Mere Christianity is a profound work of theological literature written by British writer and lay theologian C.S. Lewis. First published in 1942, the book is a timeless and influential work in Christian apologetics. Much of its content originated from a series of BBC radio talks made by Lewis during World War II, from 1941 to 1944. The book is a compelling testament to Lewis’s thoughtfulness, creativity, and ability to articulate complex theological concepts in a manner that is engaging and accessible to everyone.
Having completely read through this book, it is obvious how it came to be a foundational text for many individuals exploring Christian belief. Especially as its significance lies not only in its clear, inviting prose but also in the scope and depth of its thought. Lewis’s intellectual approach to the Christian faith and his rational arguments for its principles and tenets are aimed at a broad audience. He hoped to describe a “mere” Christianity, a set of core beliefs that all Christians, regardless of their denominational background, could agree upon.
Introduction
Mere Christianity is divided into four parts, each addressing a distinct area of Christian belief and practice. The first section, titled “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” proposes the existence of a universal moral law that all humans innately understand. Lewis argues that this moral law cannot result from biological or social evolution but must come from a divine source, thereby providing a moral argument for the existence of God.
The second part, “What Christians Believe,” delves deeper into Christian doctrine. Here, Lewis explores the nature of good and evil, the concepts of free will, and the Christian understanding of God and the universe. He discusses the concept of dualism and then introduces the Christian understanding of God’s nature, presenting Jesus not merely as a good moral teacher, but as the Son of God, thereby addressing the crux of Christian belief.
“Christian Behavior,” the third part of the book, elaborates on the practical application of Christianity in daily life. Lewis talks about Christian morality in terms of personal ethics and the broader context of justice, charity, forgiveness, and the importance of love, amongst others. He illuminates the concept of ‘the cardinal virtues,’ the theological virtues, and discusses topics like sexual morality, marriage, forgiveness, and the love of God.
In the final section, “Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Lewis explores the concept of the Trinity and explains the transformation process of a human becoming a part of the “Body of Christ.” This section presents some of Christian doctrine’s more complex theological aspects, which Lewis simplifies with brilliant and relatable analogies.
Throughout Mere Christianity, Lewis’s style is conversational yet scholarly, with a thought-provoking approach that invites believers and skeptics to examine their beliefs. The book uniquely blends philosophical argumentation, theological instruction, and spiritual encouragement. With his literary talent and depth of understanding, Lewis provides a persuasive case for the Christian faith.
At the same time, Lewis carefully avoids delving into the divisive specifics of different Christian denominations, focusing instead on the shared tenets of the faith. This is the ‘mere’ Christianity he proposes – a vision of faith that aims to be inclusive rather than exclusive. This focus on shared belief has helped the book gain wide acceptance among Christians of many different traditions.
Mere Christianity is more than just a book; it is an immersive experience in understanding one’s faith. Whether you are a devoted believer, a skeptic exploring the Christian faith, or someone interested in religious philosophy, this classic work provides deep insights and promotes thoughtful reflection. Regardless of your perspective, Mere Christianity invites you on a journey of exploration and discovery that has the potential to transform your understanding of Christianity and the world.
Book I
RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE
Book One of Mere Christianity begins with Lewis’s exploration of morality and the concept of right and wrong, which he uses as a clue to discerning the existence and nature of God. He argues that moral law, the internal code of conduct recognized universally by humans, points to a lawgiver—God.
The first chapter, “The Law of Human Nature,” introduces the notion that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, an idea that transcends cultural differences. Despite varied societal norms and customs, people universally understand fundamental concepts of fairness, justice, and moral conduct. Lewis argues that this moral law or ‘Law of Human Nature’ suggests the existence of a moral lawgiver, or God.
In “Some Objections,” the second chapter, Lewis refutes the notion that morality is a social or biological construct. He suggests that while instincts may often guide our actions, the decisions we make when instincts conflict reveal a deeper moral law. He also contends that societal norms, though influential, don’t define morality because societies themselves can be corrupt or unjust.
“The Reality of the Law” is the third chapter. Here, Lewis discusses how people often fail to follow the moral code they recognize, a state he terms ‘quarreling.’ Quarreling, he argues, is an implicit recognition of a universal moral law because it entails appealing to an accepted standard of fairness when one feels wronged. Lewis implies that the regularity of quarreling in human interaction signifies the universal reality of moral law.
In the fourth chapter, “What Lies Behind the Law,” Lewis moves from discussing moral law’s existence to speculation about the universe’s nature. He proposes two views: the Materialist view, which states that the universe is a random occurrence without a higher power, and the Religious view, which argues that a mind orchestrates the universe. Lewis suggests that the existence of the moral law, which does not fit into the mechanics of the survival of the fittest, supports the religious view.
“We Have Cause to Be Uneasy” is the last chapter of the first book. Lewis concludes that God, as the moral lawgiver, must be righteous and just, implying that humans, who frequently disobey this moral law, have cause to be concerned. Despite this, he also points to the sense of comfort people find in recognizing this moral lawgiver, suggesting that the Christian journey provides hope.
By the end of Book One, Lewis lays a foundation for the Christian faith by arguing that humanity’s shared, universal morality indicates a shared source of this morality, a higher power or God. According to Lewis, moral law is not a creation of humanity but an indication of the divine within and beyond us. This line of reasoning establishes a context for Lewis’s subsequent discussion of Christian doctrine and beliefs in the remaining sections of this book.
Book II
WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE
Book 2, titled “What Christians Believe,” elucidates key Christian doctrines, making them accessible to his lay readership. His central themes include the nature of God, the concept of the Trinity, the nature of good and evil, and the figure of Jesus Christ. Lewis begins this book by clarifying what God is not. He argues against the popular notion of God as a vague spiritual force, instead asserting the Christian belief in a personal God, the sort of God who has a will, can love, and can relate to us as individuals. This is the foundation of Lewis’s theistic view, where God is both the cause and the purpose of the universe.
From there, Lewis moves on to the question of the nature of good and evil, arguing against a dualistic interpretation of the universe. Dualists, according to Lewis, see the world as a battleground of equal opposing forces of good and evil. But Lewis maintains that evil is not a thing in its own right, but rather a perversion or corruption of good. Evil is parasitic on good and is only possible when good things go wrong. In this perspective, God is entirely good, and evil originated from free will when creatures chose to misuse their God-given freedom. Lewis stresses that, despite evil’s apparent power, it is ultimately subordinate to God’s goodness.
The problem of evil leads Lewis to the figure of Christ. He addresses the issue of why, if God is good, the world is filled with suffering. Lewis introduces the idea of the Fall, the moment when human beings first chose to turn away from God. According to Lewis, this choice introduced sin and suffering into the world. Yet, God, in his mercy, offered a solution to the problem of sin: Jesus Christ.
Lewis then takes on one of his most famous arguments: “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord,” often paraphrased as “Mad, Bad, or God.” Lewis argues against those who would relegate Jesus to the status of a great moral teacher but deny his divinity. Lewis points out that Jesus made claims that would, if not true, make him either a madman or a devil. He claims that he will forgive people their sins; he says that he has always existed; he says he is coming to judge the world at the end of time. No one who made such claims could be considered a great moral teacher but not divine. Thus, we are left with three options: Jesus was a liar (a deliberate fraud), a lunatic (a man of unsound mind), or he was who he said he was: Lord.
In the final chapters, Lewis grapples with the Christian concept of the Trinity. Lewis analogizes the Trinity with the dimensions of space. Just as a single dimension can contain an infinite number of lines, and two dimensions can contain an infinite number of lines and shapes, so too, he argues, can God be both three and one. The three persons of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – are distinct, but they are all contained within the oneness of God.
Lewis continues to use everyday language and familiar analogies to unpack the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. His approachable style and thoughtful arguments continue to make this book a valuable resource for both Christians seeking to deepen their understanding of their faith and skeptics exploring Christianity.
Book III
CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR
The third book, “Christian Behavior,” lays out Lewis’s vision of what ethical conduct, under the influence of Christian teachings, should look like. In this book, Lewis explores different virtues and vices, the nature of morality, and the character of a ‘good man’ according to Christian morality. Here Lewis begins by suggesting that Christian morality is like a map. Just as maps help us navigate the physical world, so Christian morals help us navigate the spiritual world. He then proceeds to discuss the ‘Cardinal Virtues’, which are wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. These virtues are not exclusive to Christianity and are recognized by various philosophical traditions as key aspects of good moral character.
The conversation then shifts to social morality. Lewis contends that Christianity does not dictate a specific political or economic system. Instead, it sets forth general principles that should guide human interactions. He argues that Christianity encourages a love that extends beyond personal affections. This is ‘Agape,’ an unconditional love that expects nothing in return, a love that should be extended to all, including enemies.
Lewis also emphasizes the importance of sexual morality, devoting a significant portion of this book to the subject. He clarifies that he does not see sex as evil, but argues that, like all powerful desires, it can be dangerous when not properly controlled. He is critical of the prudishness about sex and the modern casual attitude toward it. Lewis supports traditional Christian teachings about marriage and sexual purity, arguing that casual sex treats people as objects rather than as individuals with inherent dignity.
In subsequent chapters, Lewis explores a variety of other ethical topics. He argues that the Christian virtues of hope and charity should guide all aspects of life, including work, play, and even laughter. He explains that Christianity teaches the importance of individual morality and the necessity of a just and compassionate society.
He then moves to the topics of forgiveness and pride. Lewis contends that forgiveness is a crucial virtue for Christians, even when it’s hard. He acknowledges that forgiving those who’ve wronged us can be extremely difficult but asserts that it’s a necessary part of following Christ. He considers pride the ‘great sin,’ the root of all evil, and humility its antidote.
Book III concludes with a chapter on faith, in which Lewis distinguishes between the faith that affirms belief in Christian doctrines and the faith that continues to trust God even in the face of difficulties and doubts. Lewis presents the moral and ethical standards set forth by Christianity rationally and logically, aiming to demonstrate that these standards, while challenging, are designed for the good of individuals and societies alike. His discussions are not solely based on faith; they also integrate philosophical, psychological, and social perspectives to examine Christian morality comprehensively.
Book IV
BEYOND PERSONALITY; OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
In this final book, Lewis investigates the nature of God as a trinity, a concept central to Christian doctrine but often difficult to understand. He admits that human language is inadequate to express this complex idea fully, but still, he uses accessible metaphors and analogies to give us a glimpse of the idea.
Lewis starts by discussing the distinction between begetting and making, which he uses to explain the relationship within the Godhead further. God the Father “begets” God the Son, but doesn’t “make” Him, in the sense that human parents beget their children, but a carpenter makes a table. In the former, the offspring share the same nature as the parents, while in the latter, the creation is fundamentally different from the creator. Hence, Jesus, the Son of God, shares the same divine nature as God the Father, and isn’t a created being.
Next, Lewis explores the idea of God as a timeless entity existing in the eternal present. God isn’t limited by past, present, and future constraints in the way humans are. As such, he explains that when Christians talk about Christ being begotten “before all worlds,” it doesn’t mean there was a time when He wasn’t. It means that Christ is eternally begotten, always coming from the Father but never separate from Him.
In addition, Lewis discusses the concept of the Holy Spirit and His role in the lives of Christians. Lewis presents the Holy Spirit as the very life of God living within believers, transforming them into the likeness of Christ. This transformative process, which he calls “good infection,” is the crux of Christian morality and spirituality.
Furthermore, Lewis addresses the importance of prayer and the Christian’s direct interaction with God. He emphasizes that prayer isn’t a way of making God do what we want but a process of learning to align ourselves with what He wants. He likens God to a new dimension of existence that humans can’t comprehend, and states that through prayer, a divine life enters and transforms us.
Toward the end of the book, Lewis discusses the paradoxical concept of surrendering to gain, arguing that a person can only find true life and self by giving it up to God. He also clarifies misconceptions about God’s omnipresence, asserting that God isn’t spread thinly across the universe, but entirely present at every point of it.
Lastly, he grapples with the idea of God’s joy, which results from our unity with Him. Our true nature, he says, is derived from God, and we are most ourselves when we align with His will. Lewis doesn’t aim to provide a comprehensive or exact explanation of the complex doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, he uses his unique approach to make these profound ideas more accessible and relatable, guiding readers to understand the Christian conception of God and the transformative nature of His relationship with humanity.
John Frame is a well-known seminary professor and theologian in the Reformed tradition. John Frame is an author, lecturer, and teacher of far-reaching significance. Frame’s magnum opus is his Systematic Theology which covers a wide range of doctrines of conventional orthodox Christianity. This paper covers a limited review of selected parts eight and nine—namely, the doctrines of Christ and the Holy Spirit. A review of this subject matter traverses across biblically anchored truths that originate as divine revelation to conclude the necessary understanding of Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit as two persons of three within the triadic union.
The Doctrine of Christ
In part eight, through chapters 37 and 38, Frame extensively writes about Christ across two categorical areas of crucial interest. The Person and Work of Christ as separate and distinct areas of interest help the reader understand the deity, humanity, incarnation, attributes, and His two natures in hypostatic union. Moreover, Christ Jesus’ offices as King, Priest, and Prophet get significant attention as the intended interpretation is derived from the biblical text. As the work of Christ is more closely understood from Scripture, it becomes clear that Jesus was a prophet who foretold all the Old Testament and eschatological eventualities. He was and is a king who led and ruled His people. He was and is a high priest who interceded for His followers as He atoned for the sins of His people.
Frame describes Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and extols His status as Creator and Ruler over all existence. As Yahweh the Lord, Jesus is over the covenants with humanity throughout redemptive history. Within His kingship, as God incarnate, He does what God the Father does. Everything made was made through Him, and all things are held together by Him. He is the radiant glory of God the Father. While the royalty of Christ originates through the lineage of David, His power and authority are far more prominently recognized by His resurrection from the dead. By the work of Christ as King, He triumphed over sin and death to make atonement as the high priest over we who died with Him. Severed from sin, having died to it, we are united with Him in resurrection while He is Priest and King over all His people.
While Frame doesn’t extensively cite numerous primary or secondary footnoted sources during his systematic theology’s development, he provides various endnote resources for further study at the end of each chapter. These are helpful resources within the Reformed tradition for further study, including numerous materials from Puritans, influential faith leaders, institutional scholars, and seminary academics. While Frame uses journal articles to support his conclusions and propositional content, he far makes far more use of Scripture references throughout the body of his written work. While he sometimes references scholars who would dispute his Scripturally sound conclusions, assertions, and propositions, he always returns to Scripture with corresponding intertextual weight to reinforce his points and arrive at biblical certainty before moving on.
While Frame further develops the doctrine of Christ, he does so in concert with the larger Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC). The two states of Christ’s stations involve His exaltation and humiliation. And questions 46 through 56 are posed by the WLC and answered in due course within the same. Namely, the Scriptural specifics about Christ’s exaltation by his resurrection, ascension, and coronation together situate Him above all as revered throughout the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. With Christ exalted at the right hand of God’s seat of power, Christ Jesus has power over all things in heaven and earth. As head of His church, Christ reigns over all humanity, all kingdoms past, present, and future, and all nations in an eschatological sense through redemptive history.
After Christ’s humiliation by crucifixion and death on the cross was followed by his “descent into hell,” according to the Apostolic Creed, He rendered to God redeemed people of the Old Testament and New Covenant believers fellowship as those who were adopted among the elect before eternity past. I agree with Frame that, contrary to some Baptist and King James Bible literalist perspectives, Christ’s descent wasn’t to hell because He was brought to a place of punishment. He “descended” to Hades, where those in Abraham’s Bosom were gathered and spiritually resurrected to dwell in heaven. Moreover, while in Hades, he appeared to the rebellious, disembodied, and fallen angelic creatures imprisoned in “chains of gloomy darkness” to proclaim victory over sin and death before His resurrection. After Jesus’ sacrificial death and descent into Hades, Christ’s physical and spiritual enemies were overcome by His triumphal resurrection, ascension, and coronation.
Christ’s presence before the Father as intercessor was now made possible for the elect in Christ. The latter were adopted as sons and daughters before the Priest-King, given to the Father in fellowship as intended before eternity past. According to Frame, as articulated within the WCF, the path to reconciliation was set for believers as the elect, adopted, and redeemed. As further believers are gathered before the Father through and “in Christ,” the eschatological already but not yet trajectory was set toward the final redemptive conclusion. Through passion, blood, story, drama, and apocalyptic intent, historically prophetic realization was assured from the proto-Evangelium to the Parousia.
Frame concludes His exposition on the doctrine of Christ by closely examining what it is to be in union with Him. Through an entire sequence of Christ’s work, there are blessings that must continually be heralded as God is to be worshiped and glorified. Frame threads Christ’s accomplishments with the following blessings toward believers. Our lives are blessed through election, calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification. Through all this work, as believing recipients, this is what it is to be “in Christ.” This range of meaning substantiates union with Jesus Christ as people redeemed through the gospel. As born-again believers who inhabit His kingdom, we are sons and daughters in Christ who inherit a state of union while belonging to Him.
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
In part nine, through chapters 39 and 45, Frame’s systematic theology thoroughly examines the identity, events, and work of the Holy Spirit. As a more general understanding of the redemptive functionality of the triune God, the Father plans, the Son accomplishes, and the Spirit applies (as Frame puts it). In addition to Frame’s comprehensive approach to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, various triad illustrations correspond to the subject matter concerning His identity and work. Each triad corresponds to the doctrine’s normative, situational, and existential view, where together they comprise of coherent epistemological and theological perspectives about a given subject.
These triperspectival illustrations appear in key locations through the reading on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. This model presents a way of understanding matters of interest coherently without missing important details about corresponding points of relevant meaning.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit begins with understanding God as a personal Spirit, not an impersonal force. To further provide context about the Holy Spirit within the triadic union of God, Frame makes the following general distinctions: The Father plans, the Son accomplishes, and the Spirit applies. Understanding the person of the Holy Spirit must precede cognitive recognition of His work, as abundantly evident throughout Scripture. Like the Father, and the Son, as God, the Holy Spirit is interpersonally situated within the Trinity. He is recognized by His attributes and worthy of worship, just as the Father and Son are. The Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son. The Spirit has a personality and a mind. He communicates in the first person.
Throughout the pages of Frame’s systematic theology about the Holy Spirit, extensive biblical passages are called upon to substantiate what the Holy Spirit does. Chapters of section nine are dedicated to doctrinal areas about the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. More specifically, the Ordo Salutis is used as a pedagogical instrument to walk a reader through the overlapping, sequential, and biblically supported components of the Holy Spirit’s work. While Frame makes it clear that the linear orientation of the Ordo Salutis is not biblically supported, he does use its meaning to structure an understanding of what happens in the life of a believer where the Holy Spirit dwells.
The breadth and depth of the Spirit’s work in the lives of believers are astonishing. In elaborate detail, Frame effectively captures the biblical references in support of Baptism, the filling of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, miracles, prophecy, tongues, and healings exhibited among Old and New Testament believers. With careful attention to the work of the Spirit among believers today, Frame asserts the potentiality of God concerning miracles and supernatural gifts of the Spirit while calling attention to the effects of the indwelt Spirit among believers. In further and growing detail, this work is more understood as developed among numerous biblical passages. Frame does not at length rely upon scholars to form his views or arguments. Still, he occasionally cites orthodox confessions and the Heidelberg catechism to draw conclusions and illuminate further paths of understanding. Where there are exceptions, controversies, or counterpoint arguments to particular views, Frame will identify the source and corresponding specifics by name.
The clarity with which Frame organizes his thoughts and topics complements his substantively biblical views about the work of the Holy Spirit. The order of topics is summarized as follows.
Calling
Regeneration and Conversion
Justification and Adoption
Sanctification
Perseverance and Assurance
Glorification
Taking each area of work as a free-standing point of interest is a thoroughly helpful way to understand each category within the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Beginning from who the Spirit is as a divine person to what He does, there is specific intentionality about Him ordered among believers and, to a limited extent, unbelievers. While there is a specific and separate focus on the work of the Spirit, it is clear that this work is cooperative and participative among all persons of the Holy Trinity. The work of the Spirit in these areas of doctrine is not the isolated endeavors of this person as God.
Calling
A distinction is made between two types of calling by the Holy Spirit. Frame separates them as a gospel call that can be resisted by individuals and an effectual call that cannot. The gospel call is the message of God’s redemptive invitation to everyone who can comprehend the meaning of Christ’s redemptive work, our guilt from sinful, and each person’s need for reconciliation with God in the form of salvation. Individuals can hear or perceive this message and respond either favorably or disfavorably, with lasting outcomes made sure by belief or disbelief. As many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14), the many will reject the gospel call and remain within their condemned state.
In contrast to the gospel call of individuals, the effectual calling is Scripturally sound, as it is declared in Paul’s letter to the Romans as it is sometimes referred to as the Ordo Salutis (Romans 8:29-30):
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
The calling in this reference is preceded by the predestination declaration, which includes the status believers will attain as brothers to Christ. People predestined and called are brought into regeneration and faith with justification, adoption, and sanctification to follow. While this arrangement doesn’t necessarily hold in sequential order, the effectual calling in this passage does adhere to the meaning of a predestined status of believers. Effectual calling predicated upon predestined selection renders the will of God preeminent over the active or passive will of people left to their autonomous capacity to choose God while “dead in their sins” (Eph 2:1).
The Holy Spirit’s work in the effectual calling of each person is definitive and final as unbelievers who are chosen before the beginning of the world are brought into the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 1:4). Frame artfully collates the Scripture references that inform his readers about the Holy Spirit’s summoning of chosen people to the following outcomes.
The blessings of effectual calling: “the kingdom (1 Thess. 2:12), holiness (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 4:7; 5:23–24), peace (1 Cor. 7:15), freedom (Gal. 5:13), hope (Eph. 1:18; 4:4), light (1 Peter 2:9), patient endurance (1 Peter 2:20–21), God’s kingdom of glory (1 Thess. 2:12), eternal life (2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 6:12; Heb. 9:15; 1 Peter 5:10; Rev. 19:9). So this calling is “high” (Phil. 3:14 KJV), “holy” (2 Tim. 1:9), and “heavenly” (Heb. 3:1). Ultimately it calls us into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9).”
The Ordo Salutis, as the “Order of Salvation” in Latin, also pedagogically describes the work of the Holy Spirit as having additional effectual purpose. Specifically, Frame collectively orders the following formative efforts of the Holy Spirit to involve the spiritual development of people.
Regeneration and Conversion
The application of redemption by the Holy Spirit, made possible from the plan of the Father and what Christ accomplished includes the regeneration of unbelievers to people who are made holy and righteous before Him. From the effectual calling of a person, unbelievers undergo regeneration toward further spiritual formation. As faith is necessary for salvation, spiritual life is formed by the Holy Spirit through regeneration as a sovereign act of God. Regeneration precedes saving faith as good works and belief are the products of it. As Ephesians 2:8-9 specifically informs readers that grace and saving faith are a gift of God, the Holy Spirit renders power upon and within people to make them believe.
While Frame makes it clear that effectual calling is from the Father, the regeneration of an unbeliever is an act of the Holy Spirit. In both acts, the new birth of regeneration involves the passive acceptance of people to new life. To become born again is to become regenerated; the new believer has nothing to do with that process. To believe and live by faith through grace requires preceding regeneration, as indicated in John 3. However, as 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18 indicates that regeneration follows faith, the order of salvation is not necessarily a linear path as both meanings are rendered ambiguous in their sovereign relationship to one another.
As regeneration initiates a reorientation of the mind, will, and affections toward God, faith and repentance together constitute conversion. While it is explicit in Scripture that faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8) and repentance is a gift (2 Tim 2:25), they are both something we practice as believers. Both belief and repentance are personal choices made by the cooperative intention of the Holy Spirit. Frame further develops the meaning of conversion as the work of the Holy Spirit. He draws attention to faith and repentance as components of conversion. Salvation is by grace through faith, but it also involves repentance. To Frame, faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. Faith is the positive expression of belief, while repentance is the negative form of it. Both faith and repentance are necessary for salvation.
Justification and Adoption
Returning to the triperspectival view of epistemic knowledge concerning the work of God, Scripture informs us that justification is associated with regeneration and conversion. As believers are justified before God through Christ and His sacrificial atonement, we are adopted as sons and daughters of God. To attain justification is to be both declared righteous and made righteous.
To make adoption as children of God possible by the Holy Spirit, we must not only be brought to new life but made righteous, good, and holy. Justification as works of God through His forensic declaration upon believers and the imputed righteousness of Christ placed within them changes people’s legal and familial status. As Christ is Lord and brother in the sense we are adopted as sons and daughters, that requires more than a baseline status of declared justification. We must be made righteous and be righteous. We must be made holy and be holy.
Furthermore, the sins of justified believers are placed onto Christ as they are no longer attributed to those renewed for adoption. The constitutive declaration of believers as justified involves all persons of the Trinity necessary to attain union with Christ. God declares the regenerated converted as justified through Christ. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, while the sins of believers are imputed to Him. A double imputation to establish the effective ground of justification is necessary for the spiritual growth and sanctification of the Spirit and adoption of believers. While there is punishment for unbelievers due to the wrath of God for sin, there is no punishment for believers adopted as sons and daughters. There is chastisement and correction through the Holy Spirit as He is involved in sanctification to render believers righteous and holy. Believers are the workmanship of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Sanctification
The work of God to sanctify believers is to make them holy. It is an intentional work of God through grace to bring us into conformance with Christ. According to Frame’s biblical analysis, two types of sanctification are relevant to our interests. First, definitive sanctification is an instantaneous act of God upon a believer at a point in time concurrent with regeneration. More specifically, according to Frame, “Definitive sanctification is a once-for-all event, simultaneous with effectual calling and regeneration, that transfers us from the sphere of sin to the sphere of God’s holiness, from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God” (Heb. 9:13–14; 10:10; 13:12). Through this type of sanctification, there is a separation of believers as holy from unbelievers in the world. It is an event by which there is a severing from sin (Rom. 6:11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3) as believers are joined with Christ as it is said that it overlaps regeneration.
Progressive sanctification is a process of continued spiritual development. Made more holy, believers gradually increase through good works and maturity to bear the fruits of the Spirit. While the work of the Spirit present with believers increases their sanctification, He does so through their human effort. Progressive sanctification is a continuous intentional effort among believers to actively yield to God’s instructions for moral living, good works, and obedience.
Perseverance and Assurance
In the most simple terms, Frame calls attention to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 17.1) to highlight what perseverance is: “They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” More concisely, the regenerate in a saving union with Christ cannot lose their salvation. In a more startling passage, John 10:27-29 informs believers that if anyone believes in Jesus now, they cannot lose their salvation. This salvation is in reference to eternal life once any person passes away at death. This is to escape God’s wrath and come into eternal fellowship with Christ. There is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). So when believers place their trust in Jesus, their past, present, and future sins are immediately and permanently forgiven. Believers are guarded until the end.
Glorification
The final area of Frame’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit concerns the glorification of believers. Along the path of the Ordo Solutis, of glorification of God includes his presence in the lives of believers. Where people who bear the image of God reflect back to Him the work of the Spirit, there is an effect of God’s glory made apparent on us. The work of the Spirit through regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and adoption returns as a shekinah glory within yet reflected back to God for His cumulative and ongoing glory. The glory of God involves and includes His presence as it is unique and utterly foreign to a person’s natural sense. We can see and experience His glory with and through His presence and throughout creation, but our state from the Holy Spirit’s indwelling is a derivative glorification that abides.
To explain why integrative thinking is needed in a diversified world, it is necessary to recognize underlying assumptions about reality and how we know reality in the social issues of life. It develops an awareness of the metaphysical nature of existence. Integrative thinking assembles a correct epistemology concerning physical and spiritual reality that weighs upon the consciousness of contingent beings.
Knowing Ultimate Reality
It is necessary to consider a collection of experiences, sources, philosophies, and present or historical conditions that encompass all knowledge. To explain coherently and exhaustively what truthful worldview contexts exist for living Coram Deo and among people who live together in civility and reasonable harmony.
Theology’s Challenging Task
Even with all of the experiences we live through, and the availability of divinely revealed truth, there are charges brought against the discipline of systematic theology as a manner of response and criticism concerning methodologies and the arrival of decisions about theological conclusions and truth. They are verbatim as follows: 1
Systematic theology organized a system of Christian thought around one central theme (sovereignty, freedom, covenant, dispensation, or kingdom) chosen a priori and imposed on the rest of revelation in a contrived interrelatedness.
Systematic theology failed to do justice to the multiplicity of relevant lines of biblical information seen in their cultural and historical contexts.
Systematic theology paid insufficient attention to the history of doctrine in the church.
Systematic theology tended to regard a system of theology as closed rather than open to new discoveries from God’s Word or God’s world.
Systematic theology passed its teachings on to the next generation by sheer indoctrination—an unworthy approach to education.
Finally, systematic theology failed to display the relevance of its content to the burning personal and social issues of its day.
Theologians unaffected by these criticisms retained “presuppositional and axiomatic methodologies.” Consequently, their effectiveness and limited reach concerning the theological subject matter were explained by faulty priori assumptions, the importation of biblical meaning into current cultural contexts, indifference to historical doctrines, and closed-mindedness.
To advance the course of study adjacent to systematic theologies (with its limitations and impediments), integrative theology is introduced as an embodied approach to the discipline of theology. Integrative theology is the art and science of developing a comprehensive set of convictions from special and general revelation about topics pertinent to Christian life and service. Integrative theology is a discipline of the student who investigates various interrelated criteria of truth, logic, philosophy, and reason. It bears upon evidence from the world as cast into existence from God. It is responsible for evaluating the empirical sciences and internal experiences as interpreted through psychology, axiology, ethics, epistemology, and ontology.
Integrative theology requires testable hypotheses in discovery:
Noncontradiction
Support from adequate evidence
Affirmability without hypocrisy
It does not accept out-of-hand presuppositions imposed upon Scripture but instead adopts a chosen research methodology. Collecting data and facts involves illumination by the Holy Spirit, proper hermeneutics, personal study, teaching, preaching, and other qualified and reliable primary sources that converge into personal convictions that are shareable to the faith community at large.
Integrative theology incorporates the strengths and values of systematics and avoids its weaknesses. There are several specific areas by which that is accomplished.
Rather than presuppositions that feed into systematics that form historical doctrines of immense value from eisegesis, integrative theology produces a coherent end to exegetical interpretation that involves Scriptural data and experience.
Personal revelation by interpretation and thinking God’s thoughts after Him without claim to complete comprehension.
Tested and validated hypothesis formed by beginning from historical and contemporary options before arriving at conclusions – as compared to conclusions of systematics formed from presuppositions.
Systematic theology is a product of indoctrination, while integrative theology is not. Doing theology is an endeavor of recurrence that will withstand reexamination. It is always open to discoveries from the closed canon of Scripture, literary materials, historiographical subject matter, ancient cultures, languages, and discoveries throughout creation, whether through revelation or empirical scientific method.
Systematic theology is a product of indoctrination while integrative theology is not. Doing theology is an endeavor of recurrence that will withstand reexamination. It is always open to discoveries from the closed canon of Scripture, literary materials, historiographical subject matter, ancient cultures, languages, and discoveries throughout creation whether through revelation or empirical scientific method.
Integrative theology is an approach to the practical significance of faith and practice. As an outcome of formulated and established doctrines, it showcases the relevance of theological truth for spiritual value and service.
To explain integrative theology’s relationship to other disciplines of interest, these disciplines must be understood individually as each has functional involvement with other fields.
Apologetics As this is the defense of theological presuppositions, there are reliable and testable assertions that God has acted in creation, Christ, and Scripture. As such, worldview formation that has a bearing upon lived lives affirms God’s existence, His creation, the historical Jesus, and the subject matter of Scripture.
Biblical Studies Theological information originates from biblical studies and primary sources. To study, live, teach, and preach divinely inspired truth, the theology student must reach for the root meaning of written materials, plus how they were formed, translated, conveyed, and transmitted.
Hermeneutics Theological subjectivism is conclusively refuted by sound hermeneutics. Cognitive assertions according to the biblical writers’ intended meaning require readers to change readers assumptions to fit the given facts within Scripture.
Logic As logic is a metaphysical construct that accompanies material creation, it didn’t exist in the Universe before ex nihilo. While philosophical categories of reason within creation are not exclusive to the spiritual realm, the metaspiritual domain of elohim is assumed, or at least it isn’t confined by the properties of three-dimensional creation (abstract or otherwise). – Human logic is merely a tool to form methods, draw reliable conclusions and follow principles of coherent reasoning to make sense of reality. A realm of an eternal now would involve ways and means of rationale beyond the sensory perception of cause-and-effect by sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste that transcends the physical Universe. To say that logic is the root of God’s mind is presumptuous. While divine revelation involves the presence of it throughout creation, are we to conclude that it exists in the same manner in His domain? To assert as much requires Scriptural support. Jesus fed 5000 people from five loaves and two fish.
Previous Theologies (historical theologies) These are secondary sources with provisional authority, yet it is to our loss if we ignore the insights, syntheses, and applications of theological principles from Scripture. Many contributors over the centuries offer meaningfully inspired material about the truth of divine revelation and surrounding truths as made evident within God’s creation. The traditions, creeds, and doctrines of faith produce valuable and helpful sources of subject matter that contribute to investigative efforts. The work of the Patristics, Puritans and Reformed theologians are of especially significant value as historical insights are among people imbued by the Spirit to share their learning and convictions. The conclusions they draw are made our own even if there are sparse areas of misunderstanding and disagreement.
Research Methodology As a key to responsible theological decision-making, how research is conducted has a bearing on how we grasp Truth.
a. Define the problem b. Survey relevant literature and gather many perspectives c. Test all hypotheses d. Formulate preliminary conclusions from among alternatives while open to inquiry e. Determine concrete ways to implement conclusions
Coherent truth must not be rejected in the search for theological truth grounded in Scripture. Existential, pragmatic, and mystical experiences can be significant as a work of the Spirit that cannot be dismissed or discounted. Humanistic philosophies shall not go unchecked and shall be countered with coherent reason and theistic philosophies that defend the faith through engagement while speaking from truth and love.
All Scripture must be the primary source of truthful information for integrative, systematic, and biblical theologies. Whether chronologically or logically, these theologies use Scripture as a matter of principled application toward research. However, defined by purpose or scope, integrative theology invites further sources into chronologically or logically situated biblical truth.
Just as comparative abstractions offer propositional meaning between biblical and systematic theologies, integrative theology holds up just as well in terms of Scriptural principles to derive truth consistent with divine revelation.
As the development of alternative theologies advanced through history, further sources and materials anchored by divine truth arrived by exegetical understanding and historiographical relevance. Integrative theology intentionally uses aggregated sources and materials that cumulate, such as manuscripts, geographical and cultural discoveries, historical pressures among empires, conquests, literary formation and diversity, and scientific discoveries about nature and the Universe itself.
To inspire people as a conduit of God’s revealed truth is a deep joy as a way to glorify Him and worship Him. Because of who He is and what He has done, what He does, and by His promises. To serve as a vessel, not only to host and serve Him but to be the container of His truth which carries His message as an outpouring of His message and His interests.
Even if to both the goats and the sheep together of a small flock, or one-by-one, it is a joy and privilege to be His servant to speak of Him, His Word, and compelling theological truths that reach people where the Holy Spirit might turn them to God (Matt 13:14b-17).
Divine Revelation to All People of All Times
The classical problem the authors make explicit is the question of whether or not every rational person can comprehend something of God. A genuine inquiry into this question is essential for developing a person’s worldview, including personal and social survival. Specific interest around general revelation involves the recognition of God as Creator by observing what is observed throughout Creation. Moreover, Creation and the conscience of people involving moral obligations and duties present evidence of a Being at the source of their existence. Absent self-inflicted severing of conscience or God’s hardening of a person’s heart (Rom 9:18), all people internally recognize and intuitively understand the existence of a Creator as the source of all reality. While people internally understand God’s existence, acknowledging and accepting that is another matter.
Contrary to Barth’s perspective2 and consistent with Romans 1:20, people recognize God in nature, providential history, and moral law. All existentially made possible from among free agents who develop a basic understanding of God through His general revelation in this way. Denial of this as Scripturally factual is a betrayal of God’s Word and, ultimately, of Him as Creator.
There are various hypotheses to be tested to summarize influential answers to this problem objectively.
Aquinas and the Thomistic Tradition Thomas Aquinas favored rational induction to explain that people would eventually recognize the existence of God on their own. He propositioned two realms (nature and grace) and two kinds of knowledge (natural and revealed) with two methods of knowing (reason and faith). As it was his rationale that people are made in the image of God with a rational mind, he also concluded that the intellect was “not seriously affected” by the Fall. Aquinas’ perspectives about the “analogy of being” showed that persons are derivative of God, and their existence is analogous to God’s existence. The Reformers, in contrast, understand the human condition as totally depraved and unable to arrive at God’s existence insofar as their need for Him.
Empirically Orientated Liberalism Liberals who want empirical data to evaluate the merits of God’s existence seek to rely on natural and social sciences. On their terms or methods, the emphasis is upon the power of the rational mind to conclude God’s existence. By observation, knowledge of God is attained through modern learning. In comparison to scholars and theologians who have a high view of Scripture as infallible and inerrant, empirically orientated liberals believe that the Bible is fallible and requires the corrective discipline of human knowledge (i.e., Scripture is not inspired by the Holy Spirit).
Existentially Orientated Liberalism Unlike empirically orientated liberals who want data to determine if God exists or that He can be found and understood, existentially orientated liberals rely upon human experience. God is not found or understood as Creator by external means of observation (contrary to Scripture) but by intuition and a personal mystical experience. In this way, revelation imparts no new knowledge but a new consciousness, according to the author.
The Neoorthodox Tradition Those of the neoorthodox tradition insist that revelation does not exist outside of what God has communicated to humanity through His Word. To the neoorthodox, God is utterly unique as Creator, while humanity is far removed from God by its sinfulness and ability to recognize Him, much less comprehend His existence by general revelation. The author of this text characterizes Karl Barth as the locus of neoorthodoxy as general revelation unknowable from nature (contrary to Rom 1:18-20). The author cites Barth as writing a denial about the meaning of Romans 1:18-20 as it pertains to humanity’s ability to acknowledge God’s existence by general revelation. The author does not indicate whether or not Barth’s position concerns special or secondary revelation.
Dutch Reformed Theology The author writes that just as the neoorthodox deny general revelation has a bearing upon a person’s recognition and understanding of God, the Dutch Reformed concur. They together view the effects of sin upon people as rendering them incapable of drawing correct conclusions about God from nature or anywhere else. According to the author, Dutch reformers claim that only the regenerate can see Creation and nature as it is and recognize God through His work.
Many Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals From long ago to more contemporary figures, numerous people of faith hold to both general non-salvific knowledge of God and particular knowledge from revelation through the incarnate Christ. Augustin, Luther, Calvin, and others wrote of general revelation recognizable in nature by humanity. It is ascertained that people can also discern God as Creator who instilled moral values and duties through general revelation by the human conscience. Where general revelation only serves to condemn and does not save, God’s Word through the Holy Spirit witness of Christ and His redemptive work for the elect who believe the gospel.
All literary genres of Scripture account for the evidence between general and particular revelation, the Old Testament and the New. Reformers and early Church fathers were more in line with the covenant distinctions and the substance of the redemptive work to include the authority of God’s Word through instruction and Scripture, plus the inner work of the Holy Spirit from Pentecost onward.
The observable Universe and its laws of nature reveal God as the cause of physical, metaphysical, and material reality. The self-aware nature of humanity and its inherent cognition of right and wrong is also evidence of a causal Creator who originated people as His image bearers. As made clear in Romans 1:18-20, general revelation is explicitly understood that God has made His attributes and power known to all people. Special revelation through the life and teachings of Christ Jesus informs people about God’s redemptive work. Throughout Creation, people are called to eternal life with God through the Messiah for reconciliation as a means to escape sin, judgment, and eternal condemnation. The life and ministry of Christ are God incarnate upon the Earth to inform believers and unbelievers alike who He is and what He set out to do through covenants with people. The witness of the Holy Spirit as God and the whole counsel of His Word specifically reveals His intentions and interests.
God’s view matters most. Human experience, in general, doesn’t reliably describe with logical consistency who God is beyond what was specified and implied in Scripture as intended. Through the consciences of people and observable Creation by what was made (Rom 1:20, 2:14, 15; Acts 14:17; 17:24–27), God and his attributes are revealed to the extent His Word specifies through the Holy Spirit. None of the alternative views among the various perspectives self-derive a knowability about God beyond what He has set in place throughout created order. The ability to reason and conclude comes from God. The presence, behaviors, and properties of Creation are made to glorify Him, and people witness the unspoken praise of Creation for this purpose.
Given the scale and scope of the Universe and the mysterious and hidden nature of the sub-molecular activity of space, matter, and time, people can barely comprehend what is physically before them in an opaque way. Much less the spiritual realities that exist. It is a pronounced understatement to say that each and every individual for all time throughout humanity has a very myopic and narrow view of the world around them. As it is written by the prophet Isaiah, “We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men” (Isa. 59:10).
The categorical groups the authors set out to describe are helpful for understanding perspectives. However, every one of them is limited in its own unique way. I have trouble with the whole perspective that they are fully set against one another (Mark 9:39, Luke 9:50). Or in opposition where the cause of Christ is proclaimed even amid an abundance of error. The empirically orientated liberal who places the highest confidence upon the power of the intellect has little room for the assurance of truth by experience and metaphysical awareness among the existentially orientated liberals. Those of the faith who view neoorthodox believers as dry and vacant of the expressive presence of the Holy Spirit are somewhat upstaged by the reformers and evangelicals who “make room” for the Holy Spirit within to give voice to reason and experience. After a while, the contentious differences become wearisome. Yes, it is necessary to remain on guard, and believers are warned of false teachers as we must avoid them. Still, the following quote occasionally comes to mind as a look at the exercise of compare and contrast weighs heavily. Quote: Caesar Augustus openly professed the worship of the gods, which he had practiced secretly, and set the bishops of the Christians at odds:
“[4] On this, [Caesar] took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterward have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.”3 – Ammianus Marcellinus (330 – 400AD), Roman Soldier, Rerum Gestarum, (of the achievements, of history; for achievements), Book XXII, Chapter 5
I’m just doing my best to follow Christ by His invitation,
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” – Matt 11:28-30
Biblical and doctrinal convictions that develop from immersion in the Word through prayer, worship, fellowship, and reliable academic instruction help to yield me to God’s grace as I am utterly dependent upon Him for understanding, faith, and practice. The viability of my convictions comes from what I’ve accepted as the authoritative Word of God. I am committed to what it says and what it means because the messaging in all its forms originates from God. And how can I not live and abide by them even when, at times, I’m inconsistent in words, thoughts, or deeds (as are the authors of this textbook)?
I do not betray personal convictions of biblical truth as they’re developed within, nor do I live in persistent contradiction to them as they more closely align with this text’s “Many Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals” (pg. 65). Far less so am I guided or informed by convictions formed through instruction, the church, and views of people (including believers unless God has placed specific individuals into my life). A verse I memorized is my most pertinent answer to this question:
“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. – Gal 2:20
It is not my intent to be contrarian to the instructional value of this text. I am only writing what comes to mind and heart as I’ve read and studied the material at length. I get what the authors as a whole articulate, and I’m persuaded and better educated by the awakening subject matter in this text, but in my very limited view, some questions are hit-and-miss relevant. God is love and we are to love.
Divine Revelation Through Christ, Prophets, and Apostles
Volumes 1 and 2 of the Integrative Theology texts have the same review questions among nearly all chapters. These are template questions where the authors try to map the questions to readers’ expected or suitable responses about the subject matter. The author intends to have readers relate to and apply each section of the chapter read. Volume 3 of the set includes questions for discussion where they change for each chapter as they are more closely relevant to the subject matter. The chapter questions in volume three do not repeat as they do for volumes one and two.
Under the chapter title, “Divine Revelation through Christ, Prophets, and Apostles,” the authors wrote the question: How does a man, woman, or child, created and loved by God, come to know the Lord of the Universe in a personal, saving relation?
Given that question as a problem, a reader is better served by understanding the gospel with an invitation to seek Christ Jesus through His Word in Scripture. After that, if that person wants to develop a relationship with God further, there are biblically sound churches or fellowships where new believers are directed to help with spiritual formation. Believers attain spiritual formation from the Bible (Divine revelation), which consists of the words of God through the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles.
The answer to the question as a problem to resolve best comes from Scripture itself (as it is, in fact, a historical reference):
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” 29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” – Acts 16:28–31 (ESV)
For context, reference the account of the Philippian jailer converted in verses 25 through 40.
Among all the alternatives listed between Roman Catholic Scholasticism to Most Church Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals, the views of the latter group are closest to the primary biblical evidence (as answered by Acts 16:28-31).
When the jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he asked what he must do to enter into a salvific relationship with God. Paul’s response serves as the source of authoritative doctrine regarding the matter. The jailer was to believe in the Lord Jesus for salvation, and he was given specific instructions about how to do that by Apostle Paul. There is no grounding to dispute what is necessary to attain salvation. It is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. From the Greek meaning of the term (, this belief is not a manner of mental assent. It is to entrust oneself to God through Christ Jesus in complete confidence. Furthermore, “God and Christ are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.”4
Roman Catholic Scholasticism From assertions made at the Council of Trent, Catholics believe that all saving truth is contained in written and unwritten traditions. The “unwritten traditions” from the succession within the Catholic church claim authority of equal weight and relevance to Scripture. God’s Word, as either the Protestant or Catholic canon, never validates that claim.
Enlightenment Skepticism The assertions of Enlightenment theologians who develop perspectives in denial of divine activity deny general or special revelation. This class of “theologians” dismiss all accounts of Scriptural witness and historical testimony. Accordingly, their insistence that salvific value is necessary for understanding through self-derived means judged sufficient through human reason, science, and experience is futile as flesh counts for nothing (John 6:63).
As Enlightenment Theologians and skeptics reject the prospect of a spiritual reality that helps explain what transpired through revelation in all its forms within redemptive history, by inference they have already concluded there is no sin or wrath to be saved from. No need for reconciliation on God’s terms as He is their creator. Accordingly, there is no problem or question to answer as such from this text.
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. – John 6:61–63 (ESV)
Kierkegaard and Neoorthodoxy Kierkegaard and Barth have firm convictions about the weight of authority concerning Scripture. As evident by Christ Jesus through His incarnate presence, His words, and His actions, they view revelation as a qualitative difference among people where the Bible becomes the Word of God when believers respond in faith. While I resonate with their views about the authoritative nature of God’s Word and their dismissal of liberal thought as self-serving for social interests, I must withhold agreement about what the authors of this text wrote about when God’s Word becomes a special revelation. The Word of God has the spiritual substance of revelation for salvific merit, as validated by Paul, the apostle. Whether it was accepted or not. The Word is not an instrument to wield as if it were possible to get oneself saved. The Spirit works through His Words in Scripture to produce salvific faith among those appointed to believe.
I understand that the Word of God is His revelation, whether it is perceived that way or not. Conversely, we read Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians as follows:
13And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. – 1 Thess 2:13 (ESV)
Pannenberg’s Revelation as History Revelation as identical to the totality of history is Pannenberg’s view about how revelation is permissible. Divine revelation includes all humanity as recipients across time to involve redemptive and secular history. Contrary to what God has accomplished throughout extensive OT and NT biblical teaching, salvation is up in the air, so to speak, about what is necessary to redeem people and the individual to God.
Theistic Existentialism To existentialist theologians, divine revelation is a progression of experiences or events upon a person where transformation occurs without reference to the communication of gospel information from God. In contradiction to Romans 10:14-15, theistic existentialists also deny the authority of Scripture in this area. And they would likely do the same regarding the message of salvation where the point is moot about their acceptance of the gospel and Christ Jesus’s claims as redeemer Messiah.
In contrast to this question I answered previously, is the question asking if my convictions are viable, valid, or authentic by whether or not I can live by them? Where the underlying rationale is that if I can’t live by them, then my convictions are not valid? The premise to which the question is posed in response to the subject matter in this chapter is puzzling. Because no one fully lives by their convictions in thoughts, words, or actions. Believers are not sinners upon rebirth; they’re saints who sometimes sin (by betraying their convictions). This looks like an unregenerate question, but I’m sure I’m not getting the meaning somehow. We live by faith. Is the question concerning conviction about the subject matter of this chapter?
Our views and actions follow what we believe with consistency. My views are better formed by what I’ve learned in this chapter, yet I tentatively know what is off, false, or unbiblical. I want to be careful about the outliers compared to my convictions because I know there are times I’m a walking-talking contradiction as I seek to learn more about God, experience Him by His Word and Spirit, and rely on Him for life, faith, and those areas where I’m oblivious that my convictions don’t match what I do. If I’m in biblical or theological error, it is my plea for God to reveal that to me from His Word, by His Spirit, through this chapter and the others to follow. If there’s some area of correction about my convictions, I hope for God’s mercy. I assume my views are viable concerning God’s revelation to us because they’re biblical best I can tell.
I wouldn’t frame my agreements or disagreements with what the authors in this text wrote as convictions. This subject matter is informative, and it helps to gather various perspectives and sources about what theological thinking develops, but my level of maturity in this area is pretty low, I suspect. With a one-time read-through of this chapter, the Biblical Teaching and Systematic Formulation sections around the areas of divine revelation are highly stimulating and merge into a personal understanding that wasn’t previously there. It’s not obvious how I would test my understanding of the subject matter on divine revelation other than by what I study within Scripture and what the Spirit allows me to comprehend.
The Bible as Given by Inspiration and Received by Illumination
Under the chapter title, “The Bible as Given by Inspiration and Received by Illumination,” the authors wrote the question: In what way is the Bible Inspired and Authoritative?
Questions about inspiration and the authority of the Bible are relevant and critical to understanding whether or not divine revelation actually exists. Without the inspiration and authority of the written texts as Scripture, its truth claims, propositions, and messages are questioned. As flawed and corrupted human authors attentive to self-interest or their assertions about spiritual matters, what they write is simply a mix of fictional and nonfictional work.
Illumination and authority require the infallibility, inerrancy, and sufficiency of God’s Words made evident as divine revelation through human authors. The supernatural work of God to form messages of historical and salvific importance span the pages of the Bible to inform readers about Christ Jesus. The method in which the Bible is authoritative and inspired comes from Scripture itself. The Holy Spirit carried along men as God spoke through them to convey His messages (2 Pet 1:20-21).
As made evident through all genres of Scripture, there were various means by which God’s revelation is transmitted to people. Whether through people or directly, verbal or written, the source of inspiration originates from God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The authority of the Word originates from the Creator as God, who has the power to save, engage, withdraw, or destroy.
Jesus himself endorsed the Old Testament as objective truth, both inerrant and authoritative, as he brought to the attention their power against temptation while in the wilderness and tempted by Satan. He also drew attention to the law, the prophets, and the writings to teach and confront people about matters of moral value and conduct. Jesus viewed the teachings of the law, prophets, and writings as valid truth (inerrant) and authoritative. And there are numerous ways that from Him and his apostles, the Word of God as Scripture is demonstrated as both authoritative and inspired by what they spoke, wrote, and historically accomplished.
As structured and answered in prior chapters of this text, alternative proposals from the Church are considered at length about the topic centered upon the doctrine of God’s Word. In contrast to what Scripture informs its readers, those perspectives range from Catholics and Protestants to orthodox and heterodox (liberal) thought. The author of this text also groups “Most Fathers, Reformers, and Evangelicals” as its separate category to include the patristics of the early church, reformed theologians, and modern leaders of Christian traditions.
The Catholics dispute the canon and supremacy of God’s Word and situate it adjacent to the interpretive authority of the Catholic Magisterium. That is, assertions about the Magisterium’s authority are claimed alongside the authority and inerrancy of Scripture through its exclusive ability to interpret the Word of God. Consequently, the authority and inspiration of Scripture as the supremacy of revelation becomes substituted for the primacy of Scripture as if special revelation is derived and participative between God and the church. While historical Catholicism supplants the exclusive and complete inerrancy and authority of God’s Word as special revelation, Protestant Liberalism and Liberal Evangelicals outright deny it. Between them, the question of the inspiration of Scripture is a toss-up. Catholicism, liberal protestants, and liberal evangelicals commonly question the self-attestation of Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, and authority. On April 8th, 1546, at the Council of Trent, a Catholic leadership gathering identified its canon of Scripture (to include apocryphal books) in contrast to what Jesus spoke about concerning the Old Testament canon as the law, the prophets, and the writings. Those opposed to the Catholic canon were threatened by penalty of anathema (i.e., accursed as an absolute and irrevocable ex-communication from communion and fellowship).5
Reformed theologian and pioneer Martin Luther objected to the books of Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation, the Apocalypse of John. For numerous reasons, I strongly suspect that Jude, a brother of Jesus, was the author of Hebrews in addition to his self-titled letter. James, another brother of Jesus, wrote the book of James. Where these three together are isolated with the Book of Revelation by Luther undermines his credibility in light of his further objections to the Catholic church. Luther was fully persuaded about the soteriological emphasis on grace and held less regard for the tension between grace and living faith by evidence within believers’ lives. So, while the Catholic canon adds material to the Protestant canon (the canon of Athanasius at the Third Synod of Carthage), the protestant reformer Luther sought to deduct material.
Further chafing comes from Both Barth and Brunner. They held that Scripture is errant or has the capacity of error stemming from human words about the divine Word among neo-orthodox perspectives. Brunner rejected verbal inspiration.
Finally, most Patristics, Reformers, and Evangelicals are grouped in a separate category to bring attention to more favorable perspectives about more familiar doctrines about the Word of God according to traditions and confessional standards. A thread of coherent development concerning the inspiration and authority of Scripture is weaved from influential fathers of the early church to the Reformers and evangelicals today, as stated by the CSBI.
There isn’t primary biblical evidence about the inspiration and authority of Scripture concentrated in one area or grouping. There is a wide distribution of demonstrable self-attestation from the Pentateuch to Johannine literature. It is possible to assign weights to the placement and definitive proof of inspiration and authority of Scripture and cast a distribution to show where and how much the doctrine is supported. Such as a histogram or Pareto rule of concentration that objectively quantifies the matter. However, intuitively, the four gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ use of Scripture bear the most interest concerning the Old Testament.
As I deeply distrust the theoretical and spiritually consequential perspectives of people who form conclusions outside Scripture, I have a high degree of skepticism from all traditions, confessions, and denominations. Thinking biblically about matters of doctrine, faith, practice, and matters of conviction, involves a commitment to God and His interests as revealed through His Word. With limited acceptance, I support only the perspectives of historical figures, scholars, academics, pastors, and teachers who align with Scripture and all its substance as truth.
Truthful systematic formulations, doctrines, traditions, confessions, philosophies, teachings, and the ocean of historical documents of enormous weight are far subordinate to Scripture primarily because they speak of truth while God’s Word itself is truth and so much more.
The defense of my views wouldn’t only rest upon what logic and facts I derive. My defense would originate from the Bible, and I would rely on the Spirit to bring to mind what to think and say. If principles of reason or philosophical perspectives are spoken, I wouldn’t likely offer that sort of defense without some references to Scripture or principles derived from the Word without an explicit chapter-and-verse approach.
I would also probably call attention to widespread contradictions among historical authors, academics, and scholars to go on offense about what counter-assertions are made about points unsupported by Scripture (Col 2:8). When it comes to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word, I won’t engage with individuals who have perspectives that run contradictory to the plain meaning of Scripture simply for argument’s sake. Liberals and Catholics with activist perspectives about inspiration and authority come from a position of relativism and particular interests out of conformance with God’s Word as it has been rendered for centuries. Only from authentic interest and inquiry would I offer thoughts and a defense (offense) to influence or persuade according to what I’ve learned and accepted.
After a while, going from conscious decisions of acceptance in what is written to faith and belief in what God said through His Word became a type of muscle memory. So it isn’t by becoming informed that convictions about the Word are formed most deeply. It is by doing them. Doing them by discipline, worship, giving, and serving brings out spiritual understanding that doesn’t otherwise seem available. It’s not learning by doing but spiritual formation and sanctification by acting out the biblical text. With that and availability to the Spirit comes deeper convictions about the truth, inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of God’s Word.
The Living God
God: An Active Personal, Spirit
Under the chapter titled “God: An Active, Personal Spirit,” the authors wrote the question: How shall we view the reality of God ontologically? Accordingly, there are alternative perspectives in answer to the question in contrast with biblical teaching (according to the authors of the text).
It is thoroughly necessary to understand and live out the reality of God as His existence pertains to each individual’s state of being and eschatological trajectory. As every person is created in the image of God, there is a purpose for which people are created and meant to live coram Deo. As people are individual and social beings, living before God in awareness and faithful obedience to the truth of God is an existential necessity. As various conceptions of God get compared across theological commitments and worldviews, substantive attributes are presented in Scripture that reveals Him as Spirit and personally involved within His Creation.
There are numerous perspectives concerning the being of God and His metaphysical attributes. The spectrum of traditions ranges from Scholastic Thomism, deeply embedded in Catholic theology, to unorthodox, liberal, and protestant proposals. The differences among the perspectives are so broad and distinct that it seems impossible to reconcile them to arrive at an accurate or approximate conclusion about God in terms of His being, essence, identity, and attributes. Perspectives that stem from philosophical thought or premises that do not comport with the Old and New Testament revelation are generally narrowed to individual theories unanchored to Scripture. Perspectives listed and covered also range far and wide depending upon traditions and doctrines that loosely derive from Scripture and early church writings. The text doesn’t offer specifics about the rationale beneath these perspectives (e.g., why Schleiermacher denies the immutability of God), so there is a less meaningful effort to contrast and compare toward objective conclusions (1 Tim 1:4).
While wild speculations are apparent among the various perspectives, Process theology appears to be the farthest afield compared to traditions, doctrines, and Scripture. Contrary to Scripture, adherents of Process theology deny that Yahweh God is a person. Process theology possesses a thoroughly unbiblical notion of God. There is some overlap in truth claims among various perspectives, but there are specifics that are unreconcilable and false compared to a biblical standard. The error between them as groups, whether liberal or orthodox, appears to originate from a “God-centered” or “man-centered” approach to understanding.
Subjective understanding that doesn’t rely on the authority of divine revelation is held by liberalism, idealism, and Process theology perspectives that are errant concerning biblical instruction and teaching that have spanned thousands of years. Protestant and Catholic perspectives that align with Scripture overlap among various beliefs aside from dogmas that have grown out of the Roman Catholic church before and after the Protestant Reformation and Puritan eras. Liberalism, whether Protestant or Catholic, is gravely errant and unmoored from the authority of Scripture, including the gospels and the early church.
The question posed as biblical evidence from the biblical teaching that the authors of this text wrote infers there is single or primary evidence of the most significant weight. How God expresses Himself, His character, attributes, and intentions come through various genres according to the situational context of historical circumstances. To arrive at conclusions about God, His character, and attributes, it is critical to understand from His Word what He has revealed throughout history.
The text’s authors demonstrate widespread Scriptural attestation about the identity of God as a personal Deity with attributes recognizable across generations. To decide for me the most consistent and adequate account of primary biblical data concerning God as an active and personal Spirit doesn’t take wholly provided revelation of God. Scripture isn’t meant to be parsed to draw singular conclusions in this way. For example, how to selectively think of God’s omniscience over His immutability or aseity from biblical descriptions is a narrowing of perspective. To conclude that some attributes are subordinate or contingent upon others is an insight not otherwise available without biblical research about what God has revealed about Himself.
The triune God as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is transcendent, immutable, and self-existent. The eternality of God suggests the presence of time that God inhabits forever. In contrast to a persistent and unending now, independent of time, where the absence of time as a dimension, there is no decay as a function of it. If time is an illusion, as Einstein once said, then the past, present, and future doesn’t necessarily exist in a realm outside Creation. Einstein and many scientists believe that actual reality is timeless and that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. To use the term eternal to describe God’s attribute is an understandable proposition, but not as a perpetuated reality without the effects of aging or decay. Eternality is a timeless existence of a sustained now.
God is the alpha and omega. The beginning and end as He is both concurrently. His existence, independent of Creation, transcends space and time within Creation. Eternality along a human timeline suggests the permanent presence of historical facts within God’s realm of existence, whether ‘outside’ or ‘inside’ His creative reality. The human spirit is not a three-dimensional construct.
The human spirit inhabits a three-dimensional human body as a person’s tripartite being (body, spirit, and soul). God is spirit, and by His ‘breath,’ He gave life and sentient consciousness to humanity to bear His image. God relates to people through the Spirit as Creator, who is active throughout time among generations. God is a personal and active Spirit in the lives of individuals.
The view I maintain is the perspective of biblical writers. In the same response as before, the interpretive value of what the biblical writers wrote corresponds to God’s Word in defense of the errant views of the alternative proposals. At the same time, alternative theories about God as an active and personal Spirit out of alignment with the revealed facts of authoritative Scripture contradict God Himself. The effect of this misalignment with the original root meaning of God’s Word renders the views of the alternate proposals as empty speculations that cause disputes (1 Tim 1:4). Understanding the proposals of alternative views contrary to sacred Scripture only has value as far as identifying where the errors are to refute them and warn others about the specific contradictions (which is what this textbook does by inference).
In contrast to all the alternative proposals, including Protestantism on a trajectory of modern liberalism, I do not fully share various convictions about the topic of who God is as an Active and personal Spirit. I generally hold to the Word and most confessional traditions around the Westminister Confession of Faith and other confessional standards before and after the Reformation. Missing from these perspectives is more development around the thoughts and views of Patristics, and the Puritans compared to 20th and 21st-century theologies. Various approaches before the “Enlightenment” period would be a closer way to explore differences to my convictions concerning what the authoritative Word of God reveals about Himself as Spirit, both living and active as personal Creator and Deity involved in people’s lives.
Living by faith according to the Word is where my convictions rest. To live by best effort according to what the Lord wants and teaches. After a lot of time invested in understanding various modern denominations within evangelicalism, reformed traditions, and Catholicism (aside from the views of post-modern liberalism), there are practices and perspectives contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture among every one of them (without exaggeration). The biblical teaching across all genres of this chapter most closely aligns with my convictions.
God’s Many-Splendored Character
In the chapter titled “God’s Many-Splendored Character,” the authors wrote the question: How shall we view the character of God intellectually, ethically, emotionally, volitionally, and relationally? Accordingly, there are alternative perspectives in answer to the question in contrast with biblical teaching according to the authors of the text. With this question, there are interactive tensions between God’s character concerning His attributes and especially concerning His relationship to Creation and His created beings. How God’s interpreted presence and activity within creation are points of continued discussion to answer this question about God’s many-splendored character.
The range of perspectives about God as a personal or impersonal Being throughout the course of history has been contemplated and debated in depth among theologians and philosophers in the church over time. From interpreted observations about the nature of creation and divine revelation throughout Scripture, there are numerous divergent perspectives about how God set creation into existence with its various characteristics as the opinions and theories of individuals are brought to bear within this text. Attempts to answer this question from the perspectives of this text are a subset of what assertions are derived whether consistent with the truths of Scripture or not.
The textbook begins by looking back at Marcionite and Gnostic thought within the church’s earliest centuries. Augustine first followed Macrion as he began his philosophy journey before moving on to Platonism and eventually Christianity. The primitive and often self-contradictory meaning of interpreted historical facts about Judaism and Christianity resulted in controversy and friction as Marcion’s truth claims produced friction, false teaching, and confusion within the early church. Marcion’s errant views about the omnipotent attributes of God were a continued point of contention.
Further along in time, Aquinas recognized the valid attributes of God’s being concerning His omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, and necessity, among others. Aquinas’ assignment of human categories to which God’s attributes belong is propositional at best. More specifically, distinctions between God as a necessary being and contingent beings having a comparative footing in an ontological sense are inferred and worrisome.
Among the numerous additional perspectives narrated in this textbook, Deism and Socinianism affirm and deny characteristics of God. There are yet further divergent views in conformance and opposition to what the biblical writers wrote and from church teachings under the leadership of Paul and leaders of early apostolic succession. The extent and depth to which speculative assertions of human reason work to comprehend and understand God’s attributes beyond divine revelation through Scripture is an elaborate exercise of intellectual futility.
As readers of Schleiermacher and Ritschl attempt to grasp the theoretical propositions of liberalism, either by Protestant or Catholic tradition, there is a loose attachment to biblical facts concerning the revealed attributes of God. Without a commitment to the entire canon of Scripture, whether Protestant or Catholic, there is a continued and implicit denial of their authority that readers are expected to accept as valid or relevant theological and philosophical speculations unanchored from biblical truths about God. Entertaining vain speculations don’t inform a well-developed understanding of biblically centered theological development.
The term “Protestant” is pejorative to many in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. And it has become a label of sorts to identify that which is non-Catholic (which is a false proposition). Degrading the identity of Christ’s followers as Christians subdivided by participants with cause to reach for “their truth” is an unwanted means of division. Too often, as a means by which counterfeit notions, traditions, and doctrines arise and swirl as speculative or happenstance nonsense to escape spiritual and moral obligation or achieve social power and economic gain.
The value to which it is helpful to understand the views of neo-liberal individuals such as Tillich, Whitehead, and Macquarrie, is not for comparative interest in consideration of truthful interpretation about God’s character and attributes but instead to identify error. As liberal thoughts, traditions, persuasive propositions, and influential reasoning contradict the plain meaning of biblical truth, they are entirely dismissed en masse. Distractions that involve the defense of the plain truth of Scripture inject an intentional process of placing confusion where it brings harm. And not from those searching to understand truth as revealed by God, but from those who are in rebellion to that whether they know it or not. Off-mark and errant liberalism corrode everything it touches, and it is an utter waste of time and resources to contend with it. It is impossible to reason with an evil mind that long continues in error even after sound and thorough refutation from facts and truth. It must be isolated, rejected, or destroyed.
The character of God, including His attributes, is extensively covered among a wide span of biblical genres. The textbook covers numerous instances in which God’s attributes and character are revealed. Either by direct interpretive observation or testable inference by correlated Old and New Testament authors. The writers of this textbook provide numerous explicitly attested accounts throughout history concerning how God demonstrated His character and attributes, but also about why and what they are. From the Pentateuch to the Johannine writings in the New Testament, there are numerous primary facts about God’s revealed character and attributes that go well beyond the scope of this paper with available time and effort. As with the prior questions in this paper and among those before, the questions are asked so that they can be answered from an extensive approach to address them adequately. How the questions are formed and asked for written replies is somewhat open-ended without a defined scope in response.
While it isn’t possible to sift through all the points supported by biblical evidence the authors make about the character and attributes of God, the question posed here doesn’t fit the body of material presented in the Biblical Teaching segment of this reading. While this is a template question situated through all chapters and their subject matter, it is more effective to pick one instead toward contention against the alternative views. An attempt to answer the question about God’s many-splendored character by searching through the numerous outstanding examples within this text to offer a primary hypothesis (or synthesis) is not achievable by anyone under any circumstances. To suppose the contrary to this question is to surmise that God’s attributes and character properties are sortable and, by human assignment, subordinate to others.
The biblical teaching of God’s character and attributes, as covered extensively within this textbook, include the Pentateuch, historical books, poetry and wisdom, prophetic literature, synoptic gospels, acts of the apostles, Pauline epistles, Johannine literature, and other New Testament books. To distill among them the facts about God’s many-splendored character to find which alternative is more correct is an elaborate and intensive undertaking that isn’t answerable from coalesced biblical data as primary evidence. Numerous attributes are explained through narration, song, prophetic utterance, historical records, and much more. To demonstrate, the following represents the range of these characteristics as supported by specific biblical passages. Besides the prominent errant views that are outright dismissed, how does one navigate the biblical data about God’s character and attributes to determine which modern and orthodox alternatives are most correct?
God is:
1. Holy
21. Loving
41. Compassionate
61. Wise
2. Protective
22. Great
42. Refuge
62. Longsuffering
3. Impassable
23. Everlasting
43. Servant
63. Sovereign
4. Jealous
24. Glorious
44. Righteous
64. Healing
5. Joyful
25. Praiseworthy
45. Patient
65. Searching
6. Pursuing
26. Omnipresent
46. Understanding
66. Mindful
7. Merciful
27. Omniscient
47. Abundant
67. Immutable
8. Precious
28. Omnipotent
48. Revealing
68. Transcendent
9. Pleasing
29. Affectionate
49. Nourishing
69. Profound
10. Awesome
30. Zealous
50. Wrathful
70. Gentle
11. Sympathetic
31. Profound
51. A Fortress
71. Pure
12. Majestic
32. Hope
52. Exalted
72. Counselor
13. Freeing
33. Life
53. Authoritative
73. Magnificent
14. Faithful
34. Almighty
54. The Way
74. Consuming
15. Truth
35. Comforting
55. Fearsome
75. Light
16. Refreshing
36. Powerful
56. Just
76. Humble
17. Delightful
37. Reliable
57. Lord of Lords
77. Savior
18. Creator
38. Gracious
58. Serious
78. Mediator
19. Kind
39. Encouraging
59. Fatherly
79. Sacrificial
20. Considerate
40. Love
60. Ruler
80. Blameless
My doctrinal conviction about God’s character and attributes doesn’t come from the alternative interpretations in the Church. Or what belief system is most closely aligned to theological or philosophical rationale. It comes from biblical teaching of Scripture. This textbook renders exceptional and specific biblical answers about God’s character and attributes to which I come to rest. The other points between orthodox and confessional matters of faith and practice don’t nearly carry as much weight. Theological derivation of biblical facts to originate an understanding of God’s character and attributes prevails over any tradition, confession, or denominational interest. Contested ideas commingled together don’t yield Scriptural and theological truth as one panning for gold out of the waters of turbulence.
In my small view, speaking with children is the best way to share God’s character and attributes as He has shown them to us. Not to persuade or convince a congregation of people with a heart for truth but to let God speak through His words of beauty about who He is. By what He has done, what He has shown, and what He has promised, we understand Him better and become informed through the biblical witness of the Holy Spirit. It is within the wonderful character of God that spiritually explanatory power isn’t given to intellectuals and the wise.
While the integration of views is informative from the perspective of knowing where people stand about systems of thought, Integration Theology itself will not produce the best of ideas on its own. As the textbook’s authors clearly demonstrate, the integration of views must be stood up against what God has given through His Word. Not where Scripture itself is reduced as a common denominator, as it is held in authority over all views. The problems held out as propositional encounters between alternate views set up the textbook authors to defend the plain meaning of Scripture. They do this well, and I echo what they wrote. However, while they take into account various perspectives involving philosophical, theological, and scientific thought as the method of Integrative Theology, Scripture is preeminent and a smelter to which it is all set to fire. In a more specific response to the question, the scope to which the question is answered is very long, as there are numerous alternative views with cascading opinions and claims. Each of these is distinctive by way of relative biblical accuracy and the wide range of errors or contradictory views among them.
I accept everything God said about Himself through Scripture. Either directly as quoted or through the biblical authors. My convictions come from what is written in Scripture. And from what was recounted in the Bible by the textbook’s authors. As apostle Paul wrote, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17), it is clear that the Word of God produces faith within believers. Where from faith righteousness pleases God as necessary to live by it (Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38). It is from His Word that belief about who God is (i.e., His many-splendored character and attributes) and what He has done that the viability of conviction is proven within and among others. The infallibility of God’s Word authentically lived out as a matter of faith produces fruit (including convictions that arise from knowledge).
“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.” – 2 Peter 1:5–7 (ESV)
God’s Unity Includes Three Persons
In the chapter titled “God’s Unity Includes Three Persons,” the authors wrote various questions to stimulate understanding and discussion around the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a supposed contradiction or tension between propositional revelation and the personal experience of physically separate beings as individual entities. The human-centered interest to logically assign discrete personhood in three quantitative forms as an economic Trinity is an inversion of what special revelation informs people about (i.e., three persons in one essence). Understanding the Trinity on God’s terms, as clearly expressed through the plain meaning of Scripture, provides the proper cognitive recognition of who God is as described.
The situation cast by the authors of this text presents an understanding of the Trinity as a problem for the community’s retention of belief in God. A problem predicated upon the condition that how God is must be according to reality and existence as humanity prescribes it. “Doing justice to the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit” is one concern, while the uniqueness and unity of Yahweh are the other. As if they’re in contention with one another within the space and time that God set people to occupy.
The alternative interpretations in the Church vary widely, as expected. The differences appear centered around the economic and ontological understanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is said to be modal or three persons in one essence. While efforts to connect the modality of God as one being having three expressions of existence (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are in the form of God’s self-communication for human understanding. , while God remains a single personal entity. The interpretation of God’s being in this way is modalism (heresy), also called Sabellianism. It does not view Father, Son and Spirit as three particular “persons in relation” but as three modes of the one divine person of God. In contrast to Trinitarian theology, the Trinity is the single divine nature as a unity of three persons. Yahweh, through Scripture, reveals that He is three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
The other area of differentiation appears from an understanding of how the Holy Spirit proceeds from God. The filioque (a Latin term literally meaning “and the Son”) is a Western interpretation of revelatory detail concerning God as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Augustine and various Western theologians hold to this view, including Catholics and Protestants. In contrast, Eastern Orthodox tradition views the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father alone. The schism of 1054 A.D. between the Eastern and Western traditions of understanding concerns the controversial origination of how the filioque appeared within the Western churches in the sixth century after the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds of 325 and 381 A.D. (which did not have the filioque statement). The original creed did not include language about the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son. When the statement appeared within the confessional documents of the Nicene and Constantinople creeds, Eastern churches objected and separated from the Latin churches that included it.
The views of Orthodox and Evangelical theologians, including the patristics and reformers, held to the ontological view of the Trinity and not the economic Trinity proposition as espoused by various liberals and unorthodox formulations (Monarchian, Arian, Socinian, Hegelian, etc.). Moreover, the Didache (7.1) supported belief in the triune God. Further, early church fathers and theologians, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Calvin, and others, were together adherent to the triune God as three persons in one essence. The consensus of these influential church fathers migrated to various confessional statements that are recognized and recited today.
While the nature of the Trinity is described throughout the Old Testament, and more specifically, from the Pentateuch to the prophetic literature, we see the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Messiah. Yet without specifics about the incarnate identity of the Messiah, Jesus is revealed within the New Testament as the nature of the Trinity becomes clearer. There are numerous interactive instances of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as evident in the earliest writings of the Patriarchal fathers, the prophets, and the Psalms of David. The functional activity within the Old Testament is a consistent backdrop of the New Testament presence of each person as revealed through various Scriptural accounts (e.g., the baptism in the Jordan, the transfiguration, and the various dialogs in between).
It is consistently apparent among various biblical authors that the Trinity becomes manifest in observable ways. Where by linguistic form (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), there were recorded passages that intertextually corroborate to substantively validate the proper ontological view of the Trinity as Scripturally recognized, described, and defined through the centuries. There is no contradiction in how the triune God is revealed to humanity as a means to give credit toward the economic Trinity from within the closed system of space and time. Assertions about the economic Trinity that centers reasoning around the idea that God must exist as a single consciousness, with modes of expression required within three dimensions of created reality, are short-sighted of the spiritual reality of Elohim. Notwithstanding Scriptural attestations about the triune God made clear by revelatory evidence, that is a flat-earth mentality.
My doctrinal conviction corresponds to the Scriptural evidence across the biblical writers. From Scripture, as the Holy Spirit inspires it, we learn about each person of the Trinity who exist as a single essence. Through centuries of honest and accurate interpretation from among church fathers, we also have observations and intertextual readings that correspond to traditions and confessional standards that help form convictions. While it is surprising that Barth, Rahner, Brunner, and others of the 20th century held modalistic convictions, I continue to adhere to the biblical and historical belief about the Trinity as an ontologically valid triadic union.
Understanding God from within the framework and substance of meaning through Scripture, there are conclusions we can make about his that are safe and valid. While Scripture doesn’t present the term “Trinity” to its readers, or that members of the triune God don’t explicitly present Himself as three persons and one essence doesn’t invalidate the theological truths of the divine unity.
To answer a question about the existence of God as a triadic union, as if it were a problem in comparison to other views or theories, I would defer to the personal conviction that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. What God informs people about concerning Himself as three persons in one essence, we choose to accept and embrace as truth having far greater weight than the philosophical speculations of flawed and sinful people held captive to the constraints of space and time.
Interpretations of traditions change. Traditions from the early or historical church morph into practices that do not always correspond to the truths of Scripture. Furthermore, they are susceptible to subjectivism and secular influences that contradict the interests of God as made plain through Scripture.
The authority by which the filioque is accepted or rejected draws upon a reading of Scripture and Cappadocian trinitarian theology concerning whether or not there was a procession of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, or Christ Jesus and the Father as the triune God. All co-equal as three persons in one essence. As the spiritual voice of God is given through the pages of holy Scripture, anyone of the persuasion that God exists as modalities doesn’t accept the Word on its authority that history demonstrates otherwise.
A clear conscience about living by the truth of Scripture can set oneself against the interests of people with vested interests in tradition or presuppositional commitments that do not carry evidentiary weight. Especially in comparison to the correctly interpreted meaning of what God revealed through His Word, I continuously and persistently decide to choose what God says over man. At every turn, where some idea is set up against the knowledge of God, I oppose each because they’re contradictory, subjective, or arbitrary in light of what Scripture otherwise conveys. Especially when the explicit biblical truth informs our understanding of God and what He has revealed.
A comprehensive and up-close understanding of Scripture is utterly necessary to know the Word of God to refute or dismiss erroneous, false, or deceitful ideas and propositions. It also isn’t enough to merely know Scripture at a surface level. Theological endeavor must be thoroughly supported by immersion in the Word of God. Each and every word, phrase, clause, sentence, and punctuation must be understood to comprehend and accept God’s special revelation about Himself as true. The triune God made evident throughout the pages of Scripture is understood by what is written to stand about each divine person of the Most High as co-equal members of the Trinity. If Scripture is coupled with tradition or philosophical thoughts and theories that originate elsewhere and there are propositional contradictions to the reading of the biblical writers, then there is nothing to discuss or contemplate.
God’s Grand Design for Human History
In the chapter titled “God’s Grand Design for Human History,” the text authors set up a problem in the form of another question: “Are all events in nature and history the fulfillment of the sovereign plan of a perfectly wise and omnipotent God?” Furthermore, they pose various additional questions to elaborate upon the purported differences between the sovereignty of God and human free will. These questions are presented to readers in an effort to render an understanding of God’s will and purpose through human agency over the course of history.
The design of human history is framed within an understanding of human freedom, responsibility, the existence of evil, and the trajectory of the unsaved. As there are disputes, misunderstandings, and controversies about the nature of human history in this respect, various views are covered for comparative reference.
Pelagian and Liberal Traditions Pelagianism is from the 5th-century British monk and theologian Pelagius who led people to believe that original sin is not a biblical doctrine, and that human will is entirely free to choose either good or evil. And, consequently, individual salvation or damnation depends on that choice. Continued adherence to this thought process runs counter to biblical instruction and early church teaching, as it remains against God’s sovereignty today. Liberal theology developed in the 20th century further undermines the sovereignty of God and transfers ownership of soteriological interest to human freedom and autonomy. There is a prevailing choice and thought process among liberal perspectives that human freedom and preferences override or refute biblical instruction and revelation about divine foreordination. There is an underlying notion among liberals that the doctrines of divine decree are predatory, despotic, and arbitrary.
Through further comparison, adherents of process theology reject the biblical notion of God as having controlling power over His creation. It situates human freedom, creativity, and personal growth over classical theism, where instead, God is a persuasive and not controlling divine authority. To the liberal, human freedom stands above God’s sovereignty.
Semi-Pelagian and Arminian Perspectives To semi-Pelagians and Arminians (James Arminius, 1559-1609), decrees from divine sovereignty impair human responsibility and freedom. To dehumanize the individual by divine decree, as evident through Scripture, is not a tolerable proposition to those who consider such theology a crude fatalism. The priority of the human will is situated over divine will, and semi-Pelagians restrict God’s sovereign decrees to the foreknowledge of human choices.
In further rejection of Augustinian theology and explicit biblical intent, Arminianism denies that God wills the actions of free agents. More specifically, Arminians believe that God only saves those He foreknows who would believe. Conversely, God would only judge those He foreknows who would not believe. Further along in modern theological thought, Wesleyan and Methodist reasons from Arminianism that sovereignly divine decree is limited or conditional to human choice and God’s sovereignty does not determine a person’s eternal destiny. To John Wesley, God permits what He has determined as controlled by human freedom, decision, and accountability.
Supralapsarian Hypotheses John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others of the Reformation era surmised from Scripture that God decrees and predestines people to salvation and damnation. The redeemed for salvation and the reprobate for damnation are determined in advance in the mind of God and not as an outcome of the Fall. Known as double predestination, or pejoratively as “Hyper-Calvinism,” the doctrine is more pronouncedly rejected among liberal and Arminian or Wesleyan adherents. It was explicitly made clear by Calvin,
“We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.”6
To Calvin, the terms of interpretation are clear concerning righteousness and reprobation as the decree before the existence of each individual was already formed in the mind of God. Calvin distinguishes between the proximate and ultimate cause of the Fall. At the same time, he assigns the responsibility of sin to the human agent. Proximately, the choice of proto-humanity was the cause of the Fall, but God’s sovereign will is the remote cause of the Fall. To Calvin, from the wickedness of men, the whole fault rests upon them.” Calvin and Luther were careful not to claim that sin originated from God.
Theodore Beza (Calvinist Theologian, 1519-1605) made a further distinction between the sovereign decrees of God and how they are executed. To the double predestination interpretation, God wills individuals’ eternal salvation and damnation, but His decree is executed by secondary means of faith and unbelief. To Beza’s rationale, the supralapsarian upholds human responsibility while denying that God is the author of sin.
John Owen (Puritan Theologian, 1616-1683), another supralapsarian, far more accepted the sovereignty of God in all respects concerning His will and decrees.
“God disposeth of the hearts of men, ruleth their wills, inclineth their affections, and determines them freely to choose and do what he in his good pleasure hath decreed shall be performed”7
As a final comparison, the authors of this textbook wrote, “Bavinck does insist that nothing comes to pass without first being established in the divine mind” while situating him in the supralapsarian category of alternative views.8 However, Bavinck himself wrote,
“Accordingly—and fortunately!—supralapsarianism is consistently inconsistent. It starts out with a bold leap forward but soon afterward it shrinks back and relapses into the infralapsarianism it had previously abandoned.”9
To a significant extent, Bavinck wrote about the inadequacy of both supra- and infralapsarianism. As he wisely understood that the logic of the universe insufficiently explains the will of God by His sovereign decrees and intent. To insist otherwise is an internally held insistence that God must think and conclude, as does humanity. For instance, Bavinck maintained that purpose, foreknowledge, and predestination are used almost exclusively with reference to predestined glory. Since eternal damnation, by comparison, is not the goal but the termination of human life, it cannot be classified as predestination. Grace to eternal life is not by the same rationale or human logic as the condemnation of the reprobate to eternal damnation.
Barthian Neoorthodoxy Just as Bavinck affirmed double predestination in a limited way, Karl Barth (Protestant Theologian, 1886-1968) did so similarly. He also concluded that election and reprobation were not symmetrical decrees (such as from Calvin and Beza). Still, in the supralapsarian camp (“purified supralapsarianism”), Barth points to Scripture concerning the gospel against liberalism to support election by sovereign decree through Christ Jesus. Barth did not support Augustine’s or Calvin’s abstract views of God’s sovereign decree but instead wrote of Jesus as “God’s Word, God’s decree, and God’s beginning.”
Infralapsarianism Held by some Fathers, Medieval Authorities, Reformers, and Many Evangelicals, infralapsarianism
“From the Latin infra (“below” or “later than”) and lapsus (“fall”), the belief that God’s decrees of election and reprobation logically come after the decree to permit the Fall, in contrast to supralapsarianism. Accordingly, God judges humanity in light of sin, not apart from it. The position argues that if election and reprobation logically preceded the Fall (as in supralapsarianism), this would ultimately make God the author of sin, creating a conflict between God’s love and holiness; consequently, it would appear that God ordains people to punishment without cause. Historically, infralapsarianism is the majority position among Reformed theologians, though none of the Reformed confessions takes a side on this issue.”10
As it is in the interest of theologians to refrain from accusing God as the author of sin, infralapsarians assert that God has not willed sin but permitted it. Through all decreed eventualities of human acts and being from before time began, God knew that Fall would occur and the resulting eternal damnation would be permitted. As Jesus spoke,
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – Jn 3:18
The term “already” here is translated from the root as a “marker of logical proximity and immediateness, in fact.” Said another way, the term “already” can be understood as an adjective “currently – already enacted or happening at this time or period.”11 The alienation of people from God due to sin and the Fall He permitted, people stood condemned without being born-again as made clear in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus in John chapter three. Various church fathers, reformers, and modern evangelicals uniformly adhere to the single predestination to life, as does the various Reformed Confessions (Second Helvetic, Gallic, Belgic, Dort, and Westminster).
The textbook makes a very well-developed case around Scripture about God’s preceptive and permitted will in the course of human history and events to involve His grand design. The sovereignty of God is never diminished or viewed in the light of other perspectives in an inferior way. As the authors traverse the various books of the Bible and its genres, it is obvious that humanity doesn’t live by strict determinism as God’s sovereign will does not discourage human effort or render it meaningless against His purposes. It is consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments that God incorporates free human agency into His purposes as history unfolds to produce the intended design and purposes He accomplishes.
Pauline theology throughout the book of Romans is loaded with meaning and understanding about God’s sovereign intentions and purposes. To include background rationale and the historical development of creation as God’s redemptive work takes shape across covenants.
While the textbook advocates an infralapsarian position of human history within God’s grand design, I don’t think the textbook presents robust information to make the best informed and confident decision for me personally. While it is out-of-hand straightforward to dismiss liberal, Pelagian, and Wesleyan perspectives as contrary to Scripture, the book’s partitioning and limited coverage of Barthian, supralapsarianism, and infralapsarianism theology doesn’t offer enough background and depth to take an informed position or develop a doctrinal conviction. I’ve read enough of Bavinck to understand the insufficiency of freestanding supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism to develop instead a tentative perspective that involves a biblical overlap of both without historical propositions predicated on either/or logic and philosophical regret.
“I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.” – Aquinas, 1273
A personal defense of God’s sovereign intent and design is effectual from His Word. From a natural perspective, logic works to a limited extent to settle convictions from persuasion and arguments that involve mastery of God’s Word. It is useful to understand the weaknesses of reason involving perspectives contradictory to God’s Word specific to the intent of His grand design. For the purpose of honoring the truth and beauty of God and His Word, situational awareness of both physical and spiritual realities that exist involves faith, promises, and confidence in who He is and what He does. It isn’t enough to just reason from cognitive strength alone to defend convictions developed through special revelation within Scripture.
From successive approximation and iterative exposure to error stood alongside the truth of Scripture, there is within an elimination of fault until there is no further capacity to arrive at a more precise resolution. From that, I write and speak to learn and live by what God would have me believe and do.
The viability of my conviction rests upon the free will God has given to live for His glory. As He directs my heart and my affections close to Him, I confess that I love God with all my soul, mind, body, and strength. And if I could just delight in Him all my days, He would give me the desires of my heart. Because, as He knows and as He intended, He is my heart’s desire. I belong to Him. And by the freedom He has given me, even if just enough, I hope He is pleased because He knows He is loved.
Citations
_____________________________________ 1 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality: The Living God, vol. 1, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 24. 2 Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Vol. 2, Pt. 1, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936–1969), 173. 3Ammianus Marcellinus, With An English Translation, ed. John C. Rolfe, vol. 2 (Medford, MA: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd., n.d.), 203. 4 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 817. 5 Theodore Alois Buckley, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (London: George Routledge and Co., 1851), 19. 6 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 926. 7 John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 42. 8 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality: The Living God, vol. 1, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 297. 9 Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 388. 10 Kelly M. Kapic and Wesley Vander Lugt, Pocket Dictionary of the Reformed Tradition, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 63. 11 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 434.
The interpretive grounds and soteriological purpose of the Trinity are based solely upon the authority and meaning of Scripture revealed by God as transmitted by the biblical authors. From the Old Testament to the New, God revealed Himself as three persons in one essence. And the biblical authors wrote about that under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. From creation, through the covenants, redemptive history, and eschatological trajectories, each person of the Trinity was at work as recorded throughout Scripture.
Doctrinal Assertions
There are four ways, among many, to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.
There is One God, Elohim, Plural (Deut 6:4)
There is One God, Eternal, Immutable, Transcendent (Heb 7:3)
There is One God, Exclusive, Distinct (Isa 45:5)
There is One God, Modeless (John 17:5, John 1:1, John 14:26)
Doctrinal Approaches
The Trinity is revealed by divine presence, activity, and instruction; not derived through human attainment of knowledge, reason, or inference.
A. Subjects of Scripture
Structured summarization of Trinitarian functions and assessment of affected topics (i.e., deconstructed doctrines without the Trinity):
God the Father Doctrine of God
Pneumatology Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Christology Doctrine of Christ
Angelology Doctrine of Creation (bene-elohim)
Anthropology Doctrine of Man
Hamartiology Doctrine of Sin
Soteriology Doctrine of Human Salvation
Eschatology Doctrine of Last Things
Bibliology Doctrine of God’s Word
Ecclesiology Doctrine of the Church
B. Storyline of Scripture
Genesis to Revelation, the Scriptural presence of the Trinity and its productivity (i.e., coherent involvement of the Trinity through biblical events) were prominent for the overall creative and soteriological purpose among both old and new covenants. Specific events communicated through the various literary genres involved all three persons of the Trinity.
Tracing events through scripture narratives across generations to corroborate the existence and work of the Trinity is an interpretive necessity through the formation of comprehensive biblical theology.
C. Statements of Scripture
Explicit attestations concerning the Trinty – Individual truths, promises, and themes are consistent throughout the Bible. The doctrinal implications of the relational nature between the members of the Trinity affect covenants, marriages, parenting, contracts, mediation, communication, and relationships.
The Glory of Triune God
While the soteriological purposes of God are highly evident throughout both the Old and New Testaments, what we recognized about His glory is, I am convinced, a part of a larger meta-narrative. There is much more at work than what we realize. James Hamilton Jr writes an excellent biblical theology around the salvation of people as a central theme throughout Scripture. Hamilton’s work is an exhaustive book-by-book horizontal examination of how triune God attains glory in salvation through the judgment of disobedient people.
He writes from the various events that coalesce into biblical theology, but I happen to think there is a vertical narrative as made evident by revelatory detail. Especially from a first-century New Testament perspective. A solely human-centered theology presents a limited one-dimensional horizontal perspective, but the soteriological value of comprehensive biblical theology speaks to who God is and what He has done for humanity as recorded in the pages of Scripture. I have nothing but heartfelt gratitude for Hamilton’s work. I study a range of his materials.
I’m highly sympathetic to Karl Barth (renowned most influential theologian of the 20th-century). He didn’t like the phrase, “systematic theology” because it suggested to readers a root of human reason to discern spiritual truth to shape harmful ecclesiological outcomes (like socialist liberal tolerance and acceptance of the Jewish holocaust). He got a lot of pushback from that among socialists and liberals within his time (thus his “Church Dogmatics”). It’s also why we see “Reformed Dogmatics” (Bavinck) and other similar titles from Reformed theologians who object to liberalism or socialist thought stemming from Aristotle and Kant (i.e., modernity and the ensuing enlightenment).
Assumptions about the supremacy of human thought and reason outside what specific truths, principles, and imperatives are revealed in Scripture can form categories of doctrine that misguide church polity and social structures contrary to the explicit interests of God as recorded in His Word, the Bible. Modernity and post-modern thought contribute to a low view of Scripture. – For example, a complementary perspective concerns God’s glory in the realm beyond ours (a vertical dimensionality). While Hamilton comprehensively and deeply writes about the redemptive human history (a horizontal dimensionality), Michael Heiser writes of nations reclaimed (salvation) through a process of judgment for God’s glory. Where those judged are not human, but spiritual as Yahweh reclaims humanity for His interests. See video: Heiser’s Biblical Theology (Biblical & ANE Cosmology).
This afternoon I finished reading the entirety of God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (342-pages). The whole effort was time well spent because it concerns the doctrine of the Trinity upon which various other doctrines rest. The book was a comprehensive look at the doctrine and the Trinity itself from the author (Millard Erickson, 1995) yet from the perspectives of various 18th, 19th, and 20th-century theologies as well. Moreover, the scope of the book covered the councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.) to assert the relevance and consequences of the doctrine, including the safety and survival of Rome.1
While the book thoroughly covers the history of the doctrine’s development and its interpretive approaches, it highlights with careful attention the importance of what it is and what it does. The well-known and highly influential German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg (1923-2014) asserted without hesitation that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most important among all doctrines by comparison. With numerous historical citations involving early church patristics, Erickson traverses the formulaic development of the doctrines from the first through fourth centuries. The apostolic fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius formed instruction and traditions around the doctrine to counter opposing thoughts and assertions about the triadic form of God. Furthermore, over decades, modalism, tri-theism, Arianism, and other disputes concerned the developing church where the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity had to become a priority to settle.
From the earliest understanding of authoritative and inspired Scripture, the biblical meaning of the doctrine appeared on a scale. A valid and necessary interpretation of the Trinity was at rest on a sort of conceptual fulcrum on a scale. Move too much one way in understanding and interpretation slides to a form of modalism (liberation theology & feminism), move in the opposite direction on the scale, and interpretation moves to tri-theism, or Arianism. While tri-theism tends to be an errant way of thinking about the Trinity today, Arianism purported that Jesus could not have been truly God. The teaching of Arius (335/336 A.D.) was deemed heretical at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Erickson enumerates the numerous passages that biblically reference the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old to New Testaments. Historical and cultural narratives concerning the nature and triadic unity of God across Old Testament covenants involved God’s interaction with individuals, groups, tribes, and nations. To further extend the presence of God as triune in the New Testament, numerous gospel and Pauline references point to the truth of God’s Being as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate yet One. The various triadic passages and references within Pauline writings and the baptismal formula set the doctrine’s foundation to assure interpreted revelation for humanity to recognize God as He is.
To further narrow the meaning of the triadic union of God, the gospel of John makes extensive reference to the relationship between all members of the Trinity. In contrast to the Old Testament, the members of the Trinity are identified explicitly to indicate their function, momentary subordination, incarnation, and the relationship between each other and humanity. Taken together, the compiled meaning of God’s identity as revealed in Scripture is nothing short of astonishing and profound. The testimony of Old and New Testament witnesses to God, His activity, and work through the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles made a punctuated and alarming impression about reality beyond day-to-day recognition that is certain to last until the Parousia.
As Greek and Latin recognition of the revelatory witness began, numerous approaches to the understanding of the Trinity ensued. Philosophical assertions about the metaphysical nature of Trinitarian theology took shape from early Greek thought to more scholastic and postmodern perspectives. Erickson does an exceptional job outlining the substance of various contributors to philosophical and theological engagement. From Aquinas and Kant to Schleiermacher, Barth, Rahner, and more contemporary contributors of Henry, Davis, and Lacugna, different competing perspectives are presented, emphasizing a process of elimination given biblically grounded rationale. Tradition, utilitarian, or social preferences carried no interpretive weight with the author.
To make a case for the understanding and correct interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the author covers various objections to the Trinity in painstaking detail. Moreover, the author effectively argues for the necessity of instruction on the doctrine as a matter of pressing discipleship or catechesis. A proper understanding and interpretation of the doctrine are foundational and practical as it concerns prayer life, worship, apologetical contention, interpersonal relationships, and church governance. The doctrine of the Trinity is such a crucial area of instruction that it affects the future health and development of the Church and Christianity in general.
[1] Erickson cites on page 13: Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Dover, 1961), 4:60–67.
As many have observed throughout centuries past, the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t explicitly identified as a term or concept to present to us how we are to identify or interpret God. In his book, God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Millard Erickson presents to readers the biblical basis for the existence of the Trinity.1 In defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, Erickson lists several vulnerabilities concerning some views of Richardson’s work on the subject.2 The work involves process theology which is a philosophical theology concerning the world having two natures. To describe process theology as the “primordial” transcendence of God and the “consequent,’ or imminent nature by which God is part of the cosmic process.3 While Erickson lists many valuable points of refutation or objections against a process theology interpretation of the Trinity, and he also makes sound biblical arguments about the existence of the Trinity implicit from the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. Within this monograph, and from his work Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions, exact details and references are made about the case for the Trinity as a formative doctrine by which humanity is to recognize God.4 The doctrine of the Trinity assembled from Scripture as the revealed Word of God presents to people across all time the nature of Trinitarian existence.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the same essence who have separate identities and are knowable as God. God, by name YHWH, is a single Being comprised of three together in perfect relationship and essence as one. Readers of Scripture see the interaction between members of the Trinity as God is revealed to people within Creation. He interacts with generations of individuals and nations through various covenants, interventions, and creative efforts to redeem humanity from corruption by the errant free will of persons. Erickson meticulously addressed the biblical problems caused by Richardson’s interpretation of the Trinity. There were eight separate enumerated issues around Richardson’s arguments covered by Erickson. From a range of erroneous thoughts around the authority of Scripture to human-centered logical arguments that arrive at modalism, there were numerous counterpoints of biblical evidence and interpretation. Erickson gives explicit reason for how Richardson works from false premise to conclude flawed outcomes of reason.
The doctrine of the Trinity matters pragmatically as it is a model of the relationship between God and His created beings. Invited into fellowship between Creator and created beings, the redemptive process itself is a part of the creative work to derive creatures with a free will made eligible and acceptable to God. The love of others, marriage covenants, and vows to involve the perfect form of relationship has implications about how people are to live out loyalty and obligations centered upon love and commitment. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a theological grounding for human interaction as imagers of God who will at some point be in fellowship with Him as He intended and promised from His revealed Word.
Contested thoughts around the pragmatic interests of people without concern for the Creator is an exercise in futility. The self-serving philosophical rationale that ingratiates itself with interest to improve the human condition doesn’t go far enough because everyone dies. Worse, everyone dies from a position of corruption and suffering by obvious and continued rebellion against natural order in defiance of its Creator (sin), if not just from creation itself. People unredeemed without purpose from God who live and die with philosophical and metaphysical convictions are still empty, albeit temporarily satisfied by answers to practical problems. That is to say, soothe yourself with pseudo-intellectual reasons to ignore God and His revelatory essence to abide in self with contradictory interests.
Objections to Trinitarian Christianity and its uniqueness have concentrated around feminism and liberation theology, where they together form an alternative to “extremities of patriarchal trinitarianism” (Erickson, 147). A range of feminist cases that argue for feminist theology stems from objections around the male gender identity of the trinitarian doctrines explicitly communicated in Scripture. Concepts of domination, power, and authority as masculine traits to express God as a trinitarian form of Being contradict the interests and preferences of females who conceive God as almighty Creator. Their efforts are then to appeal to a tradition of female social prominence and recast it into feminine consciousness. As gender-Trinity is set aside to reshape worship and objects of worship, idolatrous forms of veneration emerge.
Historical female interests in poetry, myth, legend, ritual, and nature worship were elements of common interest in magic to practice goddess worship (Erickson, 144). By what is sometimes known as witchcraft extending back 35,000 years, objections to patriarchal trinitarianism of the last 5,000 years arrived later on the scene to oppose female power according to developing feminine thought. Universal Trinitarian Christianity, with its heritage and bedrock patriarchal foundation, formed its doctrinal system to arrive at well-formed beliefs altogether Scripturally and objectively anchored. In contrast, feminine interest in goddess religion throughout the centuries (pagan, Greco-Roman, and contemporary) was more subjective without concrete tethering to Truth. In the mind of the historical feminist, male patriarchy was and is ascendant to function as a repressive force to which liberation becomes necessary in common cause with liberation theologians who believe a different gospel contrary to the revealed Word of God in Scripture. To deny Scripture as patriarchal (or toxically masculine) and dismiss its authority is to abandon or forsake complementarian order. It is an intentional effort to exchange female will to power for feminist claims toward the worship of feminine deity in the name of liberation. The erasure of a masculine trinitarian concept contrary to the historical work of God interpreted through Scripture is a less than obvious aspiration of historical female theologians.
The formation and acceptance of generic religion as an objection to the uniqueness of Christianity is yet another effort to bring the Creator and creation into subjection to social interests. It is the removal and dilution of the Trinity as unique to Christianity as it must give way to a homogenous interreligious discussion because exclusive claims are viewed as unacceptable. As it is with feminists who view the masculine trinitarian view of Christianity as objectionable, there are those within Islam, Hinduism, and other religions unable to accept the Trinitarian doctrine and theological traditions. Consequently, to those who object and instead press toward a generic religion or a homogenous spirituality, it is Christianity that must conform to social expectations more palatable to belief in an effort to satisfy its interests. The assimilation of new values to transform human understanding of the Christian faith is a necessary sociological pursuit in the mind of those who object to the doctrine of the Trinity as it is participative of creation having exclusive obligations to YHWH, the only God.
__________________________
Citations
1 Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 100. 2 Cyril C. Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958). 3 Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 95–96. 4 Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 15–16.
The following are chapter notes from the book, “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.” The book is a compilation of essays from R. Albert Mohler Jr., Peter Enns, Michael F. Bird, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and John R. Franke. The general editors are J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett. The textbook is in the Counterpoints of Bible & Theology Series. It was published in 2013 by Zondervan.
Chapter One: When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy
The editors of the book “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy” have put together a conversation in written form between academics who discuss the doctrine of inerrancy. The discussion is structured in a counterpoint format where four contributors frame the narrative by an opening statement to challenge thought and debate. Participants of the discussion include four prominent individuals within an academic context who bring together multiple perspectives about what inerrancy is. And if it is a valid way to understand and accept Scripture, its merits or flaws. Participants include Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Michael F. Bird (Anglican Priest, Theologian, and NT Scholar), Peter Enns (Author, Biblical Studies Professor), John R. Franke (Theologian, Professor of Religious Studies), and Kevin Vanhoozer (Theologian, Systematic Theology Professor).
As anyone would understand the term inerrancy, a common definition is generally accepted as follows: “The idea that Scripture is completely free from error. It is generally agreed by all theologians who use the term that inerrancy at least refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of Scripture as God’s Word, which informs humankind of the need for and the way to salvation. Some theologians, however, affirm that the Bible is also completely accurate in whatever it teaches about other subjects, such as science and history.”1 In comparison, the Second Vatican Council defines it as: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings2 for the sake of salvation.” 3 To further recognize Protestant or Evangelical attestation of inerrancy, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) is widely understood as informative to clarify what is meant and accepted as Scripture inerrant of facts and truth.
Mohler offered the prescriptive “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy” to open the first of a five-part series of declarations. He makes a case for inerrancy as Scripture is a testimony to itself while serving the faith and needs of the Church. To anchor the testimony of God’s Word as trustworthy, Mohler makes a further compelling and persuasive point that Scripture corresponds to God’s personal nature as his own self-revelation (44).
According to Mohler, our comprehension and understanding of God’s Word to support formulaic doctrines are not freestanding. A theology stems from God’s Word as it produces a realism to “affirm the irreducible ontological reality of the God of the Bible.” As “God wrote a book” (45), Mohler affirms that human authors were guided into truth and protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. The absence of error, as a result, explains the propositional value of inerrancy. As such, the terms infallible and inerrant reject the claims the Word of God is theologically incorrect or without truthfulness in its intent to bring salvific, theological, and historiological messaging to its readers.
Therefore, it is affirmed by the CSBI that the Word of God constitutes plenary inspiration for faith and practice. It is helpful as it is authoritative for belief and instruction.
Chapter Two: Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does
As ideological fencing was placed by Pharisees who set up regulations around the Mosaic law, they did so to provide insulative barriers at some distance to prevent people from breaking the Old Testament covenant after their return from Babylonian exile. By comparison, it intuitively seems like evangelicals set up theological fencing around the doctrine of inerrancy to prevent people from corrupting the closed Biblical canon and the interpretive meaning of Scripture for valid soteriological purposes. As Enns referred to John Frame’s view about inerrancy as a theologically propositional idea, he wrote that he would rather do away with the term but could not do so because of certain corruptions to follow from theologians (scholars).4
Before Enns began to deconstruct each of the three test cases of Biblical inerrancy initiated by Mohler in chapter one, he spent considerable effort on the disharmony of evangelicals over inerrancy (i.e., socially liberal objections to Scriptural authority) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). He grieves over the disconnect between academics and inerrantist evangelicals over the doctrine of inerrancy, and he makes clear that it sells the Bible short. Enns also declares that inerrancy sells God short as it is merely a theory of inferior purpose. In his view, it’s a doctrine that needs to be scrapped as it preempts discussion about scholarly conclusions about Scripture’s accuracy, facts, and truths (or at least evangelical interpretation of it). Through Enns’ perspective, it is clear that some academic scholars are certain inerrantists are intellectually dishonest (84) and a disservice to culture as ineffectual spiritual witnesses.5
To add further detail to Enns’ objections to the CSBI, he walks through each of its four assertions point-by-point. All four assertions pertain to the authority of Scripture, its witness of Christ and the Holy Spirit, its commitments to faith, life, and mission, and discontinuity between lifestyle and faith claims of inerrantists. Stemming from each, as there is his distinction made between authority and inerrancy, this is deconstruction. As God’s testimony of himself is true, His Word is undoubtedly accurate without error by extension. Conversely, Enns supposes that as inerrantists view the inseparable linkage between authority and inerrancy, that is a perspective should require a defense. The type of authority recognized by inerrantists is questioned in a further effort to dilute the purpose and intent of the CSBI as merely an affirmation document. The CSBI carries no creedal weight, but it is simply a point of reference or a marker to ascertain what someone concludes or supposes about the nature of Scripture, its truth claims, self-witness, and testimony. Enns and like-minded evangelicals prefer to eliminate the doctrine to render it subject to open-ended critical interaction.
While Enns wants to see “a valid definition of the word truth” (87), he wants Scripture held up to critical review without immunity to our interpretive cultural assumptions. It appears he wants the plain truth and meaning of Scripture and its message rendered impotent to guide and protect believers. Consider the interchange between Jesus and the religious leaders of John 8:12-58 as it concerns how He defines Truth of Himself and that of the Father. By His verbal expression of meaning, it is absolute and without error.
Finally, in so many words, Enns says he genuinely wants to introduce a way to make Scripture compatible with scholars’ research concerning ANE facts, archeological discoveries, and literary analysis of ancient civilizations. So Enns wrote what he thought about an “incarnation model” as an alternative in opposition to the doctrine of inerrancy. An “incarnation model” was set up as a counterpoint to an “inerrancy model” to frame the discussion with a new category of false or foreign meaning. As if generations of the doctrine of inerrancy had no bearing, it was set up as an objective comparison or alternative to inerrancy overall to include the CSBI statement. Contributors Bird, Franke, and Vanhoozer’s views about what Enns wrote weren’t comprehensive or well developed, but they revealed a tension between the doctrine of inerrancy and the incarnation model as if there was something to explore further according to Enns’ perspective.
To consider what the incarnation model implies, Bird’s restatement of John Webster’s view is an eye-opening refutation: “this incarnational model is, as John Webster calls it, ‘Christologically disastrous.’ It’s disastrous because it threatens the uniqueness of the Christ event, since it assumes that hypostatic union is a general characteristic of divine self-disclosure in, through, or by a creaturely agent. Furthermore, it results in a divinizing of the Bible by claiming that divine ontological equality exists between God’s being and his communicative action.”6 Moreover, Irenaeus of Lyons (130-230 A.D.), a disciple of Polycarp, separated incarnation between the Word and Christ within his work Against Heresies. He wrote of the incarnation of Jesus but not of the Word itself to exclude incarnational participation. To quote Irenaeus, “For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.” 7
Chapter Three: Inerrancy Is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA
The book’s third part, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, entitled “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” concerns Michael F. Bird’s views on American understanding of inerrancy concerning the CSBI. Without much interaction with inerrancy in general as a contribution to the work of the book about Biblical Inerrancy, there is an absence of the distinction. The work of chapter 3 in the text is primarily a discourse on affirmations, objections, and concerns about the CSBI. As Bird narrows his thoughts around the particulars of the CSBI, he goes well beyond the purpose and intent of the Chicago Statement’s purpose of upholding the doctrine of inerrancy. Bird takes exception to various points of CSBI inerrancy verbiage around the Biblical creation account in Genesis. He would presumably agree that the truth and principles of inerrancy refer to the trustworthiness and authoritative nature of God’s word as authoritative.
From Bird’s various perspectives, he would not entirely affirm what the Bible infers about other subjects such as science and history. In fact, Bird’s views about inerrancy are better stated as a better categorization of veracity. From the inner witness of the Church by the Holy Spirit, Scripture’s “divine truthfulness” (158) is a way to set aside the claims or proclamations of negative statements in defense of “inerrancy.” Whether on its own merits or as an apologetic expression of the CSBI by American evangelicalism concerning the doctrine inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture.
What the Bible says about itself pertains to its use and inspiration (2 Tim 3:16). Among the various genres of Scripture, the Old and New Testaments are attestations of divine truth whether in narrative, poetic, prophetic, apocalyptic, epistolary form. Scripture best interprets Scripture and reservations about exceptions concerning inerrancy as it does so, whether supported by the CSBI or not, isn’t productive on the grounds of harmonization, literary discrepancies, nation of origination, or supposed contradictions without historiographical refutation. Particularly when so much antipathy exists around the meaning and purpose of God’s Word as it is intended by define revelation for God’s glory and for salvific outcomes. The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t claim for itself authority over matters concerning self-contradictory postmodern assertions (i.e., opposition to absolute truth and authority). The CSBI and the doctrine of inerrancy are assembled to support a high view of Scripture toward confidence for its intended purpose.
Some objections to inerrancy appear to stem from the term itself. As the Word of God is without error and reliable as God is Truth, Bird calls attention to its comparative infallibility and inspiration. Bird doesn’t indicate that the Word of God is with error or without truth, nor does he suggest that it is uninspired. His reservations are around what interpreters understand about the idea of inerrancy and how that pertains to conclusions involving life and practice. Particularly across cultures of different nationalities that do not hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, especially as it is defined and understood in the West or America more narrowly.
The difference between inerrancy and infallibility is essential and necessary to recognize and understand. To put it clearly, inerrancy, at a minimum, refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of God’s word for salvific purposes. By comparison, infallibility refers to Scripture’s inability to fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way to salvation. It is counterproductive to conflate the two terms or to use them interchangeably. The doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy are not for a social utility or to shape social justice initiatives for society or the State. While Catholicism shares the same definition of inerrancy as Protestantism, it differs in defining infallibility. Infallibility within Catholicism includes the church (i.e., the magisterium and its dogma) under the pope’s authority.
Bird’s assessment and criticism about tirades against God’s Word is exactly the correct posture against those who stand in opposition to its truth, authority, reliability, and inspiration of Scripture. However, it isn’t so much secular culture or atheists who so much pose a harmful threat to the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility as does Christian academics or scholars, well-meaning or not. It is for internal reasons of mishandling God’s Word that it is served by assertive statements of inerrancy to prevent its surrender to a multitude of professing Christians who have a large range of worldviews (including liberalism, or socialism) and would rather see God’s Word rendered insufficient and irrelevant to a postmodern society. Professing Christians, especially progressive Christians, are just as readily inclined to make God’s Word into its own image as secular society.
Unrelated Note: In support of feminist egalitarianism, Bird makes an inflammatory assertion that complementarians enable abuse: Article
Chapter Four: Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse
As affirmed by Vanhoozer, the doctrine of inerrancy has an important presupposition. That most important presupposition is: God speaks. Or, more specifically, God the Creator communicates through human language and literature as a means of communicative action to people. Vanhoozer also points out that the works of the Trinity are undivided (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt) as triune discourse indicative of communicative action involving subjects, objects, and purpose. He makes the case that language is functional and cognitive in nature to support the intent of divine revelation. Therefore, it is recognized that Scripture is a corpus of written communicative work consisting of historical assertions, commands, and explanations. According to Carl Henry (20th-century theologian), Scripture is propositional, but it is also trustworthy as true as it is a correspondence of Christ’s witness to what and who God is.
Inerrancy is a claim that the Bible is true and trustworthy through critical testing and cross-examination. Just as Augustine speaks of the incarnation as humans give tangibility of thoughts as words, Christ is the exact imprint of God’s being (Heb 1:3). Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) and what Christ speaks is Truth because He originates as God from the Father who is Truth and communicates truth. Whether verbally while with us in Creation or in Scripture by the testimonies of eye-witness accounts of his verbal speech acts. Within the old or new covenants, by God’s presence or His Spirit among people, He cannot lie in Scripture as His personal veracity is made clear through the inspiration of the Canon.
As made evident through divine revelation, truth is a correspondence of covenantal and redemptive meaning. The modes of its conveyance have a bearing on the methods of truth messaging by which it is delivered and understood. Allegory, metaphors, poetic expressions, and narrative discourses together establish the means of language utilized to accomplish its desired intent. Therefore, as Vanhoozer proved, it isn’t helpful when critics of inerrancy confuse matters by suggesting that inerrantists believe every word of the Bible as literal truth. Vanhoozer distinguishes between “sentence meaning” and “speaker, or writer meaning” when readers seek to understand what the author is doing or saying within Scriptural messaging. Analogies defy critical assertions about literalist interpretations of meaning.
Literalism, irrespective of context, can produce contradictions in meaning. Or it can confuse the intent of messaging through various linguistic methods, especially as prophecies and parables were verbally uttered and recorded in Scripture to convey imagery or parallel thoughts and ideas to achieve Spiritual understanding among listeners or readers. The communication method and its content are intentional, just as the assembly, formation, and preservation of God’s Word are true, sure, and lasting for those of faith to believe.
Inerrancy doesn’t claim to affirm or validate scientific or philosophical observations and constructs precisely. Observations of physical behaviors and explanations of metaphysical reality originating from beings in natural order don’t have reach to ascertain spiritual truth and meaning as propositioned and asserted from God’s Word. Supposed contradictions in Scripture that serve as proof-text “gotchas” do not subvert the inerrant truth and meaning of intended spiritual messaging, and theological truth held out as spiritually factual from different authorial perspectives. Even with elaborate and effective explanations to reconcile apparent differences, there isn’t much acceptance to recover veracity among many who object to the doctrine of inerrancy.
Whether believers or unbelievers interpret Scripture according to cognitive reason and comprehension for rational thought and conclusion, gathered facts can become assembled incorrectly to arrive at false notions of belief or disbelief. To quote Vanhoozer, “God’s words are wholly reliable; their human interpretation, not so much” (224). To further explain, biblical inerrancy requires biblical literacy. It is a yoke of burden that people of postmodern culture view Scriptural literality by its terms and expectations of meaning. People within modern society expect a reality of the time of the Old and New Covenants to conform to how things are expected today. The claims of inerrancy do not imply there is only one way to map the reality of the world correctly, either then or now. Proper hermeneutical stands separate from inerrancy as necessary to understand and accept Truth from Scripture.
Chapter Five: Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible As Witness to Missional Plurality
John R. Franke’s contribution to the evangelical conversation around inerrancy is driven by his aspirations around what he calls a plurality of truth toward God’s missional objectives. By missional theology in keeping with the mission of God, Franke means humanitarian relief and advancement as chief of concerns. When Franke speaks of missional imperatives that involve the gospel and discipleship, it is always within a social and cultural context to improve the human condition. To Franke, the meaning of Scripture as inerrant is not so much about its salvific relevance as humanity is lost in sin and stands condemned without redemption. The authority of Scripture as a witness to the mission of God comes from the truth claims of Christ and the veracity of His words as He is the incarnate expression of God.
Franke’s sympathy toward postmodern theology explains his objections to static biblicism. The Spirit continues to speak through Scripture as he puts it but doesn’t offer thoughts about the meaning and purpose of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture for the actual gospel purpose of salvation and restoration of people to God. Franke’s contribution rests very much on the here and now for people in terms of missional objectives, not the already but not yet. The concern isn’t so much that people are perishing and headed toward hell, as it is their earthly well-being. The concern should rather be primary-secondary prioritization from a missional perspective. The truth of the Old and New Covenant’s meaning entirely revolves around how humanity would return to God. The confidence believers have about what Christ does to reconcile people to God comes from truth spoken and written without error and infallibly. With authority, believers can meet people’s spiritual and physical needs by missional endeavor rooted in sound theology and a commitment to the truth claims of Christ and God’s Word at work.
As Franke writes, “I believe that inerrancy challenges this notion and serves to deconstruct the idea of a single normative system of theology” (277), he is revealing his thoughts about what postmodern progressives do to reject conformity to the text of Scripture “for the sake of systematic unity.” The assertion illegitimate interpretive assumptions make clear postmodern thought, as there is no acceptance of universal truth. According to Franke, truth must be plural to accomplish contextual missional objectives relative to individual interpretation from Scripture. As conventionally defined by Protestants and Catholics, the doctrine of inerrancy is recast by Franke as an open and flexible tradition for pluralistic perspectives, practices, and experiences. It is unacceptable to Franke that the whole Bible is interpretive as an inerrant description of the gospel and Christ’s commands to love God and neighbor. Essentially, it is his call to redefine inerrancy such that the Bible is what we make of it and not what the authors intended.
Franke’s final thoughts about the cultural relevance of the gospel bring further alarm as he calls on his readers to surrender universal and timeless theology. He attempts to message a desire to redefine inerrancy to accomplish a culturally relativistic notion of God’s Word. That is, to rewrite Scripture to shape truth suitable for cultural conditions toward various human interests aside from salvific reconciliation. Where truth as concrete or abstract meaning carries less utility to accomplish objectives and instructions explicitly set forth by the Creator. Objectives and instructions delivered through human language expressed in truth as God is truth that must be accepted and theologically contextualized without compromise. It is crucial to ensure there is no loss or corruption of meaning. It is necessary to further God’s kingdom and bring people together in redemption toward their salvation and physical well-being without surrendering absolute truth and our acceptance of Scriptural authority.
Citations
__________________________ 1 Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 66. 2 cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20: PL 34, 270–271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126–127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539. 3 Catholic Church, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011). 4 John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 598. 5 Cited by Enns: “For a focused critique of the CSBI (and its later sister document the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics 1982), see Iain Provan, ” ‘How Can I Understand, Unless Someone Explains It to Me?’ (Acts 8:30–31): Evangelicals and Biblical Hermeneutics,” BBR 17.1 (2007): 1–36. See also Carlos Bovell, Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 44–65; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” JETS 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 89–114. For an appeal for a more prominent role the Chicago statements should play in evangelicalism today, see Jason Sexton, “How Far beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate,” Themelios 34 (2009): 26–49.” 6 Peter Enns, “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 125. 7 Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 427.
This post is to bring into view the work of the apostle Paul as he brought the gospel to Jews and Gentiles in the first-century world of Asia Minor and Eastern Europe. More specially, Paul was appointed by Christ Jesus as an apostle to the Gentiles (1 Tim 2:7), and he fulfilled his mission with passion and strenuous attention.
Purpose and Background
With every bit of his mind, body, soul, and strength, Paul brought the message of reconciliation to God through Christ among people who were culturally alien to the messianic prophecies and the old covenants that extended back for generations. This post surveys the subject matter of Paul’s letters to the Romans. In his writing, he engages a people steeped in Greco-Roman culture with all of its pagan influences and Gentile customs of early gnostic and epicurean thought. The purpose of Paul’s letter itself cannot be narrowed to a single topic (i.e., systematic reasoning of God’s salvific power to the Gentiles). Paul wrote numerous additional matters of concern to the formative Gentile Church. Issues about the Church, humanity’s sin problem, God’s method of redemption, personal and shared holiness, sovereignty, ethnic cohabitation, and ministry work together inform the readers of Romans what principles to understand and abide in a life of hope and godliness.
Earlier in life, Apostle Paul was a Jew known as Saul of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), a province in Cilicia, southeast Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). He was a tentmaker by trade who became a Pharisee and relocated to Jerusalem to live by the old covenant faith of Judaism. He was an educated man and a Jewish rabbi ardent in observing the Torah and tradition. The Torah of Moses was a focal point of his life, and he was devoted to the traditions of Israel. Paul was a rigorous student of the Torah as a Hebrew legal scholar under Gamaliel, a Jewish leader of his time (Acts 22:3). Paul’s achievements and status within his circles of Judaism earned him respect and admiration. His intellectual accomplishments and influence produced an authority recognized and accepted by Jewish religious leaders as necessary for his development and continuing work in Jerusalem and synagogues throughout Judea and various Mediterranean locales.
Paul was a Roman citizen by birth. A Jewish Roman citizen with status and privileges befitting a family of means. While his accomplishments were impressive and carried a significant weight of influence, he was of the tribe of Benjamin sealed as a Jew by circumcision (Phil 3:5). Moreover, as an official Roman citizen, he was recognized by the Roman and Israeli governments as a prominent social figure having cultural stature and notoriety. Paul was resourceful, driven, intelligent, strong-willed, persistent, and zealous. His convictions concerning the Torah and Jewish traditions were so fierce that he captured and prosecuted Christians of the emergent church in Jerusalem and Judea. While Paul did not accept Jesus’s status as the Jewish Messiah, he would come to know Him as the Christ of humanity to include Jews and Gentiles. Specifically, while Paul was on a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus toward Syria, Jesus appeared before him to confront his persecution (Acts 9:1-22). After His resurrection and ascension, Jesus revealed His identity to Paul as the risen Christ foretold. Paul’s direct encounter with Jesus confronted his understanding of Scripture, as he was very attuned to the experience of Jesus’ appearance as Messiah yet not to Pharisaic expectations. From within the Torah and across the various covenants down through the centuries, through divine encounter, Paul was granted mercy and a mission concerning what he must suffer and accomplish (Acts 9:15-16). Paul was converted from Judaism to Christianity in a flash of divine revelation while on the Damascus road.
Structure
As Paul was chosen to bear the name of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel, his actions were guided and propelled by the Spirit to suffer hardships, form churches, shepherd God’s people, and write letters (2 Pet 3:16) to testify to the truth of the gospel, answer questions, and provide teaching. Accordingly, as Paul undertook his travels, he likely wrote to the Church of Rome by an amanuensis while in Corinth.1 The apostolic era of the early Church were recipients of direct verbal and written communication to shape their form of assembly and practice of faith according to principles and instruction concerning their development. Namely, the substance and body of Paul’s letter to the Romans were written in 56 A.D., while on his third missionary journey. His letter centers around doctrinal and practical concerns2 for the unification of the Church and furtherance of the gospel.
Doctrinal Concerns
Before delving further into the various sections of Paul’s letter, it is helpful to understand the circumstances around the hope of the gospel for both Jews and Gentiles. These were expressed as doctrines of depravity, sin, judgment, and the solution through a redemptive path. Involving justification, sanctification, and glorification of believers in Christ, God provides a way of reconciliation for eternal life and salvation. Those who accept and receive Christ Jesus by faith to include both Jews and Gentiles unified in the gospel. By one gospel as a reliable means of return to God through Christ Jesus, the Church of Rome was informed of what it meant to live by hope and grace to place individual and corporate confidence in Christ for reconciliation and escape from judgment due to the consequences of sin. Through the first eleven chapters of Romans, Paul precisely describes what this entails in thorough detail.
Practical Concerns
As Paul writes in contiguous form from the first eleven chapters, he informs the Roman Church about the day-to-day implications of fruitful godly living. Notably, in light of the redemptive work of Christ as a practical matter to any ethnicity. Together in the hope of the gospel, Jews and Gentiles transitioned to new lives as they set aside traditions, preferences, fears, and concerns about the requirements of the law, culture, and matters of conscience. In the face of religious and cultural baggage, interpersonal tensions and obstacles had to be overcome through peace and renewal of perspectives and attitudes applicable to each individual. Routine matters of fellowship, sharing meals, and work habits had to be resolved in light of the unity in the gospel and well-being of the Church.
Synthesis
Bringing together both doctrinal and practical concerns is rooted in the teaching of Paul as stipulations of the new covenant were formed as standards to live by. It just was not enough to become informed of principles concerning justification, righteous living, and their obligations to God and one another. The Church of Rome needed to know what was different and new and what was expected of them as they lived lives pleasing to God, befitting their faith and fruitful lives in the Spirit. It was necessary to practice what they learned and were taught as one people.
Introduction (Romans 1:1-17)
Paul’s credibility was necessary to establish before beginning his instructions to the Church. In doing so, he specifies his authoritative position as an apostle of God and servant of Christ set apart and appointed to inform others of the gospel and obedience of faith among all nations. In the opening comments to the Romans, he was explicit in greeting by way of encouragement and a longing to visit them from Corinth. As he intended to visit Rome, he was under obligation to Jesus Christ that he must preach the gospel to Gentiles elsewhere as well. Paul was committed to satisfying the expectations placed upon him. It was necessary to include the Greeks and Barbarians, and he informed the Church of Rome of such obligations while prevented from an earlier visit. Paul’s greeting followed an epistolary format of salutation that explicitly informs the reader of the gospel, Christ the Son, Scriptures, Paul’s gospel, the obedience of faith, and the name and glory of God.3
The Problem of Depravity & Judgment (Rom 1:18–3:20)
As Paul wrote that “the righteous shall live by faith” (Rom 1:17), he contrasts that state of being with God’s wrath upon the unrighteous. Paul articulated the infamous Romans 1 passage about everyone lost in sin with observations concerning the culture at the time. Both Jews and Gentiles of first-century Rome were indicative of unrighteous people and ungodliness in suppression of the truth. Contrary to the evidence of God’s existence through creation and His divine attributes, people exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped creatures instead of God the Creator. The consequences of self-delusion, error, and degrading passions led people into depravity to remove them from a desire for the Creator and truth. Instead, people become filled with evil and thoroughly opposed to natural order and righteousness.
As given over to unrighteousness, covetousness, and malice, the sin itself involves envy, murder, strife, deceit, gossip, slander, hatred, insolence, arrogance, conceit, disobedience, dishonor, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and cruelty. As indicative of Greco-Roman culture, people who deny Truth and God their Creator were and are desperately lost while subject to God’s righteous judgment. Without recourse, the problem was a staggering loss of peace, order, and a common harmony with one another and God to fill a purpose of contentment and life to glorify God and love Him and each other as designed and intended.
The judgment of God involves a “giving over” people to their sinful and erroneous interests (cf. Rom 1:24, Acts 7:42).4 The suffering and misery of people that ensues as an outcome of depravity and evil conduct is a manifestation of hardships and distress in physical life that was certain and against the created order of humanity. The passive and foreboding wrath of God actively against humanity engaged in the error and depravity constitute the sinfully lost disposition. Enmity with God involved depraved people who were subject to judgment as anyone without Christ is lost in sin.
Paul further elaborates on the truth that sinful people cannot mitigate the judgment of God by their efforts. Following and abiding by the law in an attempt to satisfy God’s requirement for righteousness was a futile undertaking (Rom 3:19) because if anyone offends in one point of the law, then there is the guilt of the whole law (Jas 2:10). Paul makes it clear to the Church that God’s righteousness solves the problem of sin as no one is righteous and fit to stand before God in judgment. While there is condemnation upon those separated from Him due to sin, there is no way for an individual to make up for offenses. The deep corruption of all humanity laid bare before God was a debt paid through Christ regardless of individual merit, ethnic status, or nationality (Rom 3:1-4). It was God’s righteousness as the intervening solution to humanity’s sin problem that required judgment and wrath. No person can be justified before God by works of the law as the corrupt nature of everyone involves an inevitable rejection of God by knowledge of sin. An absence of the fear of God reveals to those who violate His law all unmet obligations to cement their condemnation before Him without Christ.
Righteousness from God’s Justification (Rom 3:21–5:21)
While everyone is conscious of sin, whether later suppressed or not, everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). The law makes the need for faith evident, and it is a witness to our fallen condition apart from Christ. Therefore, the law in Paul’s mind performed a positive function in this way as it pointed to Christ.5 More explicitly, the imputation of faith to believers for righteousness through God’s forbearance. Faith is imputed for righteousness, counted for righteousness, and reckoned for righteousness by God’s righteousness (Rom 4:3, 5, 9, 22, 24).6 Paul brings attention to the authority of Scripture to make clear Abraham’s Justification before God by faith. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” is declared in Scripture to highlight the principle of faith to become made righteous.
Abrahams’s righteousness was counted to him without considering what he accomplished through performance or circumcision in an effort to earn God’s favor. As circumcision was a seal for all those who believed, he was made the father of faith for all without being circumcised. The seal of circumcision itself was a covenant indicator of distinction for righteousness by faith to count for others. While there was the presence of sin and guilt upon Abraham and those of the seal of circumcision, faith in God was the means of their justification for right standing with God and salvific righteousness. Justification by faith as righteousness is a claim for all believers validated by Paul from the authority of Scripture. Paul makes vividly clear that believers who are the spiritual offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:29) are people in Christ as heirs according to the guaranteed promise of God (Rom 4:16). Those who share in Abraham’s faith and believe God participates in justification by faith about God’s promise, “so shall your offspring be” (Gen 15:5).
Paul further elaborates to the Roman Church that faith’s intended effect of justification is peace with God. Achieved by the Lord Jesus Christ, access to God is obtained as He died for the ungodly. The death of Christ to redeem people of faith made righteous was to bring to God heirs of inheritance according to His promise. As the blood of Christ (Rom 5:9) justifies the redeemed, His people are saved from the wrath of God. As the cost of this work of redemption is far beyond human wisdom and comprehension, God gave up His Son for reconciliation.
Furthermore, Paul stressed that once believers are reconciled, they are saved through the life of Christ (Rom 5:10). This free gift of reconciliation to escape condemnation is the gospel hope for all only in Christ. To live in Christ by grace made possible through His sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection, where believers are made righteous by faith.
Holiness and Sanctification (Rom 6:1–8:39)
Paul’s letter to the Romans transitions from justification to sanctification as he instructs believers about holy and righteous living. Where people of faith were formally slaves to righteousness, he urges them to present their bodies as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification (Rom 6:19). While people were set free from the slavery of sin through the gospel, the righteousness lived leads to sanctification, ending in eternal life.7 Grace as an active ingredient appears as a functional impetus at work in the life of a believer. To affect a drive toward individual sanctification as people transition from slaves to sin to slaves of righteousness. Grace, in this sense, is not a passive activity that allows for God’s favor or merit to override the presence of sin. It is an active ingredient in the catalyst of sanctification.
Free from condemnation, believers in Christ are no longer under the law but under grace. As promised, any person given eternal life is righteous by faith and free from the law. More specifically, freedom from the law correlates to freedom from condemnation as believers under grace are united in Christ to bear fruit and live by the Spirit. Those in Christ are cut off from the law and bound to grace as a husband’s death releases a woman from one covenant to render her bound to another in marriage.8
While those in Christ are free from sin, the struggle against sin continues because while a person belongs to God, that person still lives in the body where sin dwells. The law is righteous and holy, but sin itself within produces death. As the law is spiritual, that law of sin in the flesh holds us captive. The struggle with sin is the person’s bodily flesh waging war with the inner being or spirit of those in Christ. Aurelius Augustin further expressed this condition as the carnality of the mortal body “sold under sin” (Rom 7:14) until the spiritual body is clothed in immortality.9 Until physical death, therefore, as it is of those in Christ, Paul served the law of God with his mind to bear fruit, yet in his flesh, he served the law of sin.
As those in Christ by the spirit inhabit the flesh subject to death, believers walk by the Spirit. That is, to set the mind on the Spirit where there is life and peace. Living and walking by the flesh is enmity with God, and it cannot submit to God’s law. Conversely, righteousness that abides in the believer is made alive to the Spirit as the body is dead because of sin. As by the Spirit, the deeds of the flesh are put to death, then by the Spirit, those in Christ will live. This hope was made possible by the love of Christ to bring us into union and fellowship with him.
The Sovereignty of God (Rom 9:1–11:36)
Paul distinguishes the children of the flesh and children of the promise. There are children of Israel according to the flesh, and there are the children of Abraham according to the promise (Gal 4:23). He elaborates on the difference between the flesh and the promise to bring into view the wisdom and sovereignty of God through “vessels of wrath” (Rom 9:22) and “vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:23). The declared “sons of the living God” (Rom 9:26) is in contextual reference to the adoption as sons (Rom 8:23) as heirs of the promise. As those in Christ justified by faith walk in the Spirit, they are reckoned righteous and heirs to eternal life. The sovereign difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise is between those in Christ and those who are not.
The believers within the first-century Roman Church were informed of these doctrinal concerns to contrast between the belief and unbelief of Jews and Gentiles. To the Gentiles, righteousness is pursued by grace through faith that produces fruit. With the Jews, righteousness is pursued by works of the old covenant law. Within the new covenant context, by the sovereignty of God, the children of promise and children of the flesh are regarded intentionally separate through the “rock of offense” of Christ, who God placed upon His old covenant people.
Israel’s unbelief does not preclude their ultimate justification and reconciliation to God. It is through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11). God does as He wills between the elect and the justified (Rom 9:11-24) in His redemptive plan to bring people to Him through Christ. It is along a span of time that people become reconciled either as Jews or Gentiles through faith in Christ as made present for purposes of justification and righteousness. Salvation unachievable by the law, Israel was hardened by a rejection of the gospel as God’s sovereign means of their corresponding redemption across covenantal periods. Israel will eventually be restored and reconciled, but until that time, the sovereign work of God prevails.
Renewed Life & Mind (Rom 12:1-2)
Paul again transitions to an appeal to the Church. Predicated upon his discourse concerning the sin problem of Jews and Gentiles, he makes clear the mercies of God through the gospel. For all in Christ who believe, His people are called to faith for justification and righteousness, whether Jew or Gentile, to become reconciled to God. While there is life in the body of flesh, sanctification is the spiritual course of life in the Spirit. The work of God between unbelief and belief among Jews and Gentiles is a sovereign work alongside the redemptive accomplishments of Christ. The inclusion of Israel will be saved and restored (Rom 11:1-32), but until then, Gentiles are ushered into belief and justification for God’s good pleasure and for those who would believe.
It stands to reason that those in Christ should present their bodies of flesh as a sacrifice to God. Spiritual service as a form of worship is a rational endeavor in the life of the Spirit. Romans 12:1-2 is a prelude and theme to the remainder of what Paul’s letter concerns.10 The life of a believer should be devoted to the service of others as a means of living by the Spirit. Made evident in the believer’s life by the Spirit are the fruits of the Spirit. As Paul wrote to the believers in Galatia (Gal 5:1-26), the fruits of the Spirit yield positive and meaningful character and work toward individual conduct and the life of a body of believers.
In contrast to the works of the flesh that come into opposition to the life of the Spirit, Paul charges believers to renew their minds. Where it becomes necessary to recognize and follow the will of God, this involves a transformation of priorities and values in keeping with a change of heart and mind holy, acceptable, and pleasing. The freedom that belongs to those in Christ renders to them the capacity to serve God and people by the Spirit from a renewed life.
Life of Peace, Unity, & Love (Rom 12:3-13:14)
As Paul’s discourse transitions from doctrinal concerns to practical concerns, he sets course to write specifics about what believers are to do by faith through grace. With a renewal of mind and life by the Spirit that gives way to service and worship, behavioral principles for Godly living become a daily practice. Numerous examples of such performative outcomes result from gifts “assigned” by God (Rom 12:3). Functions within the church that metaphorically compare to the body of a person represent the necessity and purpose of its various members. Suppose a concern or dispute should surface about one church member being more important than others. In that case, Paul communicates the unity of the body as its diverse members achieve a given purpose. As Paul addressed in 1 Cor 12, a diversity of gifts must be honored. Otherwise, members could become tempted to compare each other with false pride.11
Further practical instructions were written to the Romans and for believers today. The marks of a Christian include living at peace with one another. Furthermore, Paul instructs those in Christ to live in peace with society and authorities. There is no ambiguity about what positive attitudes and inner motivations must become externally evident toward others. Living in submission, harmony, cooperation, and gratitude are necessary Christian dispositions. It is contradictory to the life of peace, unity, and love to live contentiously with people. Christians are called to live by faith and walk by the Spirit both inwardly and outwardly.
As love is a fruit of the Spirit, Paul makes it evident that the love of one another fulfills the law (Rom 13:8). Accordingly, those in Christ are urged to cast off “works of darkness” that bring harm to others through the gratification of the flesh. Such behavior is incompatible, whether by immoral conduct, undue abrasive attitudes, or verbal animosity and abuse.
Paul further narrows his instructions to the church in Rome concerning the presence and diversity of new believers and Jews among them. Explicit guidance is given to believers in Christ about unity within the church, and Paul was precise concerning the conscience of people who object to acceptable yet divergent faith practices. The opinions of some people who were weak in faith were not to be disputed or accused of stringent rules around meals or the abstention from valued traditions. Paul’s concern amounted to the spiritual preservation of believers and Jews who were in the presence of Christians that appeared to violate people’s conscience and not just their preferences or tastes. More seasoned and mature believers were warned about causing others to sin by violation of conscience. And Paul’s tone is severe in the matter as he verbally brought to mind the inevitable judgment of God by which everyone must stand (Rom 14:10). It is abundantly clear that each person must give an account of themselves to God.
To sin against Christ was to cause a brother or sister in the Lord to violate their conscience (1 Cor 8:13). It was Paul’s exhortation that Christian’s strong in the faith must not destroy the work of God in the lives of fellow believers. Inconsiderate exercise of freedom in eating anything at-will could distress the ‘weak’ and lead them to act against their consciences, thus causing shipwreck of their faith.12 The ‘strong’ who would destroy the work of God in the lives of the ‘weak’ merely for the sake of food were not living according to the principle of love Paul earlier wrote about (Rom 13:10). To pass judgment on fellow believers or grieve them by what others do in their freedom of conscience by faith is unacceptable and counterproductive.
Method & Ministry (Rom 15:14-33)
Paul wrote to the church in Rome to express his satisfaction with them. He acknowledged their advanced development in the gospel. Their goodness and knowledge had matured where they could instruct one another without undue burden or strife. It is apparent that Paul delighted in their growth as believers in Christ as he shared his confidence in them by what he accomplished and valued. Inclusive to their place in the Kingdom of God, Paul had fulfilled his ministry. From Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum (modern Yugoslavia) to the North of the Adriatic Sea, Paul reached yet further people beyond the rim of the Mediterranean. Paul’s recorded missionary journeys extended farther and farther in duration to ensure the fulfillment of Christ’s commission. Namely, to bring the Gentiles the gospel and obedience by word and deed (Rom 15:18). Location after location, Paul planted churches and formed them with believers in Christ to involve fellow ministry workers. Paul’s work of the gospel of Christ was an epic undertaking to which God obtains the fullest measure of glory.
Paul’s affection for the church in Rome was a pleasing experience. Their spiritual blessings translated to material blessings of welcomed support for furtherance of the gospel and Paul’s ministry work in Jerusalem and later toward Spain if he were to reach that far. As Paul began to conclude his written discourse, his appeal for prayer was on his mind as safety from the Church was concerned.13 He knew that he would encounter conflict once he arrived in Jerusalem, and he desired deliverance from people opposed to his work further West toward Spain. As his work in the region ended, Paul sought to further the gospel. He hoped to gain the favor of the saints in Jerusalem for continued support and encouragement.
Final Commendations & Farewell (Rom 16:1-27)
The closure of the letter to the church at Rome is a roster of greeting to acknowledge numerous people active in the faith. Its length is unique and comprehensive as the people that Paul personally greeted were a listing of notable figures involved in the work of ministry and the church’s growth. While the identities of each person were explicit by name, various contributions and associations among the saints were made clear. The roster also somewhat served as a listing of risks undertaken by first-century prisoners and missionaries of the Church alongside Paul. Behind each of the names made apparent in the letter is a notable person responsible for the advancement of the Kingdom.
Paul’s final appeal was written in the form of instructions. He warned the church in Rome to guard against people who would stir up divisions and obstacles that contradict the doctrines they were taught. Paul’s doctrinal concerns through the first eleven chapters of his letter were not up for contravening opinions or perspectives. The teachings of Paul to the Romans and the churches throughout Asia-Minor were a work of collaboration from among additional apostles and their disciples to assure a lasting and coherent belief. The strengthening of the saints according to the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ was in bloom for the world to witness. Paul’s heartfelt interest was toward the obedience of faith to the Gentiles. It was and is for the glory of God through Christ Jesus for all eternity.
Conclusion
The apostle Paul’s ministry and his passionate written letter to the church in Rome is an incredibly beautiful expression of spiritual significance. The direct inspiration and active involvement of the Holy Spirit is the only viable explanation for its meaning and purpose. As the letter to the Romans is intended for mature believers in Christ, it is a tenderhearted work of profound importance. While it is intellectually rich, a reader of the letter cannot escape the plain content of the text. The surface of the letter as constituted by words assembled without further depth is in itself unspeakably heartwarming. As the letter speaks to the inner being about truth and the work of God through Christ Jesus, it is impossible to miss the joy and peace that comes with its message. The gospel of Christ is a treasure, and the love of God through the Lord Jesus is of incomparable worth.
The comprehensive nature of the letter as a guide for doctrinally sound theology and Christian living is undeniable. While the text of the letter is specific to the church in Rome, it has immeasurable value to those in Christ. Those who wish to probe the depths of justification, sanctification, righteousness, faith, grace, unity, and many other topics of crucial necessity, will never fully exhaust the wonder of God’s love, wisdom, and sovereignty.
Citations
1 F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1977), 16. 2 M. Scott Bashoor, Visual Outline Charts of the New Testament (B&H Academic, 2016), 44. 3 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2157. 4 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 762. 5 Scott Hafemann, “Review of Paul, the Law, and the Covenant by A. Andrew Das,” Trinity Journal 25, no. 2 (2004): 265. 6 John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893), 319. 7 Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 631. 8 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 333. 9 Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise against Two Letters of the Pelagians,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 383. 10 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, vol. 6, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 649. 11 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 763. 12 Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2012), 524. 13 John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. B. Morris, W. H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 549.
Bibliography
Bashoor, M. Scott. Visual Outline Charts of the New Testament. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.
Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1977.
Chrysostom, John. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, vol. 11, by trans. J. B. Morris, W. H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens ed. Philip Schaff, 549. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889.
Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark International, 2004.
Crossway Bibles. The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008.
Hafemann, Scott. “Review of Paul, the Law, and the Covenant by A. Andrew Das.” Trinity Journal 25, no.2, 2004: 265.
Hippo, Augustine of. “A Treatise against Two Letters of the Pelagians.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings Vol. 5, by trans. Robert Ernest Wallis ed. Philip Schaff, 383. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887.
Miley, John. Systematic Theology. New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans, vol. 6, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, 607-694. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
William Arndt, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
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 19th 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 20th-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.
_______________________________ 1 David 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.
