the prophets, poetry, and law narratives.

Exhaustive references are given about who the participants of worship include. Readers are given accounts of angels and disciples of Christ worshiping Jesus as God from specific historical instances in clear detail. It is demonstrated that there is no ambiguity about Jesus’ identity as God as His followers and creatures give Him due honor and glory. From the Old Testament to the New, worshipers of Christ widened in scale to eventually include everyone (Phil 2:10-11). How Jesus is worshiped within the gospels and the apocalyptic account of Revelation correspond to Scriptural details about total worship, including specifics concerning where, how, and why.

As Jesus was and is thoroughly recognized as God, He was the object of worship to assure confidence that He is deity. Specifically, as a deity is an object of prayer by definition, He remained the recipient of prayers shortly after His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. For example, recall the martyr Stephen’s prayer right before being stoned to death, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59-60). Stephen’s act of prayer was an explicit acknowledgment and testimony of Jesus as God. His final act of life before death was an act of worship to God in the person of Jesus Christ.

From the first century, apostles, disciples, and believers, prayers were uttered before Jesus as forms of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. Apostle Paul himself prayed for deliverance from an infirmity (2 Cor 12:8-9), and there were ongoing intercessions among members of the early church as Jesus invited His followers to prayer (John 14:14). Prayers offered were heard and answered as further evidence of Jesus’ deity, as made clear by recorded outcomes within the post-ascension New Testament.

Just as a deity is an object of prayer, God is an object of praise and worship by song and hymns. Songs of affection offered to Lord Jesus are further tacit acknowledgment, if not direct, of Christ as God. Songs and hymns of passion from the heart represent affections and devotions to God in the person of Jesus to further proclaim Him as divinity because of who He is, what He has done, and what His promises are. Worship and praise toward Jesus are an expression of authentic adoration given by the book of Psalms and materials unique to the first-century devotion from the heart. Whether individually or in a gathering of people, worship was a steady and specific way of encountering God as the deity of Jesus.

It can not be concluded that to worship Jesus as God is to exclude God the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself said that honor toward the Son is honor of the Father (John 5:23). Further references in honor of God call attention to belief in Christ in unison (John 14:1). Various examples demonstrate that God is the primary object of faith (Mark 11:22, Heb 6:1, Heb 11:6). Fear and reverence are the dispositions of the heart and mind among believers during worship. For example, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah instructs Israel to regard the LORD as holy and let Him be their fear and their dread (Isa. 8:12-13). The fear in this instance is not to revere as apparent among other passages having a sider semantic range. The fear in this context and semantic use is actual fear as an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm. Moreover, in this passage (ESV), “dread”‘ is to terrify or undergo a terrifying experience.1 By comparison, the reverence of Christ as God, as charged by Paul (Eph 5:21), is rendered as “the fear of Christ.” In this case, the underlying linguistic use of the term “fear” is a reverence or deep respect by definition and not out of alarm, terror, or fright.2

 Further worship of Christ involves rites or sacraments of observance as He requires of His followers. Such practices directed toward another person, perhaps even venerated, would not historically or presently apply to a mortal being. The practice of rites instructed by Jesus, such as communion and baptism, involved the efforts of believers and followers to acknowledge and revere Him as God since it is demonstrated He was not merely a mortal being. Devotion to Christ involves obedience and service to Him out of an obligation of love, just as it was within the Old Testament. As made clear, the love for God pronouncement through the Shema (Deut 6:4-9) is also supported by further passages (Ex 20:6, Deut 5:10, Deut 11:1) that reflect what Jesus spoke of concerning obedience (John 14:15, John 14:21, John 15:10). As a direct correlation between the love of God as Father to include the Son and Holy Spirit, Christ has a rightful claim as God to what is due by worship from a heart of devotion, affection, and obedience.

The Attributes of Christ

While part one of the book about Christ’s deity concerns honors due to Him, part two is dedicated to His attributes. When considering His attributes, it is helpful to think through them relative to God the Father, as evident throughout the Old Testament. It is also useful to understand His attributes by way of definition as they’re properties or quality characteristics of Christ as God. To attain an essential understanding of His attributes, there are qualities about Him distinct from characteristics essential to His being. For example, God is well-known as holy, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, but some would associate goodness and love with His essential being. Conversely, many others would scripturally demonstrate that goodness, love, and perfection are set within God’s attributes.

One might infer that God’s incarnate and bodily dwelling as Jesus is limited, but that assertion contradicts what Paul wrote as “the fullness of God” within Christ (Col 1:19). As God is deity, it must follow that deity resides within Christ entirely. The bodily incarnation of God as Christ resides within Him as it is authoritatively written, “for in Him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9). This is to say that the attributes of God and the essence of His being carries over to Christ. By the nature of Christ observed as God, the Father is in Him (John 14:10) to reveal Him as deity and the attributes that follow accordingly. It can not be concluded to the contrary that Jesus is separate from the Father or as a free-standing God or deity who possesses the exact attributes. Jesus is the perfect expression of the invisible God who always was in existence before His time with humanity on Earth (John 8:58).

As Christ has always existed eternally with God the Father and Holy Spirit as God, He was also present during generations past throughout Old Covenant history. Before Christ in the flesh lived, He was active among the patriarchs and prophets to give biblical evidence of this deity further. He attests to His involvement with ancient Israel to further support His claim to deity. He even says as much by declaring His dismay at Israel’s persistent obstinance (Matt 23:37, Luke 13:34). The context of Jesus’ heartfelt dismay at Israel corresponds to their rejection and killing of prophets who claimed to have been sent as God to protect them from sure judgment if they were to persist in rebellion.

Apostle Paul further shows that Christ, before God incarnate, was in the wilderness with Israel as the rock that was struck to produce water to quench their thirst for survival (1 Cor 10:4). He wrote explicitly that Christ was the rock that existed long before His presence on Earth as Jesus early in the first century. Some would argue that the rock was a type of Christ, but that is not what Paul wrote explicitly. The scriptural assertion that Jesus was the rock present among ancient Israelites further reinforces His divine nature, an attribute of eternality. Before Moses, Jesus claimed before Jewish leaders that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58). The strenuous objection of the Jewish leaders who took offense knew what Jesus claims as they knew that His claim of divinity would require His existence before His birth to therefore conclude He is God.

As if it wasn’t enough to claim his eternal status and existence before His followers and Jewish leaders, He performed many miracles of astonishing significance. The miracles in themselves were assuredly alarming and spectacular to witness, but the implications concerning He who performed those miracles were of far greater gravity. Questions concerning who and what must such a man be to carry out such actions (on numerous occasions) required anyone and everyone to contemplate who He claimed to be. Those who opposed Him and rejected Him knew exactly who He was, just as they did the prophets. The weight of their opposition added further credibility and strength to Christ’s claims about His divinity.

The depth of theological discourse continues around Christ’s divinity regarding His aseity, immutability, and transcendence. Jesus’ existence before He took bodily form is made apparent among numerous biblical passages of historical validity. Scriptural support for His existence offers detail about what that entailed (John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16). It can not be overstated what His continuing roles were during the course of Creation events, as it is purported to have created all things (Col 1:16). Moreover, aside from Apostle Paul, the least of the Apostles (1 Cor 15:9), John the beloved, with direct one-to-one interaction with Christ, wrote, “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being” (John 1:3). As sure as a declarative statement can get concerning Jesus’ divinity, a first-hand witness account of Christ’s life and teachings reveal Him as Creator God.

In answer to anyone who claims Christ was created, there is a contradiction in the translation of Proverbs 8:22. The NRSV rendering, “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago,” corresponds to NET, ISV, LEB, and LXX translations with the term “created” as compared to “possessed” among various other English translations. In his systematic theology, Grudem wrote that Proverbs 8:22 should not be understood as a reference to the Son of God but rather wisdom personified.3  However, it was also his view that the LORD “possessed” wisdom and did not create it.4  Moreover, the term “created” as rendered from the root language (and the Septuagint) to English is probably a homonym for “possessed” with the same spelling that has different meanings and origins.

Jehovah’s Witness (JW) claims that Christ is a created being as interpreted from Prov 8:22, Col 1:15, and Rev 3:14 stand in contradiction to John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10–12. However, JW’s use of the “beginning” is generalized within the context of Christ as firstborn creation chronologically situated in time. More specifically, time itself had already been created for Jesus to become the beginning (to create all things). So the intended use of terms to explain conditions contrary to the nature of God and Christ’s being (and attributes) is made definitive and clear elsewhere as a matter of support for Jesus’ claims of divinity and aseity.

To further consider Christ’s divine nature, His immutability comes from numerous Scriptural passages and Old Testament inferences. However, no biblical reference is likely so explicit as Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Furthermore, during His time with humanity, numerous life events involved His character and actions to demonstrate His impeccable behaviors as a man consistent with His divine nature. Christ’s permanence and endless ways are enduring to help explain the conditions in which all things are created through Him.

The final areas of interest about Christ’s attributes are His omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and incomprehensibility. To more directly put it, Christ’s divine nature is especially made evident by what he accomplished and claimed while present among people during the first century. His accomplishments were not merely achievements of human merit but thoroughly supernatural to make abundantly clear His capabilities as an attestation of what He claimed and required. God’s presence among people as Christ was His way of calling attention to their condition with proof of who He is. While there was a repugnant ongoing effort to deny Him as the Son of God, Messiah, and incarnate God, Jesus’ actions and His attributes could not be denied or dismissed through opposition or indifference. His actions demanded attention from everyone because they revealed who He is and what He claimed as true. No matter resistance, opposition, or inattention, His supernatural work preceding His death, resurrection, and ascension set the course of history for all time.

According to numerous biblical accounts of Jesus’ human nature, there is no question He endured physical limitations. He slept, ate, drank, and became tired and thirsty, yet He also made evident His omnipotence during His ministry. Through humility, He at times set aside His divine nature and emptied Himself to live as fully man among people. Yet, He fed thousands of people with scant food materials (Matt 14:15-21), removed demonic spirits from people (Matt 8:28-34), healed sick people (Luke 4:40), raised the dead (John 11:38-44), walked on water (Matt 14:22-33), and restored people’s health without His presence from afar (Matt 15:21-28, Matt 8:5-13, John 4:46-54). Among various recorded and unrecorded supernatural acts He performed with eyewitness accounts, it was only certain that no one could possess omnipotent and omnipresent capabilities without having the attributes of a deity. The gospel accounts of His omniscience further reinforced recognition of Jesus’ divine nature and not by what He said but by what He did. He knew in advance that Judas would betray Him. He knew of the husband’s married to the woman at the well. In advance, He knew Peter would deny Him. He knew about the forthcoming destruction of the temple. The evidence of Jesus’ divine attributes was overwhelming to people of His time as they are today, even after His resurrection and work to form the Church down through the centuries.

The Names of Christ

To further make a case for the deity of Christ, there are names He possesses that have spiritual power and authority. They are descriptive and indicate a title for a specific purpose and function, yet throughout Scripture, there are numerous names attributed to God that apply to Christ. Names given and applied to persons in proper form to associate with identity are a common means of recognition and distinction, but the differences are blurred with God. Sometimes, names associated with God are not merely for identification purposes, but they are also descriptive of His attributes and being. The names associated with Christ connote meaning related to the context in which they are used. Designations of Jesus are about honors, attributes, actions, and positions He receives.

The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah (YHWH) saves,” as the angel of the Lord (Gabriel) delivered this name to His parents as YHWH God has given this designation to Him (Matt 1:21, Luke 1:31). To convey eternal meaning from when He appeared in the world via virgin birth, He was designated the lamb of God to save His people from their sins. Jesus would do that through His life ministry, redemptive work, and everlasting Kingdom on Earth by the Holy Spirit’s presence and help. Yahweh God the Father bestowed upon Jesus the name Yahweh Jehovah as it is the name above all other names. It is the supreme and highest name in existence by which people must be redeemed, as there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). His name, the name of Christ, as Jehovah and Lord, is excellent in all the earth in this age and the age to come (Ps 8:1, Eph 1:21).

In numerous passages within the New Testament, there are various accounts of miracles performed in Jesus’ name, including healings and exorcisms that demonstrate power in the name (Mark 9:38–39; Luke 10:17; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 30; 16:18). The loyalty sacrament of baptism is performed in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. 22:16) for repentance and the washing away of sins. Repentance and the forgiveness of sins are proclaimed in His name for salvation (Luke 24:47). Through His name, people are saved (Acts 10:43), and it is for His namesake that the sins of people are forgiven (1 John 2:12). The name of the Lord is exceedingly significant and productive as it has the power to save anyone who calls upon it (Acts 2:21, Joel 2:32).

The meaning of the name of Christ Jesus as God is particularly explicit with the prophet Isaiah and the apostle John. Throughout generations, from the time of old covenants to the new, the significance and power of Christ’s name speak of His divinity as He is sought and cherished as Messiah. Through Christ, God transforms the hearts of people as He promised, which is a miracle of enormous and lasting power concerning regeneration, renewal, and salvific purpose. Back at the time of Isaiah’s prophecy, He foretold of the name of Jesus as Immanuel translated, “God is with us” (Isa. 1:23, 7:14). By this name, He will rule over His people and redeem and restore them (Isa. 40:9–11; 43:10–13; 59:15–20).

Of further significance is the name “Word” given to Jesus in John 1:1. To communicate His eternal place upon Creation as God and with God and demonstrate His deity, lordship, and authority over all (Rom 9:5) creation. He was and is declared and recognized as God and Savior (Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1) within the New Testament who rules at His seat of power. The spiritually significant meaning of His name and title as “God of gods and Lord of lords and King of kings”  (Dan 4:37 LXX) further establishes eschatological relevance as His will is ultimately accomplished upon His return as prophesied for thousands of years. The Lord Jesus, as God, is the great I AM, Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end as He is Lord and Savior.

The Deeds of Christ

The book’s next section that defends Christ’s deity is about His activity. When the entirety of everything He has done is taken as a whole, it is impossible to recognize His identity as anything other than God. From the beginning of the universe to its end, He is unchanging as He does what God the Father and Holy Spirit do. The universe, its fine-tuning, and sustained existence are held together by Him and through Him. As He created all that is in the universe, it is subjected to Him. The earth and all that is in it are made by Him, through Him, and for Him to render to God what is His. Created order that involves life is subjected to Him as He gives life to created sentient beings who breathe and understand their existence as alienated from God through rebellion (sin). Jesus, as Christ, saves people He chooses from their sins and sanctifies them with spiritual blessings and restoration. To set a path of redemption back to God, Jesus became the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6) for believers in Him.

Jesus Christ, while on the earth, healed the sick, removed demonic spirits from people, gave sight to the blind, healed the sick and diseased, resurrected dead people, walked on water, calmed a raging storm, fed thousands by bringing food into existence, and did numerous further deeds of awe and wonder. If it wasn’t evident to first-century witnesses who He was, then His post-crucifixion resurrection from the dead and appearances among people certainly did.

The truths Jesus spoke and the foretelling of future events also revealed with clarity who He was and who He is today. He spoke about historical events concerning His identity and what would occur among nations, Jerusalem, and individuals as further evidence that verified His deity. Moreover, His teachings, blessings, and warnings that He spoke with authority about offered assurance, hope, and dire consequences as He spoke from God as God. The elaborate details of His deity and the prophetic fulfillment of His place within society and creation as incarnate God fully informed generations since the earliest Old Testament accounts of His activity and involvement among covenant and estranged people. His stated purpose among people from birth to death, resurrection, and ascension back to the Father was to bring eternal life to believers Jesus would choose to redeem. His deeds were in perfect alignment with what God the Father was doing, as Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish His will.

God’s work of salvation through Christ was about bringing people He made eligible through grace and faith to Him. People drawn toward Christ by regeneration and God’s sovereign will, and as a matter of free will choice, become chosen by Him as made clear through scriptural promises to those who believe. Christ’s work by the Spirit to indwell people who believe is evidence of yet further work as He spoke of Himself as always working (John 5:17) just as the Father is working. The work of Christ throughout the course of human events was about the origination and development of His kingdom to bring chosen of humanity to Him as He would reign in the hearts and minds of people.

Throughout the course of time, past, present, and future, the eschatological prophecies and promises of God about Christ’s return bring expectations of further work to accomplish. Once Christ returns, His presence will become known by everyone who will know who He is as deity (God) and what He has done to retrieve His people, both dead and alive. At the time of the final apocalypse, it will again become abundantly clear, this time to billions, that He, in fact, is Messiah, but also God who will rule and perpetuate His kingdom by His deeds. Any and all suppressed truth against what He accomplished, including His redemptive work, will become immediately rendered nonsense as awareness of inevitable accountability strikes at the heart of everyone.

The Seat of Christ

Religious and government leaders were ultimately set on trial with Jesus’ proof and claims about His deity. Even after what they witnessed. How could anyone be so obstinately deluded, self-interested, and in denial about who Jesus is and what He was due as God incarnate? His authority and seat of power on earth, as it is in heaven, was objectively undeniable by the eyewitness testimonies of people concerning His supernatural work and their own observations concerning the miracles He performed. What He did to demonstrate His powers was concurrent to God the Father.

Just as very many religious leaders and adherents rejected Jesus as the living word during His ministry then, His word is rejected today for the same reasons by the same classes of people. Not as a generalization, but by a widespread self-justified insistence on getting their way about religious practices, traditions, and preferences to suit lifestyles and social or personal interests. Opposition to Him as the Word and Wisdom of God is common resistance lived out as objections to His word today by splintering and fragmentation from every denomination without exception (i.e., often “denominational distinctives”).

While Jesus faced the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, religious rulers, and Roman authorities during the final days of His ministry, He made it entirely certain that He was completely on par with God in terms of authority, status, and power (John 5:17-18). Even as He was confronted at various times within the gospel narratives and finally apprehended before religious leaders, He was routinely falsely accused of wrongdoing. The Sanhedrin sought a way to kill Him, and religious leaders plotted to turn Rome against Him despite evidence of His power and capabilities as God. Some asserted His exorcistic work was satanic (Luke 11:15). The lengths religious leaders went to destroy and dismiss Jesus’ authority as God served as a reinforcement to His claims compared to prophetic utterances generations before. To assure Jesus’ success at laying down His life for His sheep (John 10:15-21), he affirmatively answered charges about His identity as the Messiah. As a work of sovereign intent, Jesus would be led to his death through the rejection of religious leaders who wanted Jesus deceased. He would become the acceptable and pleasing sacrifice to save His people from their sins.

Jesus’ claim of equality is supported by His attributes, work, and honors bestowed upon Him as God substantiates His position of authority. His name was permanently set above every other name as dominion was given to Him to rule at the right hand of God (Dan 7:13-14) as the Son of Man. This proclamation and assertion from Christ, as foretold by the prophetic words of Daniel, revealed to everyone precisely who Jesus was and is. Jesus was the Messiah and King the Jews were looking to receive for liberation from Rome, but what they encountered instead was the divine LORD who was the rightful and most pleasing prophet and Messianic King they could ever hope to love and serve as they were set free from sin until all the nations were made in subjection to Him. The forthcoming death of Jesus before them was an act of God they were entirely oblivious about and yet that was another proof of Jesus’ divinity given His earlier prophetic words, those of the prophets, and the Psalms (e.g., Ps. 22).

To further explicitly detail how Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament as occupying God’s seat of power, there are several points of interest the author makes. Together, both Jesus and the Father rule the universe together (all of creation), as made clear through His word.

  1. Jesus exercises universal rule
    (Matt. 11:25–27; 28:18; Luke 10:21–22; John 3:35; 13:3; 16:15; Acts 10:36; 1 Cor. 15:27–28; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:10; 3:21; Heb. 1:2; 2:8; Rev. 5:13)
  2. Jesus is exalted in the same location and space as God the Father
    (Eph. 1:20-21, Eph. 4:10, Phil 2:9, Heb 1:3)
  3. Jesus is exalted over God’s heavenly court
    (1 Pet. 3:22, Eph. 1:21, Phil 2:10, Heb 1:3b-6, 13, Rev. 5:11-13)
  4. Jesus sits on God’s throne (occupies His space of dominion and authority at His right hand while on the throne with God)
    (Ps 9:4, 7, Matt 19:28, Matt 25:31, Luke 22:30, 2 Cor. 5:10, cf. Rev. 20:11, Heb 8:1-2, Heb. 12:2)
  5. Jesus functions as God while at His right hand as ascendant to His throne
    (Acts 2:33, 34-36, Ps. 68:18, Eph 4:8)
  6. Jesus is worshiped from His position on the throne of the Father
    (Rev. 4:9-11, then Rev. 5:8-12, then together Rev. 5:13-14)

When all proofs are taken together as a whole, recognition of Jesus as God isn’t just persuasive and compelling. There is overwhelming scriptural evidence to assert that He is God and that the doctrine of His divinity is assured. Even with any or all objections refuted to cast doubt on Jesus on an equal level of God the Father, it is the word of God itself that attests to the status of Christ as worthy of worship and recognition that He is God. Accordingly, Jesus as God being the Son to the Father is a relationship that renders in the minds of worshipers His rightful place as Lord and King over all people. All creation that witnesses Christ for who and what He is corroborates with God’s heavenly court for His most worthy stature. As worship is made due, He is bestowed above all and set in authority over everyone and everything. The nations, great and small, are put into subjection to Him, including those in the distant past aware of His prophesied forthcoming reign or those responsible for His betrayal, suffering, and death.

Evidence

The volume of scriptural evidence between the Old and New Testaments concerning the deity of Christ is overwhelming. The range and depth of all claims of honor, attributes, names, deeds, and seat of power rightfully placed with God are also associated and shared with Christ by the authority of God through His word. The book in review offers these passage references related to each principal area of interest.5

Divine Honors Shared

LORD GodLord Jesus
HonorExod. 20:2–3; 34:14; Deut. 5:6–7John 5:23; Heb. 3:3–4
GloryExod. 15:2; Ps. 29:1–3; cf. Matt. 5:16; Rom. 15:6–9
Doxologies: 1 Chron. 29:10–11; Ps. 72:18–19; cf. Rom. 11:36; Gal. 1:4–5; Phil. 4:20; Rev. 4:11
2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:20–21; 1 Peter 4:11; 2 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom. 16:27; Jude 25; Rev. 5:12–13
Worship
(proskuneō)
Deut. 6:13; cf. Matt. 4:9–10; Ps. 97:7; Isa. 45:23; Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9Matt. 2:2, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17; Phil. 2:10–11; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:17; 5:14
PrayerGen. 4:26; 1 Chron. 16:8; Ps. 65:2; Isa. 44:17; 45:20–22; Joel 2:32John 14:14; Acts 1:24–25; 7:59–60; 9:14; 22:16; Rom. 10:12–13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 2 Cor. 12:8–9; Rev. 22:20–21
SongExod. 15:21; Judg. 5:3; 1 Chron. 16:23; Pss. 7:17; 9:11; 92:1; 95:1; 96:2; 104:33; Isa. 42:10Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9–10; cf. Phil. 2:6–11
FaithGen. 15:6; Isa. 28:16; 43:10; Mark 11:22; Heb. 6:1; 11:6; cf. Exod. 14:31 with Num. 20:8–13; 27:12–14Matt. 9:28; John 1:12; 3:15–18, 36; 6:35, 40; 7:37–39; 8:24; 11:25–26; 14:1; 20:31; Acts 3:16; 10:43; 16:31; 20:21; 22:19; 24:24; 26:18; Rom. 9:33; 10:11; Gal. 3:26; 1 Peter 2:6; 1 John 3:23; 5:1, 10, 13
FearDeut. 6:13; 10:20; Prov. 1:7; 2:5; 9:10; etc.; Isa. 8:12–132 Cor. 5:10–11; Eph. 5:21; 6:7–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Peter 3:14–16
Serve
(religious devotion; latreuō)
Deut. 6:13; cf. Matt. 4:10Matt. 26:2, 18, 26–29; Mark 14:12–16, 22–25; Luke 22:8–20; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Cor. 10:16–22; 11:20, 27; and see Dan. 7:14; cf. 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 4:2–3, 35; 6:16, 20, 26; see also Rev. 22:3
LoveExod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10; 6:4–5; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:6–11; 19:9; 30:6–8, 16, 20; 33:9; Josh. 22:5; Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4; Matt. 22:37Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 14:15, 21; 15:10; Eph. 6:24

Divine Attributes Shared

LORD GodLord Jesus
AllExod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23; 1 Chron. 17:20; Ps. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6–7; Mic. 7:18 Jer. 10:6–7; Mic. 7:18John 12:45; 14:7–10; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:13, 15, 19 (cf. Ps. 68:16); 2:9; Heb. 1:3
PreexistentpassimMatt. 9:13; 20:28; 23:34, 37; Mark 2:17; 10:45; Luke 4:43; 5:32; 12:49, 51; 13:34; 19:10; John 8:42; 10:36; 12:39–41; 13:3; 16:28; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 10:4, 9; Gal. 4:4–6; Phil. 2:6–7; Jude 5
EternalPss. 90:2; 102:25–27John 1:1–3; 8:56–59; 17:5; Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2, 10–12; 7:3
UncreatedGen. 1:1; Isa. 43:10John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15–16; Heb. 1:2, 10–12; cf. Prov. 8:22; Rev. 3:14
ImmutableNum. 23:19; Ps. 102:26–27; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8; cf. 2 Cor. 1:20
LovingDeut. 7:8; 10:15, 18; Ps. 146:8; Prov. 3:12; Isa. 63:9; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 3:1John 13:34; 15:9, 12–13; Rom. 8:35–39; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:19; 5:2; Rev. 1:5; cf. Rom. 5:8
OmnipotentJob 42:2; Luke 1:37Matt. 28:18; John 2:19–22; 10:17–18; 1 Cor. 1:23–24; 2 Cor. 12:9; Eph. 1:19–21; Col. 2:10; 1 Peter 3:22
OmnipresentGen. 28:15; 1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7–10; John 4:20–24Matt. 8:5–13; 18:20; 28:20; Mark 7:24–30; Luke 7:1–10; John 1:47–49; 4:46–54; Eph. 4:10–11
Omniscient1 Kings 8:39; Ps. 139:1–4; Isa. 46:9–10; Matt. 10:30; 1 John 3:20Matt. 9:4; 11:21–23; 12:25; Mark 2:6–8; 8:31–32 [etc.]; Luke 6:8; 10:13–15; 21:20–24; John 4:16–18; 11:11–15; 13:10–11, 21–29, 36–38 par.; John 16:30–31; 21:17; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 2:23; cf. Mark 13:30–32
IncomprehensibleIsa. 40:18Matt. 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22

Divine Names Shared

LORD GodLord Jesus
Name above every nameExod. 3:15; 20:7; Deut. 5:11; 28:58; Pss. 8:1, 9; 20:7; Isa. 45:21–23; Joel 2:32; Luke 1:49; Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim. 6:1; Rev. 11:18; 13:6; 15:4; 16:9Matt. 7:22; 10:22; 19:29; 24:9; Mark 9:38–39; 13:13; Luke 10:17; 21:12, 17; John 1:12; 15:21; 20:31; Acts 2:21, 36, 38; 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 12, 17–18, 30; 5:28, 40–41; 8:16; 9:14, 21, 27–28; 10:43, 48; 15:26; 16:18; 19:5, 17; 21:13; 22:16; Rom. 10:12–13; 1 Cor. 1:13–15; 6:11; Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9–11; Col. 3:17; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 John 2:12; 3:23; 5:13; 3 John 7; Rev. 2:3, 13; 3:8
GodDeut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; 2 Chron. 15:3; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6–8; 45:5, 14, 21–22; 46:9; Jer. 10:10; John 5:44; 17:3; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4–6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; 1 John 5:20–21; Jude 25Isa. 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1 (cf. 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:18)
Lord
(YHWH/Kurios)
Gen. 2:4; Exod. 3:15–18; Deut. 3:24 LXX [etc.]; Deut. 6:4; Pss. 34:8; 118:25; Isa. 8:12–13; 40:3, 13; 45:23; Joel 2:32Matt. 3:3; 7:21–22; 8:25; 14:30; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; 6:46; Acts 1:24; 2:21, 36; 7:59–60; 8:25 [etc.]; Rom. 10:9–13; 1 Cor. 1:2, 8, 31; 2:16; 4:4–5; 5:4; 6:11; 7:17, 32–35; 8:6; 10:21–22; 16:22–23; Phil. 2:9–11; 1 Peter 2:3; 3:13–15
Bridegroom / HusbandIsa. 54:5; 62:5; Jer. 31:32Matt. 22:2; 25:1–13; Mark 2:19; John 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27; Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2, 9
King of Kings and
Lord of Lords
Dan. 4:37; 1 Tim. 6:15; cf. Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2–3Rev. 17:14; 19:16
SaviorDeut. 32:15; Pss. 25:5; 27:9; 62:2, 6; 65:5; 79:9; 95:1; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 45:15, 21; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 4:14
I AmDeut. 32:29; Isa. 41:4; 43:2, 5, 10–11, 25; 46:4; 52:6; cf. Exod. 3:14John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:18–19; 18:5–8
First and Last /
Alpha and Omega /
Beginning and End
Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 21:6Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 21:6

Divine Deeds Shared

LORD GodLord Jesus
Creating and sustaining
all things
Gen. 1:1; 2:7; Neh. 9:6; Pss. 95:5–7; 102:25; 104:24–30; Isa. 44:24; Jer. 10:16; 51:19; Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:25, 28; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Rev. 4:11John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2–3, 10
Sovereignly ruling over
the forces of nature
Gen. 8:1; Exod. 14:21; Job 38:8–11; Pss. 33:7; 65:7; 74:13–14; 77:16–20; 89:9; 104:4–9; 107:23–30; Prov. 8:22–31; Isa. 17:12–13; 35:4–6; Jer. 5:22; 31:35Matt. 8:23–27 (cf. Mark 4:35–41; Luke 8:22–25); Matt. 14:13–21 (cf. Mark 6:32–44; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–15); Matt. 14:22–33 (cf. Mark 6:45–52; John 6:16–21); Matt. 15:32–39 (cf. Mark 8:1–10); Matt. 17:24–27; Mark 5:19–20 (cf. Luke 8:39); Luke 5:1–11; 7:11–16; John 2:1–11; 21:1–14
Illumination and revelationGen. 40:8; 41:15–16; Ps. 119:18; Dan. 2:20–23; Amos 3:72:20–23; Amos 3:7
Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 1:4–5, 9, 18; 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13
Speaking with divine
authority
Cf. “Thus says the Lord” (over 400×); Isa. 40:8; 52:6; 55:11–12Matt. 5:20–22, 7:24–29; 24:35; Mark 1:22; 13:31; Luke 4:32; John 4:26; 7:46; cf. “Amen I say to you” (74×)
Word of the Lord1 Kings 13:1, 2, 5, 32; 20:35; 2 Chron. 30:12; cf. 2 Sam. 16:23; 1 Chron. 15:15Acts 8:25; 13:44, 48–49; 15:35–36; 16:32; 19:10, 20; 1 Thess. 4:15
SalvationExod. 15:2; Deut. 32:15; Pss. 3:8; 24:5; 25:5, 62:1–2, 6–7; 118:14, 21; 130:8; Isa. 45:15, 21; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4Matt. 1:21; Luke 19:9–10; John 3:17; 10:9; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 16:31; 1 Cor. 15:1–4; 1 Tim. 1:1, 15; Titus 1:4; 2:13–14; 3:6; Heb. 5:9; Rev. 7:10
Showing mercyPss. 6:2; 9:13; 31:9; 41:4, 10; 56:1; 86:3; 123:3; Isa. 33:2Matt. 15:22; 20:30, 31
Forgiveness of sinsExod. 34:6–7; Pss. 51:4; 130:4; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; 55:7; Jer. 31:34; Dan. 9:9Matt. 9:1–8 (cf. Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:17–26); Luke 7:47–49; Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13
Sending the Spirit
and His Gifts
Joel 2:28–29; John 14:26; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:6Matt. 3:11; Luke 24:49; John 1:33; 4:10, 15; 7:37–39; 15:26; 16:7–14; 20:22; Acts 2:33; 16:6–7; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:5; Eph. 4:8–11; Phil. 1:19
Giving and being lifeGen. 2:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Ps. 36:9; Jer. 2:13John 1:4; 3:15–16; 5:21–26; 10:10; 14:6; 17:3; 20:30–31; Acts 3:15; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 4:10–11; Phil. 1:21; Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3–4
Raising the deadDeut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Gal. 1:1John 2:19–22; 5:28–29; 6:40, 54; 10:17–18, 27–28; 11:25–26; Acts 2:24
Source of all
spiritual blessings
(See references to the right)Eph. 1:2–3; 2 Thess. 2:16–17; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev. 1:4; etc.
Judging all peopleGen. 18:25; Deut. 1:17; Pss. 7:9–11; 50:4, 6; 62:12; 75:7; 96:12–13; Prov. 24:12; Isa. 40:9–11; Jer. 25:31; Joel 3:12; Rom. 2:3; 14:10Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; John 5:22–23; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 4:4–5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7–8; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:23

Divine Seat Shared

LORD GodLord Jesus
God’s highest
possible throne
Dan. 4:34–35; Rom. 14:10; Rev. 4:2; 5:1; 20:11; cf. 7:15Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; 25:31; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42–43; 22:69; Acts 2:33–35; 5:31; 7:55–56; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 1:20; 2:6; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22; Rev. 3:21; 7:17; 22:1, 3
Claiming to be
equal to God
Exod. 20:3, 7; Deut. 5:7, 11; cf. Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13–14; cf. Ezek. 1:26–28; see also Exod. 14:20; 34:5; Num. 10:34; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1Matt. 9:3 (cf. Mark 2:7); Mark 14:61–64; John 5:17–18; 8:58–59; 10:27–33; 19:7
Ruling over all
things
Isa. 44:24; Jer. 10:16; 51:19Matt. 11:25–27; 28:18; Luke 10:21–22; John 3:35; 13:3; 16:15; Acts 10:36; 1 Cor. 15:27–28; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:10; 3:21; Heb. 1:2; 2:8; Rev. 5:13
Ruling foreverPss. 9:7; 45:6; 93:2; Lam. 5:19; Dan. 4:34–35; Rev. 5:13Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:19b–21; Heb. 1:8; Rev 11:15; cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22:1, 3

Conclusion

The book’s acronym offered to recall the proof-elements of Jesus’ divinity is a helpful way to see Him as God readily. Again, HANDS, which stands for Honors, Attributes, Names, Deeds, and Seat, puts into people’s minds a decisive way to recognize who, what, where, when, and why details concerning Jesus’ deity. The many scriptural references to support each element reach far in breadth and depth between the Old and New Testaments for solid retention and confidence about who Jesus is. Pre-incarnate Jesus is God, incarnate Jesus is God, and post-incarnate Jesus is God.

While the New Testament identifies Jesus as God, He is revered and honored as the Father is. Prayers, benedictions, and doxologies are offered before Him. He is remembered and honored in the rites of communion and baptism. Songs and hymns are written and sang before Him. Service and work of the Kingdom are done continuously on the earth in His name as an offering of love and devotion.

Jesus is utterly perfect in every way (Rom. 8:35–39; Rev. 1:5). The totality of His being is incomprehensible (Matt. 11:27) as He is all-powerful (Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2–3), all-knowing (John 16:30–31; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23), and present everywhere at once as God (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; Eph. 4:10–11). He is transcendent and immutable (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:15–17; Heb. 1:2, 10–12; 13:8), just as He is the exact imprint of God the Father (John 14:9; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).

While Jesus’ name is theophoric, as with numerous other biblical figures, He also has functional and identity names to communicate who He is and what He can do uniquely as God. As a way for people to see Him uniquely divine as God the Son, He has the name above every other name. His name is YHWH (i.e., Jehovah Saves), and He is the King of kings, Lord of lords, Savior, Son of Man, and Great I AM.

It is impossible to fully account for the depth and stature of Jesus from His work alone. What He historically and miraculously performed and accomplished corresponds to His wisdom and teaching to reach millions for thousands of years across numerous time zones, languages, cultures, and nations. What He has done past, present, and future brings attention to His being as God makes it obvious that He is the deity everyone desperately needs in a punctuated way. Jesus is God the Son. In perfect union with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, He is our treasured possession.

Citations

_______________________
1 Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 888.
2 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1062.
3 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 286–287.
4 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Ex 15:16.
5 Scripture reference tables: Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007), 281.


The Triadic Contour

The interpretive grounds and soteriological purpose of the Trinity are based solely upon the authority and meaning of Scripture revealed by God as transmitted by the biblical authors. From the Old Testament to the New, God revealed Himself as three persons in one essence. And the biblical authors wrote about that under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. From creation, through the covenants, redemptive history, and eschatological trajectories, each person of the Trinity was at work as recorded throughout Scripture.

Doctrinal Assertions

There are four ways, among many, to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

  1. There is One God, Elohim, Plural (Deut 6:4)
  2. There is One God, Eternal, Immutable, Transcendent (Heb 7:3)
  3. There is One God, Exclusive, Distinct (Isa 45:5)
  4. There is One God, Modeless (John 17:5, John 1:1, John 14:26)

Doctrinal Approaches

The Trinity is revealed by divine presence, activity, and instruction; not derived through human attainment of knowledge, reason, or inference.

A. Subjects of Scripture

Structured summarization of Trinitarian functions and assessment of affected topics (i.e., deconstructed doctrines without the Trinity):

  1. God the Father    Doctrine of God
  2. Pneumatology     Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
  3. Christology          Doctrine of Christ
  4. Angelology           Doctrine of Creation (bene-elohim)
  5. Anthropology      Doctrine of Man
  6. Hamartiology       Doctrine of Sin
  7. Soteriology          Doctrine of Human Salvation
  8. Eschatology         Doctrine of Last Things
  9. Bibliology             Doctrine of God’s Word
  10. Ecclesiology         Doctrine of the Church

B. Storyline of Scripture

Genesis to Revelation, the Scriptural presence of the Trinity and its productivity (i.e., coherent involvement of the Trinity through biblical events) were prominent for the overall creative and soteriological purpose among both old and new covenants. Specific events communicated through the various literary genres involved all three persons of the Trinity.

Tracing events through scripture narratives across generations to corroborate the existence and work of the Trinity is an interpretive necessity through the formation of comprehensive biblical theology.

C. Statements of Scripture

Explicit attestations concerning the Trinty – Individual truths, promises, and themes are consistent throughout the Bible. The doctrinal implications of the relational nature between the members of the Trinity affect covenants, marriages, parenting, contracts, mediation, communication, and relationships.

The Glory of Triune God

While the soteriological purposes of God are highly evident throughout both the Old and New Testaments, what we recognized about His glory is, I am convinced, a part of a larger meta-narrative. There is much more at work than what we realize. James Hamilton Jr writes an excellent biblical theology around the salvation of people as a central theme throughout Scripture. Hamilton’s work is an exhaustive book-by-book horizontal examination of how triune God attains glory in salvation through the judgment of disobedient people.

He writes from the various events that coalesce into biblical theology, but I happen to think there is a vertical narrative as made evident by revelatory detail. Especially from a first-century New Testament perspective. A solely human-centered theology presents a limited one-dimensional horizontal perspective, but the soteriological value of comprehensive biblical theology speaks to who God is and what He has done for humanity as recorded in the pages of Scripture. I have nothing but heartfelt gratitude for Hamilton’s work. I study a range of his materials.

I’m highly sympathetic to Karl Barth (renowned most influential theologian of the 20th-century). He didn’t like the phrase, “systematic theology” because it suggested to readers a root of human reason to discern spiritual truth to shape harmful ecclesiological outcomes (like socialist liberal tolerance and acceptance of the Jewish holocaust). He got a lot of pushback from that among socialists and liberals within his time (thus his “Church Dogmatics”). It’s also why we see “Reformed Dogmatics” (Bavinck) and other similar titles from Reformed theologians who object to liberalism or socialist thought stemming from Aristotle and Kant (i.e., modernity and the ensuing enlightenment). 

Assumptions about the supremacy of human thought and reason outside what specific truths, principles, and imperatives are revealed in Scripture can form categories of doctrine that misguide church polity and social structures contrary to the explicit interests of God as recorded in His Word, the Bible. Modernity and post-modern thought contribute to a low view of Scripture. – For example, a complementary perspective concerns God’s glory in the realm beyond ours (a vertical dimensionality). While Hamilton comprehensively and deeply writes about the redemptive human history (a horizontal dimensionality), Michael Heiser writes of nations reclaimed (salvation) through a process of judgment for God’s glory. Where those judged are not human, but spiritual as Yahweh reclaims humanity for His interests. See video: Heiser’s Biblical Theology (Biblical & ANE Cosmology).


The Triadic Decision

There are distinctions between Eastern and Western doctrines of the Trinity that reveal a separation of thought about its internal relations. The Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) formations of Trinitarian theology amount to historically propagative thought from Augustine, Aquinas, and Rahner, among others. Yet the most grounded and meaningful interpretive understanding of the triune God originates from Scripture. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, God was revealed as persons who performed specific work within Creation to interact with humanity as recorded across many centuries. Recognition of God down through time is made clear through distinctions between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The way God is in Himself is trinitarian.

From the gospel of John, it is clear that the Son is begotten of God the Father as incarnate (Jn 5:26) God coequal yet in temporal subordination to accomplish a function of outworking love between them toward humanity (Jn 5:19, 8:28, 1 Jn 4:9). Jesus begotten of the Father is also indicative of a derivative subordination function of the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus was sent for a specific purpose, the Holy Spirit was sent to accomplish another function. However, they together remain present as God through what objectives are achieved throughout history. It is by Eastern Greek thought that the Trinity is a metaphysical procession where the Son and Holy Spirit proceed as persons to cause existence. Whereas the causation of everything is of a hypostasis referring to each concrete and distinct trinitarian persons who share a single diving nature or essence. Hypostasis is a theological concept in contrast to the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ to describe the bringing together of Jesus’ divine and human nature.

In the tradition of Latin or Western theology, the approach to understanding the Trinity concerns a principle of personhood to describe the members of God as a single substance. Paul, the apostle, referred to God as God, Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit to indicate his frame of reference as a worshiper. Within Paul’s thought, the essence of the Trinity is Scripturally evident as individual names as positional or relational to him. In comparison to “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” Paul consistently wrote of the Trinity from the standpoint of a created being in reverence to God as three persons holding office separately as One (i.e., the Father as God, the Son as Lord, and Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit). John and Jesus referred to the persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to exemplify the Eastern approach to suggest a less formal way of identification as compared to the title or function designation through Paul.

While there is explicit scriptural support for persons of the Trinity sent and begotten, there is an interpretative view of the doctrine about how procession occurred. From eternity past, in a temporal sense, a mutual decision was made about Creation involving the redemption of chosen people through belief. There “was” an original decision together made about what was to occur through the entire sinful course of history. Salvation would be made possible through One becoming incarnate and Who would accomplish specific work through mutual submission and eternal symmetry as three persons. Without distinction concerning origination, the three as One God is ever explicitly made as such in Scripture or by revelatory detail. Other than statements and declarations of interpersonal unity and identity, expressed description of triune presence is never revealed as understandable within humanity’s three-dimensional domain. Sent and begotten God acted to produce Creation in the sense that subordinate functional objectives were met without any notion of inferiority in status or nature of aseity, presence, and limitless co-eternal power to accomplish salvation for glory and love.


The Triadic Vortex

This afternoon I finished reading the entirety of God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (342-pages). The whole effort was time well spent because it concerns the doctrine of the Trinity upon which various other doctrines rest. The book was a comprehensive look at the doctrine and the Trinity itself from the author (Millard Erickson, 1995) yet from the perspectives of various 18th, 19th, and 20th-century theologies as well. Moreover, the scope of the book covered the councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.) to assert the relevance and consequences of the doctrine, including the safety and survival of Rome.1

While the book thoroughly covers the history of the doctrine’s development and its interpretive approaches, it highlights with careful attention the importance of what it is and what it does. The well-known and highly influential German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg (1923-2014) asserted without hesitation that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most important among all doctrines by comparison. With numerous historical citations involving early church patristics, Erickson traverses the formulaic development of the doctrines from the first through fourth centuries. The apostolic fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius formed instruction and traditions around the doctrine to counter opposing thoughts and assertions about the triadic form of God. Furthermore, over decades, modalism, tri-theism, Arianism, and other disputes concerned the developing church where the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity had to become a priority to settle.

From the earliest understanding of authoritative and inspired Scripture, the biblical meaning of the doctrine appeared on a scale. A valid and necessary interpretation of the Trinity was at rest on a sort of conceptual fulcrum on a scale. Move too much one way in understanding and interpretation slides to a form of modalism (liberation theology & feminism), move in the opposite direction on the scale, and interpretation moves to tri-theism, or Arianism. While tri-theism tends to be an errant way of thinking about the Trinity today, Arianism purported that Jesus could not have been truly God. The teaching of Arius (335/336 A.D.) was deemed heretical at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Erickson enumerates the numerous passages that biblically reference the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old to New Testaments. Historical and cultural narratives concerning the nature and triadic unity of God across Old Testament covenants involved God’s interaction with individuals, groups, tribes, and nations. To further extend the presence of God as triune in the New Testament, numerous gospel and Pauline references point to the truth of God’s Being as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate yet One. The various triadic passages and references within Pauline writings and the baptismal formula set the doctrine’s foundation to assure interpreted revelation for humanity to recognize God as He is.

To further narrow the meaning of the triadic union of God, the gospel of John makes extensive reference to the relationship between all members of the Trinity. In contrast to the Old Testament, the members of the Trinity are identified explicitly to indicate their function, momentary subordination, incarnation, and the relationship between each other and humanity. Taken together, the compiled meaning of God’s identity as revealed in Scripture is nothing short of astonishing and profound. The testimony of Old and New Testament witnesses to God, His activity, and work through the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles made a punctuated and alarming impression about reality beyond day-to-day recognition that is certain to last until the Parousia.

As Greek and Latin recognition of the revelatory witness began, numerous approaches to the understanding of the Trinity ensued. Philosophical assertions about the metaphysical nature of Trinitarian theology took shape from early Greek thought to more scholastic and postmodern perspectives. Erickson does an exceptional job outlining the substance of various contributors to philosophical and theological engagement. From Aquinas and Kant to Schleiermacher, Barth, Rahner, and more contemporary contributors of Henry, Davis, and Lacugna, different competing perspectives are presented, emphasizing a process of elimination given biblically grounded rationale. Tradition, utilitarian, or social preferences carried no interpretive weight with the author.

To make a case for the understanding and correct interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the author covers various objections to the Trinity in painstaking detail. Moreover, the author effectively argues for the necessity of instruction on the doctrine as a matter of pressing discipleship or catechesis. A proper understanding and interpretation of the doctrine are foundational and practical as it concerns prayer life, worship, apologetical contention, interpersonal relationships, and church governance. The doctrine of the Trinity is such a crucial area of instruction that it affects the future health and development of the Church and Christianity in general.

[1] Erickson cites on page 13: Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Dover, 1961), 4:60–67.


The Triadic State

Throughout section three of God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Erickson offers comprehensive and compelling scriptural evidence for the Trinity as a way to understand the identity and interwoven roles of each member. Each in a single essence as God, they together and separately work from distant history to first century and contemporary activity through God incarnate as Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit within the new covenant context. Recorded historical accounts of various events and narratives involving God in different forms of persons and pluralities bring a fuller understanding of the nature of God’s unity. Still today, through the work of the Holy Spirit, God’s involvement in a new covenant context from the first century to the present and future fulfillment of promises, there is a reconciliation evident as a continuum of combined effort.

Through a plurality of presence, as God manifests in Spirit and observed corporeal reality from the Old Testament, there is a continuing thread of literary witness accounts of what occurred as a matter of course. The fulfillment of prophecies and historical events factually confirmed assembled in Scripture to involve God at work in the lives of people point to covenant promises kept. During that progression of time, it revealed the essence and nature of God’s unity and plurality to carry meaning formative to what He does to redeem people and build His kingdom. The presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament is communicated as divine truth to offer concrete interpretive recognition of both states of plurality and unity. Story after story involves nature or Being to produce the highest confidence in the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is also trustworthy as accurate the correspondence of Christ’s witness to what and who God is. The New Testament and especially the gospel of John is replete with writings that attest to the same manner of recognition about how to view God as Creator, Spirit, and Incarnate Word. Historical, biblical, and extracanonical writings offer a significant depth and range of rationale concerning triadic references important to developing Christianity down through the centuries. Whether from the synoptic gospels, Pauline texts, or other books and letters of Scripture, numerous triadic passages of interest involved many people firsthand. Corroboration from affected societies, cultures, individuals, synagogues, and churches that were immersed in the time of Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John, and later others produced a way of recognizing who God was and how He was made evident by what was accomplished.

It was not by happenstance that the gospels were written with a commonality of meaning meant for consistent interpretation of the triadic nature of God’s existence. There is a certain sense of security and relief in recognizing Trinity’s meaning as “persons.” The Father bestows everything upon the Son and Holy Spirit except for being the Father. Likewise, the Son and Holy Spirit everything to each without yielding identity is a form of interrelated communication and mutual communion. The interrelated nature of God as a society of persons is together shared love and not an exclusive one-to-one arrangement; as Erickson wrote love, to be love must have both a subject and an object. The triadic expression of unconditional love and interrelated selflessness further explains the nature of God as love. As presented in Scripture (1 John 4:16), God is love, yet distinct individual beings not separate or isolated from one another.

To the extent that separation is impossible within the Trinity, the Son took on flesh to become incarnate God, fulfill the triadic work on Earth, and return to His position ascendant in a resurrected and glorified body to become the firstborn of the dead. A new Adam to fulfill the Genesis 3:15 covenant where the love of triune God becomes shared with humanity.


Immanence & Immutability

In my reading this week, an author at length wrote about God’s metaphysical and logical nature of existence. Specifically, it concerns the intelligibility and coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity when considering the doctrine of God. Relying upon Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher to frame philosophical and theological thought within the framework of human reason, 18th and 19th-century conclusions were prescribed around philosophy and theology from a human-centered rationale. Doctrines of religion were not spiritual but pragmatic and narrow from perspectives constrained by the limited domains in which they exist. To philosophical and humanistic reasons that deny spiritual and metaphysical realities as merely speculative in thought are generally dismissed from secular worldviews arising from Kant. Schleiermacher, a prominent liberal theologian, developed his doctrinal positions from Kant to surmise that religion is subject to feeling and experience as validated by human interaction or engagement.

Kantian epistemology brought further liberal reason that doctrines were subject to religious consciousness. The truth of spiritual realities was contingent upon receptive and permissive human acceptance or interaction. While supported by theological and biblical truth, God as a “Trinitary” Being is necessary in all possible worlds. Creation (humanity) is entirely contingent on the physical, abstract, and metaphysical realities they are set within. These are not theological judgments to which Trinitarian and Christological doctrines are formulated. They are from revelatory truth made from God’s presence within creation. The testimonial witness of the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and apostles carry far more significant credibility and bearing of truth without our realm of existence than the philosophical and scientific speculations and descriptions concerning our limited 3-dimensional space of reality. Consciousness as emergent within physically contingent beings is a constructed object. The noetic equipment serves as an interface of the mind and spirit to recognize God and truth as expressed.

As a sort of checkmate against liberal notions of God’s existence speculatively within people’s minds (as expressed by the doctrine of the Trinity). Or by a process theology that claims God exists unchanging and infinite as only governed by the laws of the universe (Erickson, 122), there are biblical truths and philosophical reasons to conclude otherwise. For example, see Peter van Inwagen’s views about contingency theory that points to the necessity of God (video (Links to an external site.)) to dismiss dependency upon contingent beings (liberal view of theological pragmatism). Or by the existence of God as Being outside Creation in its entirety (real, physical, abstract, metaphysical, spiritual) as stated by a primitive sense of where in this video (Links to an external site.) (4D space). Or watch the full video (Links to an external site.) here to understand how space constrains perception outside our realm of existence.

Logic as a construct is abstract and not a physical thing to experience. Meaning, God created EVERYTHING perceptive, imagined, or observed by His created beings, sentient or otherwise. I’m not entirely convinced that God is neither logical nor illogical but alogical. To help further, I still have this book, Infinity, Causation, & Paradox (Links to an external site.), on my bookshelf to delve through. The author covers topics such as Satan’s apple and Beam’s paradox (probability and decision theory), divine motivation, knowledge, and action. That is to infer God is to be outside of Creation for Him to create everything (including time, space, and the laws that govern the universe). By comparison, Millard Erickson’s book God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity often communicates from a process theology framework (at least section two). Moreover, at times, the book presupposes that eternal God exclusively operates within temporality and the presence of time. Eschatologically speaking, for example, where His people will take on resurrected bodies that are no longer subject to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy or decay and death) present throughout the universe. The states of all three persons of the Trinity within a single essence as Elohim exist as a personal identity, without modal functionality, in Spirit to create and encounter. God as Trinity is transcendent, immutable, and immanent.

So basically, in my view, Kant and Schleiermacher were well-intentioned but often in error. But more than that, counterproductive as speculations presented to others built erroneous systems of thought off the mark from the truth of the Creator as Trinitary Being in perichoresis by “His” aseity. Even our perception of Him as given to us by the pronoun “His” is anthropomorphic (i.e., human-centered) as a divine act of will, grace, and mercy as He is the source of all such attributes, including love.

Getting beyond the what and how (science, philosophy) to the why (philosophy, theology), I often think its futile were it not for God’s Word and His Spirit within us. With all our searching for God as a people who grope in the dark (Isa. 59:10), here is such a poignant point to remember as the doctrine of the Trinity is modeled to us. 

“Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.’ ” Not only does obedience to Jesus’ words bring a relationship to both the Father and the Son; the words are not even simply the Son’s words, but belong to the Father. The relationship between the Father and the Son is such that to be related to one is to be related to the other, but they are not simply different names for the same person. They are two closely related persons, whose actions are very much intertwined (Erickson, 201).”

Jesus’ spoken words for you in Scripture are from Creator God who gave His son to take our sins. It just doesn’t seem enough to understand the sacrifice on its face for what it did, but also the gravity of temporary intentional loss of perfect love between all members of the Trinity. When I think about that exchange, it kills me. Makes me think that nothing else matters whatsoever.