Archive | Theology RSS feed for this section

Traces of a Saint

By on in Theology

The NT epistles are authoritative by their substance, purpose, and structure. The character of NT letters is personal, not private. They’re not secret and intended to be shared even if directed to a church or individual. The NT letters are also occasional and not theoretical compositions. That is to say, they are situational and not tractates, treatises, or always discourses of abstract and concrete meaning. The letters address known problems, and they’re written in response to the development needs of the church and individuals. The Bible wasn’t written to us. It was written for us. That is, the content and canon of codices were formed historically for us.

The NT letters are unofficial in style. They are not official as correspondence from governments or agencies in an official capacity to inform or direct affairs. NT letters and the apocalyptic account of John in Revelation are sealed to reveal events and judgments that bear a resemblance to official status in an authoritative capacity. Still, the book of Revelation is personally directed to the churches in Asia-minor. By comparison, the epistles themselves are not otherwise sealed for security purposes as authentication intended for official or formal correspondence. Whether circulated widely or not, the authoritative weight of the letters originated from authors who write from the context of personal authority. As witnesses of Christ and apostolic activity or teaching. For example, Apostle Peter himself referred to Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

There is evidence that the book of Acts is written largely as a defense of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. Luke authors the book of Acts to “most excellent Theophilus.” As Theophilus was a common Gentile name within the Greek world, the Acts text serves as a narrative historical account of what occurred to a non-Jewish reader. To serve as an explanatory instrument of historical bearing, the message of Acts involved a sovereign plan of necessity concerning Gentile peoples around the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian world. Western and Eastern nations populated at the edges of Africa, Europe, and Asia were the intended recipients of the gospel as a message of redemption to the Gentiles.

The book of Acts is not merely a history of the early church. The continuity of the early gospel ministry extends from Jesus in the book of Luke to Peter for the Jews in Acts, then finally to Paul in Acts. As Jesus instructed that the gospel was to go out from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and the rest of the world, the Kingdom imperative reached Gentiles through Paul’s ministry. Peter’s presence in the gospels and Acts faded into redemptive history as the development of the Gentile church from Antioch to Asia-minor permeated the Greco-Roman empire. There is a distinct transition of overlapping significance between the Jews and Gentiles within the book of Acts. Moreover, the manner of development among churches and believers as chronologically traced from canonical correspondence gives further evidence of sovereign advancement of the Kingdom through Paul’s ministry as intended. As it is written, Paul introduces himself as an apostle (Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1). Not an apostle of the original twelve, but an apostle of a distinct mission to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13).

Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts 22:27), but it is not known how his parents had acquired such a status. While citizenship could have been attained by military involvement or by rendering some service to Rome, it is speculated that perhaps a family tent-making business that supported the Roman military could have earned Paul’s family Roman citizenship. It appears divinely providential that Paul was given birth in such a familial state as having Roman citizenship was considered a privilege among the social elite. It was uncommon for a Jew living in the Diaspora to have Roman citizenship, whether by birth, monetary payment, or other means. As the Diaspora was distributed across the Roman empire, there was likely a practical or logistical matter of concern with attaining such a status. Given the epistolary record to the Philippians, Paul was a “Hebrew born of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5), and among the intellectual elite of Jews, Paul’s status as a Roman is remarkable. As indicated in F.F. Bruce’s Apostle of the Free Spirit, Paul must have been registered as a Roman within 30-days of his birth to initiate valid citizenship status (Bruce, 39). His father would have made a declaration (professio) before a provincial governor (praeses prouinciae) at a public record-office (tabularium publicum) to set in effect his status as a Roman citizen. As certified by witnesses, registration within an album professionum would have authenticated Paul as a child by a pronouncement ciuem Romanum esse professus est. That is, the name of the father or agent as a Roman citizen declared Paul to be a Roman citizen by birth.

While an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul concentrated much of his mission work among synagogues throughout Diaspora within the Greco-Roman world. The synagogue as a “gathering” or “assembly” by definition became a place for people groups within the Diaspora to join together in prayer and study. Specifically, towards the early development of the church in Asia-minor and Palestine, synagogue participants included Hebraists, Hellenists, Proselytes, and God Fearers who were both Jew and Gentile. While it isn’t definitively known where or how synagogues originated in support of prayer and study, it is recognized that there were some meeting places where ritual and liturgical traditions arose to involve prayer, study, fellowship, and worship. Whether in residences or other structures, most scholars have concluded that synagogues originated during or just after the Babylonian exile between about 586BC and late 6th century BC as compared to earlier periods (such as the times of the Egyptian and Assyrian captivity). After Solomon’s temple was destroyed, there was no longer a gathering place to support the functions of prayer and study. In the absence of a centralized area of worship, a distributed model of congregating among synagogues took shape as the glory of the LORD was removed from the Jerusalem temple. From the time of Ezekiel, when he witnessed the departure of God’s glory from the Jerusalem temple, the ancient synagogue increasingly became the prototype ecclesia of the new covenant at a time distant from the second temple period and first-century Christianity. Even before the second temple, the synagogues situated throughout the Diaspora served as centers of fellowship around the life of Judaism. Synagogues from their infancy developed into “Beth Midrash” sites of learning. It was also known in Hebrew as “Beth Knesset,” locations or facilities as translated in Greek by the term “synagogue.” The apostle Paul and his disciples began much of his work to build the kingdom of God on Earth from among synagogues until he branched out to other places where people gathered.

The Holiness of Saints

By on in Theology

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

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

Holiness begins with God’s initiative

God chooses who and what is to be holy

2 Ch 7:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

God chooses and calls his people to holiness

Dt 7:6; Eph 1:4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holiness is conferred by the holy God

Holiness is conferred by the presence of God

Ex 29:42–43

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

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

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

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

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

Holiness is conferred through covenant relationship with God

Ex 19:5–6

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

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

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

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

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

Holiness is conferred by the sovereign action of God

1 Th 5:23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holiness through the OT rituals

Cleansing from what is unclean

Nu 8:6–7

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

Purification and atonement through sacrifice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consecration by anointing

Le 8:10–12

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

Holiness through Jesus Christ

Through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Heb 10:10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through relationship with Jesus Christ

1 Co 1:2

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

Holiness through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit

2 Th 2:13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The human response to holiness

Repentance

1 Jn 1:9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith

Ga 5:5

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

Obedience

1 Pe 1:22

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

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

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

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

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

Citations

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

The Holiness of God

By on in Theology

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

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

Synopsis

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

God’s nature is holy

He is perfect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is uniquely holy

1 Sa 2:2

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s name is holy

Eze 36:21–23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s dwelling-place is holy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s holiness is revealed in his righteous activity

Is 5:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s holiness affects worship

It is celebrated in worship

Ps 99:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming before a holy God requires preparation

Ex 3:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special requirements and tasks are given to worship leaders

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

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

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

Aaron and his family:

Ex 28:1–43; Le 21:16–23

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

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

2 Ch 29:5 the Levites

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

God’s holiness is to be seen in his people

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

Le 19:2; 2 Ti 1:9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Becoming holy involves striving after God

2 Pe 3:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The holiness of believers originates from God

Ex 31:13

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Christ purifies Christian believers

1 Jn 1:7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s holiness makes sin objectionable to him

Hab 1:13

God’s holiness necessitates dependence upon him for forgiveness

Ps 51:1–17

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

The Ordis Saeculum

By on in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

YHWH Himself asks of ancient rulers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Know and Love God

By on in Theology

The following are chapter notes in the form of questions and answers that cover the subject matter of the book, “To Know and Love God.” The book is a monograph from David Clark and it is about the theological methodology of evangelicalism. It was published in 2003 by Crossway Books (Good News Publishers, Wheaton Illinois).

Chapter One: Concepts of Theology

1. What was the historical task of the church as it relates to theology?

Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 164) sought to articulate the content of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the context of a particular culture. Historically, this was the task of systematic theology (Clark, 33). That is, to relate to others the gospel and the meaning of faith in Christ.

2. Does philosophy and reason have a relationship with theology?

Philosophy and human reason are subordinate to theology. Philosophy is merely a tool to demonstrate the fundamental truths of theology. Theology goes beyond the bounds of philosophy (Clark, 38). Human reason is the lesser of all faculties of understanding due to its limitations and the presence of sin. Aquinas’ (1225–1274) view was that faith and reason reinforced theology as some doctrines were out of reach by reason alone. Reason and faith provided the means to observe, set categories, conclude, and trust by acceptance revealed truth.

3. What were the differences in theology between Schleiermacher and Barth?

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) rooted theology in religious experience (Clark, 43). He was the father of liberal theology, who formed a new model of theology around people’s religious experience. He cut God off as the object of theology to emphasize what humanity experienced about Him.

Karl Barth (1886–1968) viewed theology as dogmatics entirely independent of human modes of thought. He viewed theology as the science of dogma.

4. What were conservative theologians concerned about by reasoning during the modern era.

Martin Luther (1483–1546) viewed the subject of theology as man, guilty of sin and condemned, while God is the redeemer of mankind as sinners (Clark, 40) and “Whatever is asked or discussed in theology outside this subject, is error and poison.” Like Luther, John Calvin (1509–1564) held a biblical orientation toward theology and theistic metaphysics. Luther and Calvin distrusted human reason and saw the purpose of theology as salvation.

Through the Word, the Holy Spirit reveals theological truth to those who seek God to glorify Him and follow His instructions to include the spread of the gospel, holy living, and the search for wisdom, among other pursuits. Luther and Calvin, in this sense, had an undeveloped utilitarian view of theology as there are numerous doctrines formed by revelation through the Holy Spirit by the patriarchs, apostles, and prophets (i.e., scripture).

5. What is meant by contextual and kerygmatic poles of theology?

The poles are polarities in which liberal and conservative ideas of narrative thought are either synergistic through liberal reason and human experience or strictly authoritarian by the Word-centered standards of theological and gospel truth that exist from inspired scripture (Clark, 52). The gospel message supported by theology must be given and made relevant to all peoples along the liberal, moderate, and conservative spectrum. At each polarity, or both poles. The gospel is made clear and not necessarily in strict adherence to all doctrines as a matter of theological truth and coherence.

Chapter Two: Scripture and the Principle of Authority

1. What is moral and veracious authority? What is the difference between them?

They’re both forms of authoritarianism. One concerns truth (veracious authority), and the other concerns morality (moral authority).

Veracious authority refers to communicative truth to a viewer or listener from a communicator. Because of who the communicator is, the recipient is justified or rational to accept a message as true or valid.

Moral authority refers to an asserted position or status in leadership that opposes and fights moral evil and therefore exerts power or the capacity to apply it.

2. Describe ontological ground of biblical authority and epistemic acceptance.

The ontological ground of theology originates from God, who we know, and not from us who do the knowing (Clark, 182). Imbued knowing comes from objective reality by grace and revealed truth by the Spirit’s inspiration from scripture (Clark, 65). God is the authority by which acceptance of what He reveals is made certain upon epistemic and ontological grounds.

3. What is intentional fallacy?

The intentional fallacy is the false belief that a reader can get into the author’s mind to reveal private mental acts aside from what was written. The inference of written text doesn’t correlate to what is in the mind of the author. Unexpressed inwards thoughts of an author don’t correspond to meaning inaccessible to a reader (Clark, 70).

The illocutionary force of what the Spirit conveys through biblical authors gives meaning to what is authoritative, accepted, and actionable. The witness of the Holy Spirit to the meaning and force of scripture is what gives it authority as God’s Word (Clark, 83).

4. What objections can be put up against the appeal to authority?

First, “a commitment to theological authority usually deteriorates into authoritarianism” (Clark, 75). This objection is not valid because Scripture itself subverts religious authoritarianism (Clark, 77). Second, some argue a circularity in theological methodology and it cannot provide warrant for its assertions (Clark, 79). This objection is invalid because warrant is found in the affirmation of the life of the Church, the self-witness of the Holy Spirit, and sola scriptura. Objections to the appeal to authority are not subjugated to the critical method because its assertions and evidence are not defeated by outside claims against reliable biblical witnesses (Clark, 80).

5. Do theological propositions have value beyond the text of Scripture?

We are to use the Bible for spiritual formation and worship. However, it is of value to appreciate theological propositions from among those who place themselves under biblical authority (Clark, 236). Not necessarily to accept or adopt those propositions, but to appreciate them for purposes of research or discovery. Such sources, such as early documents, sayings, or the pseudepigrapha, must not keep us from the Bible itself (Clark, 96). This is of utmost necessity because the Bible itself is authoritative.

Chapter Three: Theology in Cultural Context

1. To what extent is current evangelical theology contextualized?

Poverty relief, language and traditions, biblical instruction within the framework of national heritage, and limited tolerance of worldview are examples of how theological principles are conveyed and transferred to people groups of various interests and backgrounds. Specifically, a contextualized theology produces doctrines of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Together, they integrate in a relevant, tolerant, and supportive way toward Kingdom interests and the gospel. Across ethnicities, races, generations, cultures, and time.

2. In what way is contextualized theology a positive thing?

Contextualized theology is included within the imperative to make disciples of all nations. It’s scriptural theology to infer biblical and kingdom principles as they become situated within existing conditions of different well-established contexts. Such as language, customs, traditions, resources, social environments, and values as people become transformed as citizens of yet another Kingdom.

Occupants of where they dwell or reside physically, but they undergo a worldview transformation toward a new and growing Kingdom. From revelation, it’s a resolute perspective (I’m aware of the dangers of perspectivalism, Clark ch.4) that prevails to accept core doctrines and biblical or theological principles that by necessity unify in truth. Every bit of it framed in a cultural context absent hostilities by ideology and ”social justice” endeavors that would seek to destroy the family, the church, and Western civilization. Particularly in support of objectives around attempts to force acceptance of gender identities, sexual orientation, feminism, and Islamic Jihad (i.e., Sharia law) as a matter of evil self-interest. Tolerance is one thing, but acceptance and support of those objectives are quite another.

3. How should this contextualization be accomplished if it is an appropriate goal?

A transcultural approach toward contextualized theology can be appropriate depending upon the target culture. As necessary to bring the gospel and discipleship to the nations and their cultures, our obligation to fulfill Christ’s imperatives becomes satisfied. As appropriately suitable, according to biblical standards, existing cultures must not be reshaped or lost, provided they’re within biblically specified forms of new covenant ethics and morality.

By successive approximation and iteration, harmful contradictions come into a fuller interpretive dissolution from newly learned core beliefs (orthodoxy) and toward daily living (orthopraxy) within existing traditions, lifestyles, and cultural structures without losing heritage or traditions. A relativism of truth according to culture is not acceptable. As founded upon absolute biblical truth, it is essential to incorporate contextualized theology concurrently within friendships, general education, vocational instruction, poverty relief, shared resources, and collaborative efforts.

4. What are the issues with multiculturalism and in what ways should it be rejected?

An acceptance of multiculturalism is desirable to a limited extent. At the same time, it is imperative and more than necessary in support of Kingdom objectives.

A one-world homogenous praxis of cultural accommodation is an antithesis to multiculturalism. The temporary suspension of personal culture is also an antithesis to multiculturalism. However, Christ-centered theological contextualization across cultures must prevail as God is pleased with diversity and variety. A synergistic growth in Kingdom development founded upon biblical truth and justice is expected and necessary according to standards of Christendom (such as evangelicalism).

Within a multicultural framework, some societies or social movements can seek to impose ideologies upon evangelicalism that inhibit or destroy its effectiveness and drain resources better directed elsewhere. Multiculturalism should be a component of an overall strategy that does not exclude hostile ideologies but instead carries a reasonable probability of reaching its Kingdom objectives. Other features of that strategy should include existing political, defense, economic, and lifestyle influences as a collaborative effort with what God is doing on the world stage. Perhaps by attrition among some cultures less tolerant, by a measured effort elsewhere as likely successful, and where the return on multicultural activity is closer to the optimum.

Chapter Four: Diverse Perspectives and Theological Knowledge

1. What is meant by incommensurability? What is the difference between “strict” and “soft” incommensurability?

Clark states that Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), an American philosopher, coined the term ‘Incommensurability’ to explain the notion of conceptual schemes or noetic structures that are closed off from each other, where there is no rational choice of the truest or best paradigm possible between them.

Hard (strict) incommensurability is where there is absolutely no contact between paradigms. Soft incommensurability, while still strict, is the claim that we cannot “evaluate two paradigms relative to each other by translating them into a third perspective without remainder or equivocation” (Clark, 137).

Further, Clark disputes the rationale concerning the differences as follows:

“If strict incommensurability were true, then each discipline would be utterly unique, and communication across disciplinary boundaries would be impossible. But such communication is possible. So, the various disciplinary horizons are not closed to each other but are instead open to each other. Disciplinary horizons or perspectives are not so unique as to be locked into their own ghettos of meaning.” (Clark, 184).

There is also a caveat of note:

On one interpretation, incommensurability, even in Kuhn himself, does not entail that the meanings of different paradigms are cut off from each other. Rather, incommensurability means that different paradigms focus on different problems and use different standards in solving those problems. In this understanding, we can translate the meanings from one paradigm into the terms of another paradigm. See the discussion in Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), 85.

Clark rejected the viability of strong incommensurability while supporting a weaker version of it (Clark, 152). He argues that we must distinguish between the stricter and softer versions of incommensurability.

2. What is the difference between modernism and postmodernism? What do they have in common?

Modernism is the gospel of the Enlightenment as it views the human individual as liberated from external authority with autonomous reason who can discover absolute truth. Implementation of modernism, through rational planning, emphasizes standardization and science, leading to social progress (Clark, 141).
Postmodernism differs from modernism in that “worldviews, macroperspectives, and explanatory grids” do not rest upon universal human Reason. It rejects absolute truth.

Postmodernism values a plurality of perspectives, myths, cultures, and narratives. It is different from modernism as it distrusts universal Reason. Modernism affirms “individualism, anthropocentrism, patriarchy, mechanization, economism, consumerism, nationalism, and militarism.” Postmodernism rejects the dehumanizing power of modernity (Clark, 141).

Both modernism and postmodernism idolize freedom and individualism.

3. What is perspectivalism? Should evangelicals accept perspectivalism?

The heart of perspectivalism is the recognition that there are differences in the noetic structures of different people. More specifically, the nature of those differences gets at the heart of perspectivalism. Given, “the truth value of every belief is entirely relative to or completely dependent on a particular conceptual scheme, noetic structure, or web of belief” many accept this assertion as true. Different people have different versions of beliefs to hold true depending upon paradigm or worldview (Clark, 135). To say there is no truly rational choice between macroperspectives is possible is the heart of perspectivalism.

Evangelical theology cannot adopt comprehensive perspectivalism (Clark, 147). It should not be embraced but be kept at a distance with limited use and merit. While amended perspectivalism doesn’t confine Christian theology to its own intellectual prison, it is implausible overall. As relativism is closely related to perspectivalism, they are inconsistent at best and self-referentially incoherent at worst (i.e., all knowledge is relative to perspectives, worldviews, or paradigms).

4. What is foundationalism? Should evangelicals accept foundationalism?

Source-foundationalism, distinct from belief-foundationalism, is contrary to individual beliefs, as it is viewed as a collection of major sources of genuine knowledge (Clark, 153). It is a holistic methodology or a complex historical truth source.

Evangelicals should embrace soft foundationalism as it is a form of belief-foundationalism, and it accepts what is true about perspectivalism. It rationalizes effective epistemic practice leading to warranted belief, and “soft foundationalism allows evangelical theology to develop knowledge from its own perspective” (Clark, 162).
In contrast, belief-foundationalism is where individual beliefs are anchored as foundational.

By comparison, evangelicals should not embrace pragmatism or coherentism for various reasons that undermine evangelical theology. It must not embrace source-foundationalism that is of an Enlightenment period mentality that hungers for a source of perfect knowledge (Clark, 153).

Chapter Five: Unity in the Theological Disciplines

1. How would you distinguish the theological disciplines?

a. Historical Theology

Historical theology concentrates more closely on themes and theories across various historical periods (Clark, 169). It is a form of systematic theology immersed in the cultures of different periods during covenantal periods.

b. Biblical Theology

Biblical theology is any biblically grounded theology that rightly expresses biblical teaching or is correctly rooted in Scripture. Biblical theology is narrower in focus than biblical studies. It is faithful to Scripture. It recognizes the importance of literary and semantic theories around various genres of biblical languages. Biblical theology stresses the theological content of the biblical corpora as its subject matter. Unlike systematic theology, biblical theology limits itself to biblical materials, tracks the bible story, and organizes itself around a historical and chronological pattern (Clark, 170).

c. Philosophical Theology

Philosophical theology originates from Friedrich Schleiermacher, a protestant liberal theologian of the 19^th century. It is an examination of theology built out of materials and thought outside of biblical data. It includes natural theology or data, which is derived from natural revelation or observation. An example of natural theology would consist of Thomas Aquinas’s five philosophical arguments for God’s existence (i.e., the Five Ways) as philosophical theology.

d. Practical Theology

Interpretation and application of theology arrive at practical theology (Clark, 190). A subset of systematic theology applies what Scripture says about communicating the gospel (Frame, ST, 1127; Frame, DKG, 214). Practical theology involves activity, practice, concerns, and disciplines for the unity, scholarship, and life of the church.

e. Systematic Theology

Barth defined systematic theology as a mode or method of human thought. His horrific experiences with socialism, and liberal theology initiated by Schleiermacher, reinforced his view that theology connected to the Word of God must be viewed as Church Dogmatics that originate from divine and supernatural revelation. Barth viewed Systematic Theology as the science of dogma.

It is an approach to the Bible that seeks to bring scriptural themes into a self-coherent whole from strict adherence to the authorial intent of biblical authors. Systematic theology is distinct from biblical theology, which comes from theological themes within individual books of the Bible (across both the Old and New testaments). The scope of systematic theology is wider to include biblical studies, church history, philosophy, and pastoral application.

2. How do evangelicals find unity in the theological disciplines?

Develop theoretical models of reason and a solid strategy to develop a unity of perspectives based upon truth from Scripture and what the biblical authors intended. The integration of different perspectives will resolve questions of unity in a comprehensive way bring into harmony issues surrounding interpretation. There can be no compromise of truth as that would be a betrayal of Christ, but a pursuit of unity upon a foundation of Scripture is a necessary bedrock.

As commensurate interests are understood around non-critical doctrines, there is plenty of room for the minor variability of tradition. However, core doctrines that arise from biblical truth must be adopted as the basis of meaningful and sustainable theological disciplines. It is unacceptable to rest upon a lowest common denominator approach to the theological disciplines.

3. How do liberals find unity in the theological disciplines?

For liberalism, the traditional view of the unity of theology, rooted in a realist conception of God’s revelation in the authoritative Word of God, is simply not an option (Clark, 179). Schleiermacher, a 20^th-century liberal pioneer at Union Theological Seminary, proposed two solutions to the “problems” of status, legitimacy, and unity of theology and the intellectual pressures of the Enlightenment. More specifically, concerning personal and spiritual concerns of Christians. Liberal theologians reject all authority-based methods, and they seek unity from elsewhere.

The first solution proposed was that Schleiermacher introduced the “clerical paradigm” where pastors serve ordinary believers’ needs through legitimate scholarly enterprise. The second was an “essence of Christianity” motif as it is grounded in religious experience. Both approaches to the problems of liberals are a rejection of authority (i.e., the authority of Scripture or doctrines). He advocated for a shift away from biblical authority to that of intellectual independence. From a liberal viewpoint, it is impossible to find a unity of the various theological sciences by looking to the unity of divine truth. Liberals reject the evangelical answer—the movement from knowledge of God’s revelation to the practical application of that knowledge (Clark, 181).

Chapter Six: Theology in the Academic World

1. What are the values of academic institutions? Are these values consistent with Christian theology?

Dominant values of the modern university do not allow Christians to accept theological ideas as relevant to scholarship. Academic institutions of higher learning value a neutral approach where the discovery of knowledge demands that the knower be uncommitted to the object of investigation. This is the DNA of public universities. They require a knower to set aside whatever is accepted on the basis of authority and to operate according to principles of critical reason.

These values are not consistent with Christian theology as it seeks to maintain intellectual integrity within any academic setting. Theological disciplines need to both perform critically and also recognize biblical authority. As theology departments left academic institutions, universities replaced them with religious studies where scholars are not permitted to endorse any faith stemming from their discipline. Christian scholars and academics within the various disciplines of theology cannot separate their pursuit of truth, research, and discovery from revelation. The whole human is not merely natural and physical, but natural, physical, and spiritual.

2. What caused the move in contemporary universities away from theology and toward the study of religions?

Universities began to change the object of study from theology to “religious studies.” To detach any commitment of its professors, students, or scholars from a profession of faith, or commitment to revelatory truth from the authority of Scripture, academic institutions isolated themselves. They narrowed their efforts to critical methods situated upon human reason alone.

From the perspective of universities, Christian theology was lumped together with all other religions as a single homogenous whole (together with Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and others). A single monolithic view of religions from liberal academics developed a view that Christian theology is fatally flawed because it cannot achieve the essential requirement of all scholarly work: freedom from all presuppositions.

Consequently, from a pluralistic perspective, universities embraced religion as the object of their study rather than God as the source of creation, natural order, physics, phenomena, hard sciences, and the like.

Theology is absent from public and secularized universities. Theology exists only in church-related universities, divinity schools, or seminaries. This institutional separation clearly reflects the common prejudices about these two areas of study and their relative value or validity (Clark, 203).

“According to George Marsden, the dearth of evangelicals in the secular university scene resulted as much from an evangelical exodus as from a secularist coup (Marsden, “The Collapse of American Evangelical Academia,” in Faith and Rationality, ed. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983], 219–264).¹

3 What are the values of academic institutions? Are these values consistent with Christian theology?

Evangelicals follow a Barthian approach to Christian faith and living from a sociological standpoint, not theological to a significant extent. As evangelical subculture produced a range of social institutions like seminaries, colleges, denominations, hospitals, charities, media enterprises, magazines, and publishing houses, evangelical theologies functioned within this social context with some exceptions.

As academic institutions influenced churches and their members, the shift from divinity in academic achievement to scholarship began to pervade even Christian institutions. According to academic values, these scholars became detached as objective research was sought and conducted—which explains the dominant education of pastors. Seminaries and their members became insular and less connected to fellow believers in the church. Consequently, theological work from Christian academic institutions rendered its scholars and graduates irrelevant to parish life. The skills around the research associated with theological studies did not comport well with pastors’ performance and weekly duties. Thus, a push to develop professional pastors emerged to develop skills for practical ministry to serve the church.

_______________________________
¹David K. Clark and John S. Feinberg, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 203.

Chapter Seven: The Spiritual Purpose of Theology

1. Should orthodoxy be bounded-set orthodoxy or centered-set orthodoxy?

Christians who are anchored to biblical truth must hold to theological principles that are defined within bounded-set orthodoxy. Centered-set thinking and contextualization are useful models for purposes of outreach and missional functions. The rationale to operate a church from a centered-set model to suit cultural preferences and expectations represents a serious risk to error, heresy, and harm to people.

2. How does Clark make distinctions in theology as science and as wisdom?

Clark identifies the theology of science as scientia and the theology of Godly wisdom of sapientia. The distinction between these two forms of theology is critical. Scientia is limited where it informs the intellect about what beliefs and people are legitimately Christian and validate an orthodox position. Scientia plays a key role in determining if what a person believes is authentically Christian and orthodox.

Sapientia is the ultimate function of theology. Scientia serves sapientia as it informs believers what is true and accurate about theology to live out what God has revealed through scripture as aided by the Holy Spirit. The purpose of theology is to know God. Theology’s purpose as sapientia is conforming individual believers by the power of the Spirit to the image of Christ.

3. What should be the necessary relationship between theology as science and as wisdom?

Clark expresses the integration of theology as both science and wisdom through phases or moments (Clark, 232). There are five moments listed in sequential order as follows:

a. Engagement
Through various means, a person encounters through a variety of media. By people, circumstances, analysis, hardships, scripture, and other means through language and experience, a person engages God as truth becomes revealed for further interest.

b. Discovery
Imaginative thinking at an applicable scope is originated to form a working theoretical or conceptual model that comes from the creativity of a theologian. Biblical theology (revelatory witness) is conceptualized into a larger perspective from the creative imagination to theologically understand how biblical observations, theories, or doctrines emerge in a concrete or abstract way.

c. Testing
Testing is taken together with discovery as they work together to form meaningful conceptual models that are validated through a methodology to originate theological proofs. As scientists, or theologians who apply scientia, originate hypotheses, they turn to test and experimentation. This is to prove theories, models, and predictions or demonstrate them as false or invalid. Data is canonically sound from scripture as a primary source, but secondary means include history, tradition, literary work, or science that have less weight. Divine revelation has the sole authority over any other area of contribution that might add weight to test theological concepts.

d. Integration
This is the most important and crucial stage of processing a Christian’s relationship between theology as science and wisdom. At integration, scientia moves into the domain of sapientia. This is where theology moves beyond cognitive information to personal transformation as this phase of truth processing goes from intellectual to personal.

Just because someone is knowledgeable about theology or skilled in ministry, that doesn’t mean a religious professional is mature or growing in Christ. Without integration of truth, and only engagement, discovery, testing, a person is only accumulating knowledge. The intended outcome of scientia is to fulfill sapientia through the fulfillment of what to do in response. Theology is to change lives for the good through relationships and the transformation of people into Christlikeness. This fulfills theology’s proper role as sapientia.

e. Communication
The fifth phase of working with truth involves all forms of ministry service and leadership. From both abstract (precision) and concrete (power) theology (Clark, 242), the proper outcome is to express by word and action God, His will, and His ways. Where Christians love people and communities through communication as it uses theological truth to influence affections, decisions, and character (Clark, 243).

Chapter Eight: Theology and the Sciences

1. Does science threaten theology? If so, how?

Clark points out that the Scopes monkey trial has significantly influenced society to the detriment of Christian credibility and intellectual standing (Clark, 265). Not just concerning the sciences, but overall, as there is within secularism a stigma often attached to simple people of faith. Historically, and now, fundamentalism is further stigmatized because of its ridiculous conduct. There is an ocean of people on the Internet and in public life who are making assertions about theological and scientific concepts and principles they are not qualified to make.

Furthermore, with figures such as Thomas Huxley (1825-1895), who fought creationism through his aggressive advocacy of evolution, or from people in academia who produced scientific theories proven through scientific and empirical methodology, society has come to accept presuppositionalism, methodological naturalism, and rationalism from the scientific community. Between faith and reason, reason prevails in society to produce naturalistic and material thinking and benefits to humanity, such as in medicine, quantum physics, engineering, technology, biochemistry, etc.

According to the modernist view, science has won the culture over theology when it comes to rationality (Clark, 263). Science doesn’t threaten theology. Science and theology performed correctly complement one another. Theology, and biblical interpretation in error by translation issues, inferior literary analysis, false historical assumptions, church traditions, and many other limited capabilities of religious leaders, the laity, and individuals who think Scripture describes scientific facts are mistaken. The Bible isn’t a scientific text. It’s a text of literary, historical, and theological truth. It doesn’t contradict science, but science is antagonistic to those who use Scripture and make unfounded assertions without data or a necessary background to suit personal opinions or interests. People of faith who do not have a well-developed capability of quantitative, qualitative, and capacity for analytical reason with the disciplines often really have very little to contribute.

2. In what ways can science and theology relate? Which is best and why?

The Clark text presents two major subsections under “The Rise of Science and Its Challenge to Theology.” These are with respect to how science challenges theology. To his words, “So how should we conceptualize the relation of science to theology?”

a. Science as a Rational Idea
b. Science as Cultural Authority

From an objectively neutral perspective, “Science as a Rational Idea” is the best between these two approaches. Because observations, experiments, discoveries, and the scientific method take a dispassionate matter-of-fact objective approach to science. Large because there is no room for cultural and religious subjectivity. Including the world of theology among a wide range of academics, seminarians, theologians, and laymen, which is too often an unstable Wild West of meaning and coherent thought.

Scientists, engineers, and technologists who accept biblical truth can participate in scientific endeavors. While having a theologically centered rationale and worldview, but not to the extent that irrationality or incoherent thought is disruptive, harmful, or in betrayal of truth. God created logic, induction, deduction, and abduction for His purposes.

Clark goes on further to make comparisons using categories of the relationship between science and theology. Terms are given for these categories as follows:

a. Conflict
b. Compartmentalism
c. Complementarity

Among these, complementarity is best. There are various reasons to conclude that this approach is most suitable or productive. Within the various fields of science and theology, dedicated areas of focus are more attuned to the realities that exist to describe functions, properties, behaviors, and the like. Separately, there are more limited outcomes and benefits of understanding and application, but together they yield a synergy that produces a fuller cognitive use and thinking of a subject.

3. What are the positive and negative aspects of methodological naturalism?

Positive:
Methodological naturalism is a legitimate assumption for the large majority of research programs (Clark, 280).

Negative:
Methodological naturalism rules out all allusions to spiritual forces (Clark, 280).

4. From an evangelical perspective, what relationship should science and theology have?

Theistic science should be the context or framework by which science and theology relate. Science, as a human discipline of method and reason is incapable of overriding the authority of the Bible nor is it permitted to for its own purposes. While science is always subordinate to theology, it can supersede interpretation while scripture remains the authority of truth.

There should be an advocacy for dialog where both science and theology are able to communicate in an effort to attain open integration between the two. Theological claims and scientific models and naturally described realities are not in contradiction to one another when considering proper perspectives (Clark, 284). Various frames of reference on reality to get at unified truth is achievable in a post-modern world that is skeptical of both theology and science.

Christian theology explains why science matters. It doesn’t resort to a God-of-the-Gaps rationale, where “the absence of plausible naturalistic rationale of some phenomenon is always sufficient to conclude a that a particular natural event does not itself suggest, let along prove, the presence of personal agency” (Clark, 289). It is never acceptable for Christians to rely upon a God-of-the-gaps rationale to explain scientific reason or uncertainty. Any lack of scientific evidence is not explained by God-of-the-gaps.

Chapter Nine: Theology and Philosophy

1. Are there senses in which philosophy or human reason can aid theology?

A warning to beware of philosophy (Col 2:8; cf. Eph 5:6, Col 2:23, 1 Tim 6:20), or philosophical systems (sophos philos).

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”– Col 2:8 NASB

BDAG:
φιλοσοφία, ας, ἡ (Pla., Isocr. et al.; 4 Macc; EpArist 256; Philo; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 54, Ant. 18, 11 al.) —“philosophy, in our lit. only in one pass. and in a pejorative sense, w. κενὴ ἀπάτη, of erroneous teaching Col 2:8 (perhaps in an unfavorable sense also in the Herm. wr. Κόρη Κόσμου in Stob. I p. 407 W.=494, 7 Sc.=Κόρη Κόσμου 68 [vol. IV p. 22, 9 Nock-Festugière]. In 4 Macc 5:11 the tyrant Antiochus terms the Hebrews’ religion a φλύαρος φιλοσοφία).” ¹

Students and scholars make use of philosophy in at least two ways. Both “philosophical theology” and “philosophy of religion” are together the study or disciplines of religious belief and life to include psychological, sociological, historical, or literary approaches. To use Clark’s words, “They focus on the meaning of and the truth states of religious beliefs” (Clark, 297). Philosophy is an instrument of thought or method of human reason to help understand or recognize the plausibility of religious beliefs and their truth claims. Clark further develops three senses of reason by the strict expression of the word with respect to divine revelation.

a. Autonomous Reason
Intrinsic reasonableness is set as a critical stance against authority for prescribed autonomous judgment, critical reflection, and skepticism.

b. Knowledge Capacity
Inherent ability to derive and produce knowledge. Simply the ability to think. “It is the divinely created capacity to understand God’s revelation both in the Bible and in the world” (Clark, 299).

c. Noetic Equipment
God-given inferential equipping that each person is endowed by or hardwired to recognize by reason of God’s revelation.

2. How do presuppositions operate within a Christian worldview?

Presuppositions that stem from modernist sensibilities do not comport well with a biblical worldview. Inductivism is a traditional, erroneous, and implausible philosophy of the scientific method. It seeks to develop scientific theories and neutrally observe a domain or states to infer laws from examined cases—hence, inductive reasoning—to objectively discover the observed’s sole naturally “true” theory.

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a neo-Calvinist theologian who established Reformed Churches who reasoned that inductivism is insufficiently aware of the controlling influence of presuppositionalism.

Van Til’s perspective informs us that a brute fact is a mute fact. This contradicts the inductive science view, where uninterpreted facts do not lead straight to authentic knowledge. Presuppositions are embedded into perspectives as knowing shares nothing or has no common ground between people with different worldviews. Clark further writes that the Christian worldview is the correct worldview centered on God and His revelation within Scripture.

Clark outlines the meaning of presuppositionalism as a belief as it correlates to a system of thought (Clark, 309) where knowledge is assumed true without justification or a process to give its explicit and true meaning.

3. Are there different worldviews and can they be warranted?

Different worldviews exist, but aside from Scripture, they’re unwarranted. The Bahnsen paper Clark references (pg. 309), “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism,”² makes it clear that presuppositionless impartiality and neutral reasoning are impossible because Scripture informs us that all men know God, even if suppressing the truth (Rom 1). There are two philosophic outlooks, one according to worldly tradition and the other to Christ (Col 2). There is a knowledge that is erroneous to the faith (1 Tim 6), and that genuine knowledge is based on repentant faith (2 Tim 2). In contrast, some people (unbelievers) are enemies of God as they are hostile in their minds (Rom 8:7) while others (believers) are renewed in knowledge (Col 3:10).

Clark further stipulates that no one comes to warranted belief by simply observing facts because facts will always depend upon perspective.

The enemies of God are unable, who suppress the knowledge of the truth by an adopted presuppositional worldview stemming from the perspective of the world cannot be subject to God’s Word (Rom 8). They see it as utterly foolish and view it with contempt (1 Cor 1), while people who subject themselves to God’s Word take every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10). Further, in the words of Bahnsen, “Presuppositionless neutrality is both impossible (epistemologically) and disobedient (morally): Christ says that a man is either with him or against him (Matt 12:30), for “no man can serve two masters” (6:24). Our every thought (even apologetical reasoning about inerrancy) must be made captive to Christ’s all-encompassing Lordship” (2 Cor 10:5; 1 Pet 3:15; Matt 22:37).

_______________________________
¹ William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1059.
² Greg L. Bahnsen, “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 300.

Chapter Ten: Christian Theology and the World Religions

1. How are the differences between descriptive and normative pluralism described?

Pluralism can be viewed as a sociological force as it is descriptive of various religions that exist within a region or population. By comparison, pluralism as a normative or prescriptive idea is an interpretation of religious diversity where all its expressions lead to God. The notion that all religions are true faiths that ultimately lead to God. It’s a theory that all methods and beliefs are on different paths to the same outcome.

2. How does the author make distinctions between altheic and soteriological issues?

Clark refers to Alvin Plantinga’s alethic question about the truth of religious doctrines. And whether religious teachings in question actually exist. “Alethic” is from the Greek aletheia, meaning “truth.”

By contrast, John Hick places interest upon the extent to which each religion actually experiences salvation or liberation. These are soteriological questions that ask questions and definitions concerning actual salvific merit and if they all are separate paths to God. “Soteriological” is from the Greek soteria, meaning “deliverance,” or “salvation.”

3. How does the author make distinctions between altheic and metaphysical realism in religion?

Metaphysical realism is a sub-category of alethic realism as alethic realists are certain that metaphysical reality exists. The distinction with the alethic realist concerns the doctrines that describe and point to ultimate spiritual existence.

Metaphysical realism corresponds to the view that an actual spiritual Reality exists independent of human thought and speech. There is a spiritual realm to affect religious or spiritual experience where such experience is caused by a mind-independent Reality external to thought or reason.

4. How does the author make arguments against realist pluralism and and nonrealist pluralism?

Clark presents two approaches to Realist and Nonrealist approaches to pluralism. He frames his discourse about pluralism, realism, and evangelical theology around John Hick (Realist) and Gordon Kaufman (Nonrealist). Both individuals support pluralism, which is untenable from an evangelical theology perspective, but Hick connects pluralism to metaphysical realism, and Kaufman makes the connection with metaphysical nonrealism.

With extended prose and tedious detail, Clark makes an intricately elaborate and lengthy effort to disassemble the views of both Hick and Kaufman. With various nested and interwoven thoughts, Clark precisely drills into numerous objections to the conceptual arguments against Hick as antithetical to fundamental theological truth. Namely, his Kantian theological agnosticism and alethic nonrealism (Clark, 333; (e), (f)). Attempting to make coherent sense of Hick’s views, Clark elaborates on his background to make connections between Schleiermacher, Kant, and others to form errant thinking about theological truth. That is a preference for an individual’s personal religious experience. Without reference to the Holy Spirit’s work, revelation through Scripture and His presence per se is therefore speculative and subjective to Hick without weight.

Within the Clark text, both Hick and Kaufman fail to accept the contradictory nature of the doctrinal claims of the major world religions. Their claims of salvific truth are opposed to one another. Each has its peculiarities where personal religious experiences are significantly different in terms of what is involved in setting about the right path toward God. As an impersonal or personal God among the numerous religions would have expectations toward Him in a Real way, those expectations would not be self-contradictory as implicit by Hick’s and Kaufman’s pluralism.

The further discourse about noumenon (Reality as it is in itself) and phenomenon (Reality as it is for us) again redirect interests and requirements of what is involved in a salvific or liberating return to God as centered upon the person. Not the true God of a metaphysical realism grounded in an explicitly inclusive set of circumstances, conditions, or epistemologically and biblically coherent worldviews. Schleiermacher is written all over the thinking of Hick and Kaufman.

As Clark more explicitly turns his attention to Kaufman’s nonrealism position. He outlines Kaufman’s position that humanity cannot experience God directly. Moreover, Kaufman states expressly that God and theology are constructs of human imagination. In contrast, it is only by human terms or referential understanding or comprehension that God exists. As if there is an obligation from somewhere or all religions to derive the Creator on human terms, not by what is posited as pluralistic nonrealism. In other words, religious people all desire to imagine a Being that isn’t real. Kaufman advocated ultimate humanity, where theology and thus pluralistic thought, through all forms of God and religious belief, were in service of a greater or better mankind or humanization.

5. How can Christians be exclusivists and still tolerant?

While Clark writes that, according to contemporary sensibilities, religious tolerance requires the adoption of pluralism (Clark, 349), there are a couple of ways in which authentic Christians are “tolerant.”

a. Among Christians, there is an expectation of openness toward others with whom one disagrees. It is possible to tolerate a naturalist perspective, but more importantly, as followers of Christ, Christians are expected to abide by His instructions to love even enemies. Not by ignoring another person as a position of tolerance, but by loving others actively regardless.

b. It isn’t always plausible to agree with those who have a naturalistic perspective contrary to Christian views. However, it is necessary to accept each person’s right to defend their views with respect in spite of any disagreement over belief or behavior.

Chapter Eleven: Reality, Truth, and Language

1. How would you describe truth?

The Clark text covers a lot of ground around the question of truth and its definition. On the one hand, he calls it “factual certainty” (pg. 373). On the other, he elaborates, “Truth is constituted by correspondence of linguistic utterances to mind-independent states of affairs: around the topic of correspondence theory (pg. 381).

More explicitly, Jesus said that He is the Truth (Jn 14:6), and by extension, all that He says and does is truth. When Pilate asked, “what is truth?” Jesus answered to generations who He is, what He has done, and what He is doing as a matter of reference that serves as an anchor. The absolute certainty of meaning, physical being, and alethic metaphysical reality has substantive concrete and abstract definition to the Creator God where truth and wisdom belongs.

2. What is the nature of truth-bearers? What kinds of things can be true?

Truth-bearers accept truth value as propositions and statements. They also accept and embrace personal truth as associated with the identity of persons (e.g., Christ).

Propositions, abbreviated propositions, statements, opposite truth values, mood, tone, and mind-independent reality from language or linguistic expressions are what things that can be true, and states of being that can be true from absolute revealed meaning and condition, or historical and cultural contexts. Truth is absolute and not relative to social or individual preferences or historical and cultural contexts.

3. Describe the differences between correspondence theory of truth and coherentist and pragmatic theories.

a. Correspondence Theory of Truth:
This is the embodiment of core intuition “according to which the word ‘true’ modifies utterances that adequately connect to and depict aspects of a mind-independent world” (Clark, 363). It is a way of saying that the truth of statements or propositions matches the actual world.

There are conditions of metaphysical and justification propositions that exist and point to alternatives among philosophers to advocate coherentist and pragmatic theories. Clear ideas that correspond to reality define truth, and it answers metaphysical realism.

b. Coherentist Theory of Truth
As one stated alternative to correspondence theory, it can be considered a denial of correspondence theory. It is the practical application of propositions that justifies and accounts for the definition of truth. This is not a theory of truth but a theory of warrant or justification (Clark, 366). This, as a theory of truth, is false.

c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth:
As another stated alternative to correspondence theory, it attempts to redefine truth in terms of its usefulness. It is a theory that attempts to advocate metaphysical nonrealism by inference. It is a way to view the distinctions as true or useful. What is useful can be true, but not everything true is useful. It doesn’t capture intuition or instincts about the nature or properties of truth.

4. How does the hermeneutics of suspicion and finitude of post-structuralists and deconstructionists challenge truth claims?

Deconstruction involves hermeneutics of suspicion and finitude to disintegrate truth as having authoritative meaning and absolute value. Deconstructionists claim there is no such thing as reality itself, only interpretations of reality. They believe or think that certainty is not possible. They also think that binary classifications and categories such as part/whole, inside/outside, good/evil, nature/nurture, male/female, true/false do not capture objective reality.

Clark informs his readers that “deconstructive postmodernism overcomes the modern worldview through an anti-worldview. It denies the elements necessary to any worldview, including concepts like God, self, and truth” (Clark, 373). While poststructuralism is a weaker form of deconstruction, they both reject the Enlightenment’s views of neutral objectivity, absolute certainty, and straightforward answers. Deconstruction abhors truth, and it seeks to dismantle objective and authoritative reality from the roots of linguistics.

Neither of these strategies’ challenges to truth claims is valid because they rely upon definitions from language to achieve an order of understanding. They borrow on the purpose of intended meaning to achieve their objectives. They’re self-refuting, or self-referentially incoherent.

Chapter Twelve: Theological Language and Spiritual Life

1. Distinguish univocity, equivocity and analogy in religious language.

Clark opts for limited univocity, but he recognizes the need for Analogy and its use in Scripture. While he makes distinctions about the univocal and literal use of language, he elaborates upon numerous examples where both are applied and true during the use of language. While Clark agrees with Aquinas that equivocity leads to agnosticism, he also supports the assertion that Analogy has its suitable theological place up to a point. Clark is concerned about Aquinas’ Analogy of proper proportionality because of how words function as modes of being, action, thought, or language. Clark wrote that Analogy, according to Aristotle, is a form of equivocity (Clark, 390). More specifically, there are ambiguities about what we can understand about God. Theology, on its own, does not help us understand or know God.

Clark makes it clear that the difference between the meaning of terms between God and the creature is the distinction between univocal and analogical predication. The literal or univocal sense is the default meaning to us as a one-way frame of reference. So, the function of analogy isn’t to inform but to place restraints upon the proper use of language when it comes to “theistic systematic assumptions.”

Clark’s use of the term “infinity,” when set alongside transcendence, and corporeality, presupposes the presence of time, as God exists or operates within it without beginning or end. Such a distinction seems to reveal confusion about what transcendence is. Where time is a created construct of God outside of time or within it as He so chooses or intends. In Clark’s view, attribution in this univocal sense isn’t as helpful, but I overall agree with his position about the univocal use of language to understand and know God. Especially when it comes to the use of Scripture and God’s self-witness about what we can know about Him in a way that corresponds to what we can grasp or accept by alethic and metaphysical realism.

2. What values and distinctions of speech-act theory are referenced to the language of the Bible?

Types of spoken language, or utterances, and the use of words to express or describe something is different than what it is to do something by perlocutionary or illocutionary force. They’re together spiritually formative, so long as the objects of their intended use are actual. So, it is okay, and expected, within modern people and churches, to express worship, praise, instruction, exhortation, rebuke, encouragement, and so forth that comports with the language of the Bible. Figurative, metaphorical, and literal meanings that contribute to the working of sapientia in our lives are suitable to the extent precision or more descriptive, or reasoned accuracy is warranted.

There is explanatory value in expressions in the types and distinctions of speech-act theory as propositions and statements carry collaborative, informative, and cursory forms of meaning among creatures to accomplish what both the Creator and creatures want to relate and share experiences. Fellowship, shared witness, prayer, worship, instruction, with words conveyed to form communicative acts shape what people and their Creator say, hear, and do.

Therefore, language is intended to accomplish something. Verbal utterances do something other than merely informing people about sense and reference, according to scientia. It serves the purpose of sapientia to worship the triune God and transform Christian character (Clark, 417).

Conclusion

Clark offers numerous point-by-point instructions, admonishments, and areas of guidance as he brings his book to completion. Taken together, they serve as a formulaic way of executing a strategy toward developing a theologically well-grounded sapiential Church. He touches upon personal, interpersonal, and social relationships that extend to individual disciplines, visionary thinking, polemical engagement, rigorous theological discipline, relationships, biblical social justice, and outreach. His final words were about the essential and compelling urgency to know and love the true and living God.

From 2021, approaching two decades ago, Clark’s book To Know and Love God was published. While it dates back to a different time of evangelical thought and discourse, the methods and principles around theology still hold and are relevant today. By surveying the range of chapters that comprise the book, the reader sees a common thread where the author forms layers of sequential content. The material within the book isn’t organized as a mosaic of theoretically practical methods around the study of theology. It is written cohesively to bring predicated order and rationale to the study and application of theological methods and principles.

While the text is highly concentrated with the theological and philosophical subject matter, it carefully crafts a coherent message. Not just at the most granular level but structurally as well. The chapters, book sections, and subsections are interwoven and complementary to one another to reinforce and provide a full-bodied depth. The book’s organization is well thought out as it is apparent that the author wanted to offer God and His people the best of his work. The book is very technical, but it communicates to the reader personally with relatable stories and content to instill confidence and retention.

The book begins with general concepts around the topic of theology along with some of its history and key figures during its development in the 20th-century. The forms of study and discipline about theology are covered with substantial attention to detail to include key influential figures from traditional and liberal or socialist backgrounds. Themes and concerns among historical theologians toward the modern era were at length explained to give a greater sense of context about the reading ahead. The tension between a God-centered theological approach and anthropocentrism began as an outright situation to grasp, and it remained a constant subtext through the remainder of the book.

As Clark continues through more rudimentary principles to set a baseline, it was necessary to cover essential matters around the authority of scripture, culture, and a diversity of perspectives. The author relies heavily on philosophy, historical rationale, and contemporary issues to assert what theological propositions to value and hold in support of evangelicalism. He cites numerous academic and scholarly sources to support his conclusions and offer reinforced thoughts concerning premise after premise that gave order and clarity about where he guided the reader. Clark did not just give the details about perspectives from academic individuals, theologians, and philosophers. He reached into the nuts and bolts of theoretical approaches to the subject matter.

To match the depth of the book, Clark covered a wide span of topics about theological methodology as well. Along with the various epistemological and ontological concerns about interpretation and belief, the numerous forms of theological disciplines were presented for a reader to understand their place and unity as a body of material. Set adjacent to each other, the sciences, philosophy, and theology within the academic, secular, and religious worlds were illuminated to bring out the purpose, justification, and necessity of Christian belief. Not for apologetic reasons, per se. Rather to think well about Christian theology while people seek to live lives of loving and knowing God with their entire being.

In an effort to contrast Christianity to other world religions, Clark establishes the philosophical ground for new and existing theologians to understand and engage in discourse within the postmodern world. Specifically, contentious issues around pluralism, realism, subjectivism, exclusivism, inclusivism, and metaphysical epistemologies were compared and navigated to render sensible theological approaches to develop an “alethic truth” around a physical and spiritual realism that has a soteriological effect on humanity.

At the core of the text is the spiritual purpose of theology. This is the most substantive area of the entire book (chapter 7). The relationship between science and religion is explained in crucial detail as scientia and sapientia. The reader is given a step-by-step walkthrough of moments or phases of forming, applying, and communicating theological facts and principles to live transformed lives with others before God. Clark makes it abundantly clear that theology as purely an academic endeavor doesn’t reach its intended purpose or potential without internalizing what the theological method does (i.e., engagement, discovery, testing, integration, communication). The text does an exceptional job of explaining what theology is about and why it is of utmost necessity to live by what it produces within people.

Just as the text is titled and captioned, this is a book about knowing and loving God. It gets into significant technical and reasoned depth about what that specifically looks like. It is an important and necessary book to undergo and support continuing theological coursework.

Contours of Particularity

By on in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt:
Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism Continuum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…..]

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

[….]

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

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

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

The Pluralistic Hypothesis

By on in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unquenchable Thirst

By on in Theology

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

Political Theology

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

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

Johann Metz

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

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

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

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

Jürgen Moltmann

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

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

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

Latin American Liberation Theology

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

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

Gustavo Gutiérrez

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

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

Juan Luis Segundo

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

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

Leonardo Boff

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Vatican II & the Aggiornamento

By on in Theology

Apparently, the Roman Catholic Church places little comparative weight upon the authority of Scripture as the apostolic, prophetic, and patriarchal witness to worship, the covenant proclamations, and obligations of God’s people. It emphasizes tradition, philosophy, and Greco-Roman and Hellenized patristic sources of order and religious structure.

Yves Congar

Yves Congar (1904-1995), a French Dominican priest, cardinal, friar, and theologian, was a controversial figure highly influential to the development of the Second Vatican Council. He is well known for his work concerning a return to the sources of biblical studies, liturgy, and tradition for historical and biblical authority on faith. The whole effort as ressourcement was to reform the Catholic Church to break from Neo-Scholasticism and organize a laity movement that adheres to a patristic conception of the Church. He sought to bring clarity and formation to the community of Catholic believers to fulfill the Church’s apostolic mission.

John XXIII

Pope John XXIII (Angelo Giusseppe Roncalli, 1881-1963) was responsible for calling the Second Vatican Council into formation. Influenced by nouvelle théologie and Congar Yves’ True and False Reform in the Church, Pope John XXIII through Vatican II directed a reformation that involved a pastoral focus among its parishes. The post-World War II sentiment concerning modernity, technological advancements, and nuclear weapon proliferation set the stage for the Catholic church’s outreach and move toward solidarity with humanity. According to the Livingston text, Vatican II drew closer attention to peace, social justice, and a desire to relieve spiritual hunger where there was widespread spiritual hunger.

Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council lasted from 1962 through 1965, and it was a reformation of the Catholic Church. It significantly transformed the Church organization more in alignment with modern culture and society as a whole. Vatican II produced a constitution based upon historical tradition and theology that contrasted the hierarchical structures and doctrine of papal infallibility of Vatican I. Much of its significance is centered upon the understanding and functions of the Church. The body of Christ as a community was returned to the apostolic view of its character and formation to serve its intended purpose. More specifically, as the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church, it implemented improvements concerning the role of local priests and its emphasis toward shepherding with the laity to fill duties as the Church laid claim to the concept of the universal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9). The people of the Church were “on the way” or of a pilgrimage toward holiness both individually and as a community.

Pastoral liturgy and sacramental emphasis underwent changes to support people-friendly patterns of worship more clearly. Language in the vernacular was permitted at the pastoral level, while the formation of local ministries attended the social life and reality of hardships. Bishops were brought together in a Synod of collegiate leadership to better support their areas of responsibility according to Catholic principles, apostolic tradition, doctrine, and the renewed emphasis upon biblical studies and community. There was substantial attention placed upon people concerning their social life with respect to the Church’s mission and social vision.

Hans Küng

The legacy of Hans Küng (1928-2021) is about his ecumenical approach to theology and controversial positions with the Catholic Church about the infallibility of the papacy and the limitations of language to interpret the meaning and realities of truth. With his call to return to Scripture of the authority over a sinful Church, it has the authority to resolve ambiguities, disputes, or points of disagreement about the structure and doctrines of the Church. He was a Swiss theologian who called attention to the structures of the Church with an orientation toward Scripture and the apostolic tradition. The Hellenization of the Roman Church was a point of criticism as it was a Patristic organizational structure foreign to what Küng made clear from the text of Scripture.

He wrote numerous texts during the course of his life’s work as a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, theologian, and author. His work as a theological adviser during the Second Vatican Council also positioned him as an influential thought leader within the Catholic Church. From his interaction and activity with Karl Barth, he with limited fashion, reconciled the doctrine of justification with Protestant theology to indicate that a person is justified by faith alone and not by works. While The Catholic Church censured Hans Küng for his assertions concerning papal infallibility, he remained an admired and devoted follower of Christ who constructively contributed to the faith of many. Pope John Paul II declared that Küng was no longer considered a Catholic theologian due to his position about the papacy.

John Courtney Murray

Another influential figure upon the Second Vatical Council was John Murray (1904-1967). He was a Jesuit priest and theologian broadly effective by his published work in theological studies. Toward his mid-life’s work, his focus turned toward the relationship between the Church and State that consequently placed him in a position to advocate for religious freedom in the context of Vatican II. Murray was committed to human rights but was also an accomplished theologian with Catholic tradition commitments. His views concerning religious freedom were developed on three platforms of interest: philosophical, theological, and practical. Religious liberty within constitutional government was of paramount importance, and his views were of significant contrast from a legal and moral perspective.

Hans von Balthasar

An outspoken critic of Vatican II was Hans von Balthasar (1905-1988). While he wasn’t an academic or Ph.D. with credentials in theological or philosophical disciplines, he was an author of many books across various topics. He wasn’t trained to contribute to the Catholic Church as an instructor or to teach at a college or university formally. Still, he had substantial influence and standing with well-known Catholic intellectuals. He wasn’t conditioned to tow the Catholic line by his training in formal Catholic theology in an academic or institutional setting. As Balthasar’s voluminous work covered numerous topics, he was engaged with Catholic religious journals and in polemical work against well-known and respected intellectuals Pierre Rousselot and Karl Rahner. Conversely, Balthasar developed a relationship with Karl Barth, a prominent Protestant intellectual with impressive credentials. He gradually severed his historical connections and background with socialist Germany over a long period.

Balthasar and Barth shared various points of agreement and disagreement concerning theological topics of interest. A key difference concerned the “analogy of being” (analogia entis), where Balthasar defended Catholic teaching and its position on the matter. Historically, the analogy of being, or metaphysical analogy, is a medieval theory. The doctrine of reality is divided or organized horizontally by modes of existence in substance and accidents while vertically by God and creatures where both axes are analogically related. Barth observed that the analogy of being was central to Catholic theology and an invention of anti-Christ. It is an ancient philosophical concept going back to Aristotle, whereas, by comparison, Barth held to an “analogy of faith” (analogia fidei). As a critical method of interpretation, the “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle that teaches that Scripture should interpret Scripture. Barth espoused that as a guiding tenant of theology. The OT and NT writers complement one another as Scripture and as an authority of tradition to guide understanding and life. The Catholic perspective holds that the analogy of being doesn’t place philosophy over faith.

In contrast to Balthasar, Barth’s view is concerned with the certainty of knowledge of man rather than of being – or a noetic perspective rather than ontic. As there are limits to the Protestant vocabulary, Catholics will readily admit that analogy of faith is essential for meaning and interpretation. Catholics simply hold to the primacy of Scripture and its sacred status, but they are guided by tradition and Scripture and not solely by Scripture, as the Reformed position insists.

Hans von Balthasar was a defender of the Catholic faith despite his concerns and criticisms of Vatican II as he saw the Catholic Church on the same path as liberal Protestantism. Two days before Balthasar died (June 26, 1988), Pope John Paul II appointed him as a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The single most effective figure who answered Vatican II and restored the Catholic Church’s trajectory away from an embrace of Europe’s Enlightenment worldview, from the work of Pope John XXIII, was Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. Ratzinger was a Cardinal who studied under the philosophical and theological traditions of Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas, who later became Pope from 2005 to 2013. He reportedly retired for health reasons.

Ratzinger’s objections to Vatican II were the purpose and rationale behind the Aggiornamento (“bringing up to date”) of Roman Catholic Theology. Fundamentally, he believed that the Catholic Church wasn’t a “People of God” on a pilgrimage, but the Body of Christ. The theology and metaphor for understanding the Catholic Church were Theology of the Cross and not of the Incarnation as it related to the trinity and what that meant to the Church about God. From Scripture and traditional interpretation, Ratzinger restored Church perspective away from Vatican II about the Church in the world. As an instrument of suffering and redemption, the cross put the Church at enmity with the evil in the world that Christ overcame. Despite the fact that the Church’s earlier desire to be one with humanity in the world, the scriptural and traditional role of the Church was to serve as a light of the world.

Ratzinger was also deeply concerned about both Marxism and Relativism within the Catholic Church. First Marxism with its historically violent socialist background. Then only to be eclipsed by a severe strain of the humanistic interests around moral relativity in a world that highly values freedom and democracy. It was his view that moral relativism robs faith of its claim on truth while religious pluralism became a prevailing philosophy of modern democratic societies. Ratzinger argued that democracy rests not upon relativistic convictions but fundamental human rights and dignity. Democracies based upon human rights and dignity can stand against a tyranny of the majority. Democracies that are based upon an ideology of relativism and not human rights cannot withstand social pressures to wreak havoc on large populations of people. Ratzinger spoke against Kant’s views that human reason was incapable of metaphysical cognition (which leads to moral relativism).

Conclusion

Despite the efforts of the Second Vatican Council and the Aggiornamento of the Roman Catholic Church, its successes were largely limited to the liturgy or worship practices within parishes. How the Eucharist was administered, how people as a collective were pastorally addressed, and the vernacular language over Latin during Mass held sway as reforms. However, not much else happened as many still left the Catholic Church. A decline in religious vocations also occurred, along with a decrease in the practice of sacraments to include oral confessions. Progressive Catholics would defend the spectacle of Vatican II while cautious traditionalists saw it as a surrender to modernity, liberalism, and secularism.

Totality of Self-Transcendence

By on in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barth & Bonhoeffer

By on in Theology

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

Barth

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

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

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

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

The Barmen Declaration

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

Article 1:

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

Article 2:

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

Article 3:

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

Article 4:

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

Article 5:

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

Article 6:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonhoeffer

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Burden of Epistemic Reason

By on in Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

← Previous 1 … 6 7 8 … 27 Next →