Theology Proper

Revelation can be defined as the demonstration and sharing by God of His person, will, and redemptive activity. Horne from Bancroft Christian Theology. Left to himself, he would never have discovered God. To say that he is incomprehensible is to assert that the mind cannot grasp the [infinite] knowledge of God. To say that he is knowable is to claim that he can be known.

Ryrie, Basic Theology, pg. The Definition of General Revelation. Moody Handbook of Theology. The Means of General Revelation. The Definition of Specific Revelation. In contrast to general revelation which is available to everyone, special revelation is available only to those who have access to biblical truth.

The Means of Specific Revelation. As Christians, we know that our sole authority for belief in the existence of God is based upon the presuppositions of the inspired and inerrant word of God. But can we and should we use philosophical and natural arguments to postulate the existence of God?

Theology proper

The answer is that the Scriptures themselves open the door for such argumentation. Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine. The majority of the following arguments center on the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality can be defined as, every effect has an antecedent cause. It is also called the Law of Cause and Effect. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God. Neither does Logic insist that everything has a cause. It is logically possible for something to exist without an antecedent cause.

Sproul, Not a Chance. The Cosmological Argument Creation. Enns , The Moody Handbook of Theology. Ryrie logically responds to such an idea. It takes more faith to believe that evolution or blind intelligence whatever such a contradictory phrase might mean could have accounted for the intricate and complex world in which we live than it does to believe that God could. The Teleological Argument Design.

The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause. To say it can is possible, but it requires a great deal of faith to believe. The Christian answer may also involve faith, but it is not less believable. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 1, pg. He is the One in whom mankind lives, moves, and exists Ps Where did this sense of moral justice come from? If man is only a biological creature why does he have a sense of moral obligation? Recognition of moral standards and concepts cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process.

Gibson, Lancaster Bible College. The question is, could it have come from civilization or even from education when people all over the world possess it whether they are civilized and educated or not? The logical answer is no. Therefore, the fact that man can conceive of God and can conceive of none greater than God proves the existence of God.

Lewis, It basically states, Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger; food can satisfy. A duckling wants to swim; water fills its need. Men and women feel sexual desire; sexual intercourse fulfills that desire. If I find myself with a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, I probably was made for another world.

If no earthly pleasures satisfy the need, it does not mean the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, The belief in the existence of God best explains the related facts of our mental, moral, and religious natures. As we understand who God is by understanding His attributes, it results in an indelible mark on our souls. In addition, we are able to know how He deals with mankind and mankind is able to know how he is to respond to God.

Therefore, God is who He is. The attributes of God are the qualities or characteristics inherent in and ascribed to God. The attributes of God could be defined as, those distinguishing characteristics of the divine nature which are inseparable from the idea of God and which constitute the basis and ground for his various manifestations to his creatures.

Judson, , p. Customarily the attributes of God are divided into categories: Each has their own distinction and emphasis. The terms, communicable and incommunicable express those attributes of God which are distinct to God alone Incommunicable and those which can be found in man albeit in an imperfect and finite resemblance Communicable. Incommunicable Attributes Of God. Thomas Aquinas said, He is the first cause ; himself uncaused. He is independent in His Being, in His virtues and actions, and causes all His creatures to depend on Him.

Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine. Christ - Joh Christ - 2Pe 1: However, it is more than a logical conclusion; it is a major theme in Scripture. Louis Berkhof, ibid, pg. Christ - John 1: Since He never ceases to exist, our eternal life in Him will never cease Mat Eerdmans , , p. God is who He is and He never changes.

God does not change for better or for worse. He is already perfection and perfection needs no improvement. He does not need to because He decrees it perfect the first time and every time 1Sa First of all , God is sinless and therefore never sins or makes the wrong choice by which He must repent. Immutability does not mean that God does not interact with man. When man repents God changes His judgment to mercy. For God is not taken by surprise nor does He work on a trial an error basis.

Compare Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1: House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, p. Christ - Mat He knew the nations that would dominate Israel Dan. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. This is not the same as pantheism, which states that God is in everything. But, omnipresence does mean that since God is everywhere, everything is in His presence, yet he cannot be contained Gen Christ - Gen Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections. Or , Can God make a square triangle?

The answer is that, God can never do anything that violates his own attributes and nature. If he did, he would cease to be God. Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God. This does not mean that God will do whatever the believer wants, but if it is in accordance with His will Mar In addition, God empowers the believer Eph 3: Communicable Attributes Of God.

As was previously stated, the Communicable Attributes of God are those attributes, which can be found in man albeit in an imperfect and finite resemblance.

• Flying with One Wing: A Familys Triumph in the Tapestry of 20th Century America?
• Study of God (Theology Proper);
• .
• Chess Face (Early Works Book 1).
• .

But it denotes in the second place that He is free from all moral impurity or sin, and is therefore morally perfect. These apostles were contemporary, i. They were auditors of His words. Some present themselves as such in their writings cf. Those within the community testified with their own blood Rev.

Select a book of the Bible

Instead of taking it as divinely inspired, just taking the New Testament as a competent historical witness to the words of Jesus demands a reasonable response of either faith or rejection of Him. He claimed to be equal with God John 5: If these words hold little trustworthiness, how can His practical instructions for a meek, sacrificing lifestyle be trusted to be of any value? Of course, Jesus was speaking about the O. Scriptures which were recognized as a corpus of three categories — the Law, Prophets and Psalms cf. Yet, Jesus also promised that His words would be remembered, added to by the Holy Spirit, and finalized into writings by His apostles John Though the promise to the apostles actually 17 It is not the scope of this essay to itemize any non-Christian quotes that show that the N.

• Navigation menu.
• Running In the Cold?
• Schaum Christmas / C - The Purple Book.
• !
• .
• The Kentucky Bourbon Cocktail Book.

The greatest argument probably lies in the fact that no contemporary secular argument was raised against their authenticity. These books must be the N. Unless this provision actually was made by Christ in real life, i. It took a perfect man to provide a man with a perfect substitution of a righteous life for a sinful one. Faith in a mythical sacrifice and resurrection will only reap a mythical forgiveness and only a dream of everlasting life. But faith in an historically real divine provision of salvation will reasonably reap a real forgiveness and a life that will become a bona fide part of the everlasting history of the future.

Christianity is a historical religion, with a Scriptural record comprised of, and dependent upon, an historical reality. The deity of Christ has been a major theological issue which has created much discussion, division, and even death since the days of Christ. It became the issue for the persecution of the Arians by the Roman Catholic Church after the Arians lost their bid to control the State Church in the 4th Century. One may ask if believing in the deity of Christ is essential for saving faith. However, the apostles and early evangelists did not seem to shy away from presenting to unbelievers that Jesus is the Son of God, which certainly intimates some kind of connection to the divine essence of God the Father cf.

But the Arians believed that the Son of God was created by the Father, and therefore was not eternal like the Father. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his subsistence from nothing. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God.

Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation. Zondervan, , p. Watch Tower, , p. It is especially important to have reasonable explanations for their favorite texts which they refer to in trying to prove Christ as a created being and inferior to God the Father e. Since they emphasize the name of Jehovah as the unique identification of God the Father, the number of N. A few significant ones are Eph. The Unitarians also have a false gospel included with their view that Jesus was just a man. They speak of ransom, sacrifice, priesthood, sin bearing, and the like.

This title is used fifty-six times in the Bible, ten times in the plural, i. In the plural it refers to men Gen. Is He being denoted as a man with a special relationship with God or as an angel with God as His Father creator? Or is this title providing a third definition, uniquely a denomination of Jesus. It is used of Satan in 2Cor.

And it is even used for human judges as seen in Psalm Instead of Jesus affirming their accusation, He sidesteps their animosity with a technical example of the use of the term god used for men. Another set of verses, however, also need to be mentioned. It is obvious by these texts also that Jesus is not denying His own divine nature, which was one with the Father, but that in the economy of creation, through the incarnation, the second person of the Godhead had taken on a subordinate role in submission to the first person of the Godhead as His Father and as His God i.

But every other divine attribute, including eternity, is a part of the divine nature shared by both God the Father and God the Son. The Son is equal in nature with the Father. It is the itemizing of these divine attributes, demonstrated by the Son throughout Scripture, which becomes another part of the proof of His deity. But His body and His human nature do become joined inseparably to His divine nature Heb. When it comes to the impeccability of Christ some hold to the theological approach that Jesus could not sin, whereas others hold to the approach that Jesus in His human nature was able to sin, but successfully avoided it.

The Scripture does not speak directly to either approach to this issue, though it does speak directly to the conclusion of this matter, i. It is this conclusion which is the object of saving faith. A thorough understanding of impeccability does not seem necessary; else God would have revealed it more clearly in His Word. There are some passages which point toward both approaches and they must be viewed as consistently supporting each other. The thrust of this essay is not to discuss how these two natures were not mixed in Christ and yet not separated.

Even the evil attacks of others were thus only tests which He physically and emotionally experienced, but not opportunities for sin. Thus it would be viewed that Jesus, being God, never was tempted by moral evil, but tested through events of natural evil. But two factors come into play that seem to point to a human nature in Christ which truly was free and able to experience temptation by evil and to possess the ability to choose it. The one factor is that Christ did express a personal will Matt. And even though He chose to subordinate His will to the will of the Father, His human will was still an independent reality, an ability he could use freely.

The second factor is that in the Kenosis, even though Christ had a divine nature, he laid aside the independent use of it, so that he could fully become a perfect substitute for man. Though He was preserved from having a sinful human nature by the Virgin Birth, He was fully man like that first man, Adam, with a human nature formed in innocence. However, like Adam, for Christ to be fully man, he would have had to have a human nature capable of choosing contrary to the Divine will.

And since the Son of God had laid aside the independent use of His divine attributes, it can be assumed that His divine ability not to be tempted by evil was also laid aside. Thus, Christ fulfills in His human nature what Adam presumably would have been able to fulfill by the grace of God. Oliver Buswell held a third view though much like the first presented above.

He said — Much discussion has taken place, futile verbal discussion it seems to me, on the question whether it was possible that Jesus could have sinned. Jesus being omnipotent had the power to perform any particular act. But Jesus is a Person with a character, and being Himself, it would be morally impossible not physically impossible that He should sin. In developing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit of God in the Scripture, it becomes easy to see that the Holy Spirit is a unique person in the Godhead.

He also interacts individually and personally with the other members of the Godhead. And for this dispensation, He becomes the manifestation of the Divine Presence in individuals and in the church. But it becomes important to our understanding of the Godhead that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father and Son as a thing, e. He relates then as a unique individual person of the Godhead in the creation of man. That is, the Father is the primary source for the other persons of the Godhead, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.

This is like Adam, the father of all mankind. And though each presence is unique in time and space, it is always the one and same Spirit of God. Just so, from Adam and Eve has proceeded all mankind, which are unique expressions of one identical nature inherited from them. Many of these activities are normally attributed naturally as evidence of personality, e. Even activities for which the Spirit is on the receiving end also provide reasonable support to declaring the divine personality of the Spirit, e.

There are, however, passages which would be unintelligible if the Spirit is not seen as having a unique personhood within the Godhead. In the spiritual gifts passage of 1Cor. Therefore the Spirit has a personal will, which is an integral part of personality. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. The Spirit is revealed as a compassionate, understanding person who prays to God in behalf of the believer. They should not be confused with properties, which technically speaking, are the distinctive characteristics of the various persons of the Godhead.

Properties are functions general , activities more specific , or acts most specific of the individual members of the Godhead. The attributes are permanent and intrinsic qualities, which cannot be gained or lost. The Scripture however appears silent on listing or categorizing the attributes of God into groups. One wonders if the attempt to do so diminishes the influence of their revelation to bring man into a humble relationship with his Maker. But other Scriptures directly declare other attributes of God. And Hagar is also responding in gratitude for the justice and mercy God is displaying towards her and her son.

Those terms are omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternality, and immutability. The Scriptures do not go into great detail about these attributes, so theologians have tried to extrapolate their understanding of them, sometimes to the obscuring of other Scriptural texts see the discussion on immutability in the next essay. Omnipotence is the only one from this list that is actually a literal translation from an original word in Scripture a o ra r, Rev. For example, God has no power to lie Titus 1: Two passages, though, do speak to this issue indirectly — 1Kings 8: Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You.

How much less this temple which I have built! Questions like this must ultimately bow to the reality revealed in Romans The verses usually put forward for the immutability and impassibility of God need scrutiny as much as those listed to support that God changes in mind and emotion. On the immutability side — In Ps. The results of these passages indicate that God does not change in certain aspects of His nature, e.

His graciousness or goodness. But there does not seem to be a clear passage in Scripture that affirms that God could not be free to change in certain ways or experience as long as His nature is not diminished. Intervarsity, , p. But the text Jer. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

The most obvious argument against an ontological immutability in God is the incarnation experience by God. Unless one wants to postulate that the incarnation was always a part of the divine nature, then it must be granted that God underwent a definite change the moment He joined with human flesh in the person of Christ. And even though one may concede that all changes in the mental and emotional experiences of Christ could be attributed to His human nature, the experience of the Son of God going from non-incarnate to incarnate disqualifies God from being called totally ontologically immutable.

Some argue that each of the passages listed above which describes God changing in certain ways should be taken as anthropomorphic figures of speech. Some would go as far as saying that God does not experience emotion as we do. To view relevant Scriptures otherwise is to force an unrevealed philosophical supposition about immutability into the interpretation. Is it His love that allows Him to do this? He cannot be tempted to do evil cp. So He could not unconditionally justify the ungodly without acting against His own nature.

Many, by experience or observation, wonder how God can be viewed as sovereignly ruling creation with justice when so much evil is permitted to survive and even thrive. Even His love is often questioned when the wicked are allowed to succeed and the innocent to suffer. It may present a protest in support of the Biblical pragmatism for speedy human justice Eccl.

But it runs counter to the Biblical teaching of God purposefully delaying justice to provide greater opportunity to display His Mercy Rom. God shows love now by being longsuffering and merciful to the unrighteous so that they might repent. God shows love now to the righteous who may suffer at the hands of evil. The righteous will also receive later the full recompense of His love for all that they may have unjustly suffered 1Pet. Thus, justice is a loving justice and love is just love….

What we are saying is that love is not fully understood unless seen as including justice. If love does not include justice, it is mere sentimentality. The approach that would define love as merely granting what someone desires is not biblical…. Justice means that love must always be shown, whether or not a situation of immediately need presents itself in pressing and vivid fashion.

Erickson answers the above question this way — When God wills the end… he also wills the means. Thus, prayer does not change what he has purposed to do. It is the means by which he accomplishes his end. It is vital, then, that a prayer be uttered, for without it the desired result will not come to pass.

Bible Search

More on that will be discussed below. But, as mentioned before, such a presupposition obscures what seems to be a multitude of clear passages that denote a future of optional outcomes in some matters. It makes these passages fall out of the hands of the church member for whom they were written, and into the hands of the scholars who claim better understanding of literary devices, such as anthropomorphism.

The Calvinistic scholar, however, believes God is only playing out an intricately detailed, immutable pre-creation plan. But these concessions, when heard by the layman, make him start to fight off thoughts that his God sounds like He is equivocating and manipulative in His Scripture. The context also gives the example of God exerting special control of nature, i. A lot of freedom of human choice is assumed here with varying results.

The example of the Lord Jesus Christ is also significant when it comes to prayer. When Christ prayed, one could suppose that it was predominantly just for fellowship with the Father. The second example is when Christ was met by the soldiers who arrested Him. He said, When we turn to prayer, the advantage certainly seems to be with open theism.

Prayer, as most Christians practice it, and as the Bible describes it, seems to affect what happens. The open theist picture of prayer does seem to fit better the seemingly plain sense of the scriptural passages on prayer. There is no before and after within eternity…. It is a coherent simultaneous decision. God could have planned creation history down to the minutest detail, even the free decisions and actions of individuals.

Theology Proper :: Questions about God

By His omnipotence He could have carried out that plan. But then one would think He would have revealed it as having done it exactly that way. Revelation instead supports a partially planned human history in which God Himself is free to interact with mankind who is made in His image and possesses a limited freedom of will. Leibnitz has chosen the foreordination-of-all-things view.

Erickson wants to distance himself from this same view, but his is basically the same. His discussion about eternity makes a reader assume that this is what He means. There he quotes Ps. Therefore is not true freedom at all. The premiere verse used in support of an all inclusive plan is Eph. There are times, many of them, when God wills to permit, and thus to have occur, what he really does not wish.

Top of the Document 44 Ibid. Erickson states the theory of evolution this way — The theory of evolution maintains that from the beginning of life, all forms have developed by a gradual process. Through a series of mutations or spontaneous variations, new types of living beings have come into existence. Those possessing variations that enabled them to compete better in an environment of danger and shortage have survived. Through this process of the survival of the fittest, higher, more complex beings have appeared.

Thus, over a long period of time the lowest, simplest living organism developed into humanity merely through the functioning of immanent natural laws. There was no direct intervention by God. Evolution alone was responsible. The geological and fossil records correspond to the days of his creative acts. He says, According to this view, God created in a series of acts over a long period of time. Here we must note that the fossil record indicates gaps at several points, or an absence of what scientists call transitional forms.

The assumption of the scientists is that these forms have been lost. Also, God has deliberately associated the 6-day-work-andday-rest week of Israel with His creation week Ex. This would seem to indicate that Israel understood that the creation was in six literal twenty-four hour days in succession. Finally, it does not answer the question why God would have hid from Israel that He took eons and eons for the creation of everything else before creating man, a concept they surely would have been able to understand.

However, death should be viewed as having two definitions. Death for an animal should be is seen as the ending of physical life, whereas death of a human is the separating of spiritual life from the physical body. Therefore, human physical death, which could include spiritual death as well, did not enter the world until Adam sinned, but animal death was already present. Even though the time between the creation of animal life on the fifth day until Adam sinned after the sixth day may have been relatively short, it is highly probable that microscopic living creatures were dying, e.

The ideal-time theory mentioned, complimented, and then dismissed by Erickson is the best theory to explain the apparent age of the universe, and also the earth. At any point in his life must have had an apparent or ideal age many years older than his actual age i. The same would have been true for Eve and every other created thing that God spoke into existence. Even the wine that the Lord Jesus Christ created out of water also had an appearance of age, even if it was only one growing season. And yet its actual age was only a few moments between its creation and the tasting of it by the master of the feast John 2: And sound doctrine is a necessary qualification for local church pastors cf.

Erickson lists seven theological aspects of the doctrine of creation. God is the ultimate reality. Erickson says that the Biblical teaching on creation does not allow for a dualistic view of reality. God has always existed, but matter has not always existed. God created matter by speaking it into existence. He gave to matter the attributes He wanted it to have. He was not limited to just using some pre-existing material which was eternal like Himself.

Divine Creation is unique. Erickson seems to be repeating what he has just stated in his first affirmation. He could have created another unique creation or none at all. Also, the unique creation God has chosen to bring into existence does not have to be declared the best possible. Nothing created was made intrinsically evil. Though what was made by God may not be called best, it has been called "good" Gen. Erickson discusses that since God can only create that which is good, matter cannot be of itself evil as proposed by most dualistic philosophies or religions, i. However, he also says, "This raises a problem: Christianity, like every system of thought which is in any sense alert to the universe, must come to grips with the presence of evil in the world.

Man is responsible for his own evil. Erickson follows on from God's good creation to decide that man can not therefore blame the material world for his sin. He then extrapolates that neither can he blame society as a whole, for he says, "Human society was also part of what God made, and it was very good. But, at least not in this context, Erickson does not address how creating a person capable of evil, or perhaps destined to evil, could be seen as "good. The Incarnation was possible. Erickson also extrapolates that since all matter was created good, the joining of the holy Son of God to human flesh by incarnation was not a mixing of holiness with something inherently evil.

He recounts how some in history have denied the incarnation because of their dualistic notions. He does not however deal with the intricacies of the how the human soul or spirit of Christ was made. Was it created ex nihilo? Was it "forwarded" through the seed of the woman?

If the later, how was it preserved or cleansed from its taint of Adam's sin? There is no doubt that the physical body of Jesus however was not sinful, though it presumably had some genetic defects that had resulted from the curse of Adam's original sin. There is an affinity between man and the rest of creation. Erickson is attempting to promote human responsibility towards peace in society and care for the environment based on this affinity of nature. This does not seem to be supported anywhere in Scripture. Pursuing peace and managing God's garden are responsibilities based squarely upon the revealed will of the Creator.

To make too much of this "affinity" will skew the value which a Christian places on the physical realm and will cause a disconnect to the setting of his "affection on things above" Col. God is not one with creation. Erickson discusses that even though dualism is rejected by the Biblical view of creation, so is the monism that equates the material world as part of God's nature. God created the world out of nothing. One could argue that He created it out of the infinite possibilities that are a part of His omniscience. But the matter and space that came into existence by the power of His spoken word were not made of anything in prior existence.

He is in one sense "one with creation" as will be discussed in the next essay concerning providence, and because of His omnipresence. But the essence of matter itself is not part of the divine nature or visa versa. The first section summarizes his view of this doctrine. It is used once in the NIV for God's providence, i.

What is theology proper / Paterology?

The most important references to God's providence are - 1. There are five distinct approaches taken by theologians to try and resolve the problem of why there is the existence of evil in a universe that was created good by a good God. It is a paradox that can not be explained. Though it is true that is it an apparent paradox, it can not be a true paradox, i. If it is a contradiction, the Scripture becomes an unfaithful and uncertain witness about all else. Evil does not exist. There are two types of evil, i. Those who propose that evil does not exist, e. It must be denied if it is to be transcended.

Unfortunately, none who hold this philosophy have been successful to escape the ultimate evidence of evil, i.

God must be redefined as to His goodness. Or in other words, it is not evil for God to create a being that performs evil. Evil is defined as breaking God's law, but that law was designed only as an obligation for men and angels. It is not a standard under which God must comply. Erickson gives the example of Gordon Clark as an espouser of this view. However, many kings of the O.