THEOLOGY: THE STUDY OF GOD: DOES GOD EXIST? - GOD IS THE CAUSE OF THE IDEA OF GOD
Prof. Satheesh Kumar
Academic Dean, AECS
The word theology
comes from the Greek word theos, meaning “God,”
and logos, meaning
“word” or “discourse,” hence, theology is a discourse about God. Theology is
generally taken as a broad term covering the entire field of Christian belief
(the study of Christ, the Holy Spirit, angels, etc.). Hence, the designation
given to the study of God the Father is theology proper.
Existence of God
Cosmological Argument
Logically speaking the cosmological argument for the existence of God is inductive and a posteriori: the evidence is examined, and based on it a conclusion is drawn that God exists. The term cosmological comes from the Greek word cosmos, meaning “world.” This argument is based on the fact that a cosmos, or world, exists. Because something cannot come from nothing, there must be an original cause that is the reason for the world’s existence. A man wears a Bulova wristwatch. Although he has never seen a watchmaker, the fact of the existence of the wristwatch suggests there is a Swiss watchmaker who made the watch. The cosmological argument says that every effect must have a cause.1
Logically speaking the cosmological argument for the existence of God is inductive and a posteriori: the evidence is examined, and based on it a conclusion is drawn that God exists. The term cosmological comes from the Greek word cosmos, meaning “world.” This argument is based on the fact that a cosmos, or world, exists. Because something cannot come from nothing, there must be an original cause that is the reason for the world’s existence. A man wears a Bulova wristwatch. Although he has never seen a watchmaker, the fact of the existence of the wristwatch suggests there is a Swiss watchmaker who made the watch. The cosmological argument says that every effect must have a cause.1
Teleological Argument
As in the previous case, the
teleological argument is inductive and a posteriori. Teleological comes
from the Greek word telos, meaning “end.” The teleological
argument may be defined thus: “Order and useful arrangement in a system imply
intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized
by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and
free cause.”2 The world everywhere evidences intelligence, purpose,
and harmony; there must be a master architect behind all this evidence. The
psalmist sees the magnificence of God’s creation in the universe and recognizes
that it testifies to His existence (Ps. 8:3–4; 19:1–4). God’s harmony is
observed throughout the universe and world: the sun being ninety-three million
miles distant is precisely right for an adequate climate on earth; the moon’s
distance of two hundred forty thousand miles provides tides at a proper level;
the earth’s tilt provides the seasons. A conclusion is clear that God, the
Master Designer, has created this magnificent universe. The alternative, that
the world happened “by chance,” is no more possible than a monkey’s being able
to create a work of Shakespeare on a typewriter by haphazard play on the keys.
Anthropological Argument
The
anthropological argument, which is also inductive and a posteriori, is based on
the Greek word anthropos, meaning
“man.” Contrary to the secular humanist who sees man simply as a biological
being, the biblicist sees man as created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–28).
The image of God in man is spiritual, not physical (cf. Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
Man is not simply a physical being, but also a moral being with a conscience,
intellect, emotion, and will. Chafer states: “There are philosophical and moral
features in man’s constitution which may be traced back to find their origin in
God. ...A blind force...could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility,
will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator.”3
Moral Argument
The moral
argument is related to the anthropological argument (some combine the two) and
can be seen as a further consideration of that argument. The moral argument
acknowledges that man has an awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality.
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. The
biblicist recognizes that God has placed a sense of moral justice within the
human race in contradistinction to all other creation. Romans 2:14–15 indicates
that Gentiles who have had no revelation of the law have an inner, moral
witness placed there by God.
Ontological Argument
The ontological
argument, distinct from the preceding arguments, is deductive and a priori; it
begins with an assumption and then attempts to prove that assumption. It is
less significant than the preceding arguments. The term ontological comes
from the Greek present participle ontos (from the verb eimi) and means
“being” or “existence.” The ontological argument is philosophical rather than
inductive. The argument reasons: “If man could conceive of a Perfect God who
does not exist, then he could conceive of someone greater than God himself
which is impossible. Therefore God exists.” The argument rests on the fact that
all men have an awareness of God. Because the concept of God is universal, God
must have placed the idea within man. Anselm (1033?–1109) was the first
proponent of this view. In the thinking of some, this argument has limited
value, and few would affirm the usefulness of the ontological argument.
Anti-Theistic Theories
Atheistic View
The term atheist
comes from the Greek word theos, meaning “God,”
and the prefix a (Gk. alpha), which in
Greek negates the preceding statement. Therefore, it means a nonbeliever in
God. Ephesians 2:12 uses the term (translated “without God”) to explain the
status of unsaved Gentiles in their relationship toward God. Atheists can be
classified into three categories:4 (1) the practical atheist who
lives as if there is no God; (2) the dogmatic atheist who openly
repudiates God; (3) the virtual atheist who rejects God by his
terminology (e.g. Paul Tillich: God is the “Ground of all being” ). This
classification would include those who deny a personal God.
Agnostic View
The term agnostic
comes from the Greek gnosis, meaning
“knowledge,” accompanied by the a prefix. Therefore, an agnostic means
one who lacks knowledge of God. Hence, an agnostic is one who says we cannot
know that God even exists. The term, first coined by Thomas Huxley, covers
varying degrees of skepticism. Agnostics are followers of pragmatism; their
belief in something has to be scientifically verifiable, and because God is not
scientifically verifiable, they leave Him out of their discussion.
Evolution5
Evolution is an
antisupernatural approach to life and its origin. It begins with the premise
that there is no God and then seeks to explain life apart from any involvement
by God. The implications are serious: if God created man, then man is a morally
responsible being; if man is the product of evolution, then he is only
biological and is not morally responsible to any god.
Polytheism
The term polytheism
comes from the Greek word poly, meaning
“many,” and theos, meaning “God”; hence, it involves a
belief in many gods, or in a plurality of gods. History has noted many nations
and societies that were polytheistic: early Romans were animistic; the people
of India were pantheistic as well as polytheistic; Egyptians worshiped a
multiplicity of gods, including the sun, the Nile, frogs, and even gnats.
Pantheism
Pantheism means
that everything is God and God is everything. “God is all and all is God.”
Seneca said, “What is God? He is all that you see and all that you do not
see.”6
There are a number of different forms of pantheism:7 materialistic
pantheism, held by David Strauss, which believes in the eternity of matter
and that matter is the cause of all life; hylozoism, the modern form
held by Leibniz, which holds that all matter has a principle of life or
psychical properties; neutralism, which says that life is neutral,
neither mind nor matter; idealism, which suggests that ultimate reality
is really mind, either individual mind or infinite mind; philosophical
mysticism, which is absolute monism, teaching that all reality is a unit.
Deism
Deists believe there is no personal God
to whom man can relate. An impersonal God created the world and afterward
divorced Himself from the human race and left man alone in his created world.
Deists acknowledge only the transcendence of God; they deny His immanence.
REVELATION OF GOD
General Revelation
The revelation of God in which He
conveys truth about Himself to mankind is necessary to make theology possible. Revelation
(Gk. apokalupsis) means
“unveiling” or “disclosure.” Revelation is thus God’s disclosure to man, in
which He reveals truth about Himself that man would not otherwise know.
General revelation, which is
preliminary to salvation, reveals aspects about God and His nature to all
mankind so that all humanity has an awareness of God’s existence. Psalm 19:1–6
is a primary passage emphasizing the general revelation of God in the universe
and in nature. The heavens speak of God’s glory, for no one apart from a
majestic God could bring the vast heavens into being. The earth, in all its
beauty, harmony, and intricacy, reveals the handiwork of God. Romans 1:18–21
further stresses the general revelation of God and the fact that man is
accountable to God. He has revealed “His invisible attributes, His eternal
power and divine nature” so that mankind is without excuse (1:20).
God has also
revealed Himself to all humanity through His providential provision and control
(Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:15–17) so that mankind should respond to the gracious God.
Furthermore, God has revealed Himself to all humanity through conscience, all
mankind having an innate knowledge of Him (Rom. 2:14–15). (For further discussion
of general revelation, see chapter 18, “Bibliology: Doctrine of the Bible.” )
Special Revelation
Special revelation is narrower than
general revelation. While all mankind is the recipient of general revelation,
not all are the recipients of special revelation.
There are many examples of special
revelation. God revealed Himself through dreams and in visions to certain
people. He spoke audibly to some and through theophanies to others. A theophany
is a visible manifestation of God, usually thought of as an Old Testament
occurrence. However, the greater emphasis of special revelation is twofold:
God’s revelation through Scriptures and through Jesus Christ. The biblical
writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit in writing the Scriptures,
assuring the accuracy of what was written. An inerrant record of God’s
disclosure is necessary for man to have a true understanding of God’s Person
and works.
This infallible record also reveals
Jesus Christ, another aspect of special revelation. And Christ, in turn, has
revealed the Father to mankind. The word exegesis (“to draw out; to
explain”) is derived from the Greek word translated “explained” (exegesato) in John 1:18.
In that text the expression stresses that through His words (teachings) and
works (miracles) Christ has explained the Father to mankind. A major emphasis
of John’s gospel is that Jesus came to reveal the Father. (For further
discussion of special revelation, see chap. 18, “Bibliology: Doctrine of the
Bible.”)
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
Definition
The categorization and identification
of God’s attributes is somewhat arbitrary as can be seen by the variety in the
following chart. Some identify a separate category (apart from attributes) for
identifying the Person of God, listing features such as spirituality,
personality, immensity, and eternity. A number of theologians such as Louis
Berkhof, Charles Hodge, William Shedd, and Herman Bavinck follow with some
variations the categories set forth in the Westminster Confession. Others such
as J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., and Charles Ryrie refuse to categorize the
attributes. It does seem helpful to assemble the characteristics of God
systematically.
The attributes
of God may 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.”8
God’s attributes are to be distinguished from His works. God’s attributes do
not “add” anything to God; they reveal His nature. Gordon Lewis provides a
comprehensive definition.
God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all
other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is
self-existent, eternal, and unchanging; intellectually God is omniscient,
faithful, and wise; ethically God is just, merciful, and loving; emotionally
God detests evil, is longsuffering, and is compassionate; existentially God is
free, authentic, and omnipotent; relationally God is transcendent in being,
immanent universally in providential activity, and immanent with His people in
redemptive activity.9
God’s
attributes are usually classified under two categories. The pairs of titles
that are used depends on which of many contrasts the theologian wishes to
emphasize. More frequent classifications include absolute and relative,incommunicable
and communicable (intransitive and transitive), or moral and
non-moral. In the study of God’s attributes it is import ant not to
exalt one attribute over another; when that is done it presents a caricature of
God. It is all the attributes of God taken together that provide an
understanding of the nature and Person of God. As already indicated, the
following categorization, which follows the divisions of A. H. Strong, is
somewhat arbitrary like any other listing.
Absolute Attributes
Spirituality. God is spirit
(not a spirit) who does not have corporeity or physical form (John 4:24). A
body localizes, but God as spirit is everywhere; He cannot be limited. Although
God does not have a body, He is nonetheless a substance but not material.
Spirituality goes further than simply identifying God as not having a body; it
also means He is the source of all life. The prohibition of Exodus 20:4 was
given because God does not have a physical form, hence, it is wrong to make any
likeness of Him. The many references to God’s physical features (cf. Gen. 3:8;
1 Kings 8:29; Ps. 34:15; Isa. 65:2) are anthropomorphisms (figurative language
giving God human characteristics used to attempt to make Him understandable).
Self-existence. God’s
self-existence means “He has the ground of His existence in Himself.…God is
independent in His Being, but also...He is independent in everything else; in
His virtues, decrees, works, and.… causes everything to depend on Him.”10
Exodus 3:14 emphasizes His self-existence in His identification, “I AM WHO I
AM.” The verb to be emphasizes He has continual existence in Himself.
John 5:26 further stresses that the Father has life in Himself. An unborn child
is dependent on its mother for life; animals are dependent on their
surroundings for life; trees and plants are dependent on sun and rain for life;
every living thing is dependent on someone or something else but God is
independent and existent in Himself (Dan. 5:23; Acts 17:28).
Immutability. Immutability
“is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His
Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises...and is
free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being
or perfections.”11 Change is always for better or for
worse, but since God is absolute perfection, improvement or deterioration are
impossible for Him. Malachi 3:6 teaches the doctrine of immutability: “I, the
Lord, do not change.” James 1:17 indicates there is no variation or shifting
shadow with God. There is change throughout the world from year to year but God
does not change in His Person nor in His response to His creatures. since God
does not change, His love and His promises forever remain certain. For example,
He will never change concerning His promise in John 3:16.
Unity. Two thoughts
are expressed in the unity of God. First, it emphasizes that God is one
numerically. It was this belief that set Israel apart from her polytheistic
neighbors. Part of Israel’s daily worship was the recitation of the Shema
(Deut. 6:4) which affirmed, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is
one!” This statement was a declaration of monotheism, affirming that God is one
in His essence and cannot be divided. It also affirmed Him as absolutely
unique; there is none other that can be compared with Him (cf. Ex. 15:11).12
The emphasis on God as numerically one is also stressed in 1 Timothy 2:5 and 1
Corinthians 8:6. Second, the unity of God stresses that God is not a composite
and cannot be divided into parts. The statement stresses the “inner and
qualitative unity” of God.13 Because the Lord alone is God, none
other is to share His glory, hence the prohibition, “Guard yourselves from
idols” (1 John 5:21).
Truth. Truth means
that the facts conform to reality; truth identifies things as they are.
Properly defined in relation to God, truth is “that perfection of His being by
virtue of which He fully answers to the idea of the Godhead, is perfectly
reliable in His revelation, and sees things as they really are.”14
First, it means He is the true God in distinction to all others; there is none
like Him (Isa. 44:8–10, 45:5); second, He is the truth in that His Word and His
revelation are reliable (Num. 23:19; Rom. 3:3–4; John 14:1, 2, 6; Heb. 6:18;
Titus 1:2). He can be trusted. Third, He knows things as they are; He is the
beginning of all knowledge and makes it available to man in order that man may
have fellowship with Him. He is the truth in a comprehensive sense: “He is the
source of all truth, not only in the sphere of morals and religion, but also in
every field of scientific endeavor.”15
Love. First John 4:8
indicates “God is love” while verse 10 explains how that love is displayed: “In
this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to
be the propitiation for our sins.” Thus, God’s love may be defined as “that
perfection of the divine nature by which God is eternally moved to communicate
himself. It is not a mere emotional impulse, but a rational and voluntary
affection, having its ground in truth and holiness and its exercise in free
choice.”16 The Greek term agape, translated
“love,” is frequently used to denote God and His response to humanity (cf. John
3:16; 5:42; Rom. 5:5, 8; 8:35, 39; 1 John 4:10, 11, 19; Rev. 1:5).17
Agape denotes a reasoned-out love, rather
than an emotionally-based love (but not devoid of emotion)—one that loves the
object irrespective of the worth of the object and even though the love may not
be reciprocated.
Holiness. The basic
meaning of holiness is “set apart” or “separation” (Heb. qedosh; Gk. hagiazo). Many see
holiness as the foremost attribute of all because holiness pervades all the
other attributes of God and is consistent with all He is and does.
Several
features are embraced in the holiness of God. It has a transcendent emphasis,
indicating “He is absolutely distinct from all His creatures and is exalted
above them in infinite majesty.”18 Exodus 15:11 explains that in His
holiness God is without peer and awesome—revealed in the marvelous way He
delivered Israel from the Egyptians. Isaiah 57:15 describes His transcendence:
He is “high and exalted” living on a “high and holy place.” It has an ethical
emphasis, indicating “He is separate from moral evil or sin. ‘Holiness’
points to God’s majestic purity, or ethical majesty.”19 The foundation
of this emphasis is Leviticus 11:44, 45, “Be holy, for I am holy.” Because God
is morally pure, He cannot condone evil or have any relationship to it (Ps.
11:4–6). In His holiness God is the moral and ethical standard; He is the law.
He sets the standard.20
Relative Attributes
Some attributes may be termed
“relative” because they are related to time and space.
Eternity. The eternity of
God is usually understood as related to time. By definition it means that God
is not limited or bound by time; with God there is no succession of events; He
is above all temporal limitations. “With Him there is no distinction between
the present, past, and future; but all things are equally and always present to
Him.”21
His eternity is expressed in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting, Thou
art God.” God’s eternity extends backward to infinity and forward to infinity.
Moreover, God’s eternity is also related to His eternal rule in His universal
kingdom (Ps. 102:12).22 God’s eternity is also related to
His name. In Exodus 3:14 He informed Moses that His name is “I AM WHO I AM.”
Some scholars relate His name, Lord (v. 14), to “I AM WHO I AM” and to the
present tense of the Hebrew verb hayah, meaning “to
be.” Hence, God’s name reflects His eternity in that He is the “continually
existing One.” However, this is not to suggest that time is unreal or
non-existent with God. While God sees everything as an eternal now, He
nonetheless, in relation to man and creation, sees a succession of events in
time.
Immensity. Immensity may
be defined as “that perfection of the Divine Being by which He transcends all
spatial limitations, and yet is present in every point of space with His whole
Being.”23 First Kings 8:27 emphasizes this truth (cf. also
Isa. 66:1; Jer. 23:23, 24; Acts 7:48, 49). Solomon declared, “heaven and
highest heaven cannot contain Thee.” Solomon had built a magnificent temple to
the Lord but recognized that God could not be contained in a temple. Unlike
human bodies that are bounded and limited to space, God in His immensity is not
limited or localized. In His entire Being He fills all places, but not to the
same degree. “He does not dwell on earth as He does in heaven, in animals as He
does in man, in the inorganic as He does in the organic creation, in the wicked
as He does in the pious, nor in the Church as He does in Christ.”24
There are also relative at tributes that are related to creation, that is, they
reveal some aspects of God’s person in His dealings with people and creation.
Omnipresence. In the next
three attributes the prefix omni comes from the Latin word omnis,
meaning “all.” Thus, omnipresence means God is everywhere present (this is
contrasted with pantheism, which states that God is in everything). More
specifically, omnipresence may be defined as “God, in the totality of his
essence, without diffusion or expansion, multiplication or division, penetrates
and fills the universe in all its parts.”25 Psalm 139:7–12
explains the omnipresence of God. From the highest heaven to the depths of the
earth and sea—God is everywhere present. There is no escaping God’s presence.
In the definition it is noted that God is present everywhere in the totality of
His person. This definition militates against the idea that God is in heaven
and only His power is on earth. A distinction should be recognized between the
immensity of God and the omnipresence of God. Immensity emphasizes the
transcendence of God and stresses that He is not bound by space, whereas
omnipresence emphasizes His immanence, filling all space, including earth. The
doctrine of omnipresence is a comfort to the believer who recognizes that no
calamity can befall him that God is not present with Him; it is also a warning
to the disobedient person that he cannot escape the presence of God.
Omniscience. The English
word omniscience comes from the Latin words omnis, meaning “all,”
and scientia, meaning “knowledge” ; thus it means that God has all
knowledge. A more comprehensive definition will state that God knows all things
actual and possible, past, present, and future, in one eternal act.26
A number of things should be noted about God’s omniscience.
(1) God knows all things that exist in
actuality (Ps. 139:1–6; 147:4; Matt. 6:8; 10:28–30). The psalmist recognized
the omniscience of God in that God knew his actions, his thoughts, his words
before he even spoke them, and his entire life (Ps. 139:1–4).
(2) God knows all the variables
concerning things that have not occurred. Jesus knew what Tyre and Sidon would
have done had the gospel been preached to them (Matt. 11:21).
(3) God knows all future events.
Because God is eternal and knows all things in one eternal act, events that are
future to man are an “eternal now” to God. He knew the nations that would
dominate Israel (Dan. 2:36–43; 7:4–8), and He knows the events that will yet
transpire upon the earth (Matt. 2425; Rev. 6–19).
(4) God’s knowledge is intuitive. It is
immediate, not coming through the senses; it is simultaneous, not acquired
through observation or reason; it is actual, complete, and according to
reality.
Omnipotence. The term omnipotence
signifies that God is all powerful. However, it does not suggest that
because God is all powerful He can and does do anything or everything at
random. A proper definition states: “God is all-powerful and able to do
whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do
everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”27 In other
words, the question, “Can God create a stone so large that He could not lift
it?” is not a legitimate question. God can do all things that are in harmony
with His nature and Person.
The name Almighty means “the
mighty one” and is probably derived from the verb meaning “to be strong” (cf.
Gen. 17:1; 28:3; Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 1:24; Joel 1:15). Because God is Almighty,
all things are possible (Matt. 19:26). The One who has formed the unborn child
(Ps. 139:13–16) and created the heavens (Jer. 32:17) can do all things; nothing
is too hard for Him. He does as He pleases (Ps. 115:3) and decrees all things
in accordance with His will (Eph. 1:11).
God cannot do things that are not in
harmony with His nature. He cannot go back on His word (2 Tim. 2:13); He cannot
lie (Heb. 6:18); He has no relationship to sin (Hab. 1:13; James 1:13). Since
God is able to do as He pleases, the doctrine of God’s omnipotence becomes a
source of great comfort for the believer (cf. Gen. 18:14; 1 Pet. 1:5). There
are also relative attributes of God that relate to morality.
Truth. In speaking of
God as truth it is implied that God is all that He as God should be and that
His word and revelation are completely reliable.
(1) God is the truth in His person. He
is perfectly complete and completely perfect as God; He is without peer (Isa.
45:5).
(2) God is the truth in His revelation
(Ps. 110:5; 1 Pet. 1:25; Matt. 5:18). It means that He is completely true in
His revelation to mankind. He is reliable. Unlike a mortal, God cannot lie
(Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18); He speaks the truth and fulfills everything that He has
promised to do (Num. 23:19). God is true in that He will never abrogate His
promises (Rom. 3:3–4). In concert with the Father Jesus proclaimed, “I am the
truth” (John 14:6). His word was reliable; His disciples could trust Him. The
application of this doctrine is of significant value. Since God is truth it
means His word to mankind is absolutely reliable and can be trusted implicitly.
It means He will never renege on a promise He has made, such as in John 3:16.
Mercy. A general
definition of mercy is “the goodness or love of God shown to those who are in
misery or distress, irrespective of their deserts.”28 The Hebrew
word chesed in the Old Testament emphasizes “help
or kindness as the grace of a superior.” It stresses the faithfulness of God
despite man’s unfaithfulness and therefore emphasizes pity, sympathy, and love
. The New Testament Greek word eleos also includes
the idea of pity and sympathy and may be translated “loving-kindness” in a
general sense.29 God’s mercy seeks both the temporal need of mankind
(Ruth 1:8; Heb. 4:16) as well as the eternal salvation of people (Rom. 9:23;
Eph. 2:4; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:3; Isa. 55:7); however, the latter is the stress
in the New Testament. His mercy extends to Israel (Ps. 102:13) as well as to
Gentiles (Rom. 11:30–32; 15:9). His mercy is free of obligation and given
according to His sovereign choice (Rom. 9:15–16, 18). A concordance study of mercy
(use a concordance that lists the usage of the Hebrew word chesed) reveals that
God is indeed “rich in mercy,” which is particularly reflected in the Psalms
(cf. 5:7; 6:4; 13:5; 17:7; 18:50; 21:7; 23:6, etc.; note: the word is
frequently translated “loving-kindness” ).
Grace. Grace may be
defined as the unmerited or undeserving favor of God to those who are under
condemnation. A prominent Old Testament word describing God’s grace is also chesed.30
This word denotes deliverance from enemies, affliction, or adversity (Ps. 6:4;
31:7, 16; 57:3; 69:13–16); enablement (Ps. 85:7); daily guidance (Ps. 143:8);
forgiveness (Num. 14:19; Ps. 51:1); and preservation (Ps. 23:6; 33:18; 42:8;
94:18; 119:75, 76). The New Testament word charis particularly focuses
on the provision of salvation in Christ.31 Grace is reflected
in God providing salvation (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; 2:8); Christ brought grace and
truth (John 1:18; Rom. 1:5); the grace of Christ enabled believers to have a
positional standing before God (Rom. 5:2); Christ brought life instead of death
through grace (Rom. 5:17); the grace of Christ exceeded the sin of Adam (Rom.
5:15, 20); the grace of Christ dispensed spiritual gifts to all believers (Rom.
12:6; Eph. 4:7); Jews and Gentiles alike are accepted through grace (Eph. 3:2).
Justice. Justice is
sometimes taken together with the righteousness of God. The justice of God
means that God is entirely correct and just in all His dealings with humanity;
moreover, this justice acts in accordance with His law. The justice of God,
therefore, is related to man’s sin. Since God’s law reflects God’s standard,
then God is righteous and just when He judges man for His violation of God’s
revealed law.
The justice of God is sometimes divided
into several categories. The rectoral justice of God recognizes God as
moral ruler who, in imposing His moral law in the world, promises reward for
the obedient and punishment for the disobedient (Ps. 99:4; Rom. 1:32). The distributive
justice of God relates to the execution of the law in terms of both reward
and punishment (Isa. 3:10, 11; Rom. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:17). Distributive justice is
both positive and negative. On the positive side it is termed remunerative
justice (a reflection n of divine love), which dispenses reward to the
obedient (Deut. 7:9; Ps. 58:11; Rom. 2:7). On the negative side it is termed retributive
justice, an expression of divine wrath in which God punishes the wicked
(Gen. 2:17 ; Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 6:23). Since God is just and
righteous, the punishment of evildoers is fair because they receive the just
penalty due them for their sin.32
NAMES OF GOD
ELOHIM
Elohim
is a Hebrew
plural form used more than two thousand times in the Old Testament and usually
termed a “plural of majesty” of the general name for God. It comes from the
abbreviated name, El, which probably has a root meaning “to
be strong” (cf. Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Josh. 3:10) or “to be preeminent.”33
It is usually translated “God” in the English translations. Elohim emphasizes
God’s transcendence: He is above all others who are called God. Some understand
the relationship between El and Elohim in that Elohim is simply the plural form
of El; the terms seem to be interchangeable (cf. Ex. 34:14; Ps. 18:31; Deut.
32:17, 21). In some passages, such as Isaiah 31:3, El draws the distinction
between God and man so that El signifies the “power and strength of God and the
defenselessness of human enemies” (cf. Hos. 11:9).34
ADONAI
The designation
Adonai (Heb. Adhon or Adhonay) in its root
means “lord” or “master” and is usually translated “Lord” in English Bibles. Adonai
occurs 449
times in the Old Testament and 315 times in conjunction with Yahweh. Adhon
emphasizes the
servant-master relationship (cf. Gen. 24:9) and thus suggests God’s authority
as Master; One who is sovereign in His rule and has absolute authority (cf. Ps.
8:1; Hos. 12:14). Adonai should probably be understood as meaning “Lord of all”
or “Lord par excellence” (cf. Deut. 10:17; Josh. 3:11). It is also possible to
understand Adonai as a personal address meaning “my Lord.”35
YAHWEH
The name Yahweh translates the
Hebrew tetragrammaton (four lettered expression) YHWH. Because the name was
originally written without vowels, it is uncertain how it should be pronounced.
Hence, the American Standard Version translates it “Jehovah,” whereas most
modern translations render it “Lord”
(to distinguish it from Adonai, “Lord” ).
Jewish scholars have generally pronounced it “Adonai” instead of actually
pronouncing YHWH, out of respect for the sacredness of the covenant name.
Although there is considerable
discussion concerning the origin and meaning of the name, this common
designation (used 6,828 times in the Old Testament) is likely related to the
verb “to be.” Thus in Exodus 3:14–15 the Lord declares, “I AM WHO I AM...The Lord...has sent me to you. This is My
name forever.” This has particular significance to the “I AM” claims of Christ
(cf. John 6:35; 8:12; 10:9, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1), who in His statements
claimed equality with Yahweh.
By the name Yahweh,
God identified Himself in His personal relationship with His people, Israel,
and it was to this name that Abram responded in acknowledging the Abrahamic
Covenant (Gen. 12:8). By this name God brought Israel out of Egypt, delivered
them from bondage, and redeemed them (Ex. 6:6; 20:2). Whereas Elohim
and Adonai
were
designations known to other cultures, the revelation of Yahweh was
unique to Israel.
COMPOUND NAMES
There are a number of compound forms of
the name of God involving the names El (or Elohim) and Yahweh.
El Shaddai. Translated “God
Almighty,” it probably relates to the word mountain and suggests the power
or strength of God. By this name God is also seen as a covenant-keeping God
(Gen. 17:1; cf. vv. 1–8 where the covenant is reiterated).
El Elyon. Translated “God
Most High,” it emphasizes the supremacy o f God. He is above all so-called gods
(cf. Gen. 14:18–22). Melchizedek recognized Him as “God Most High” inasmuch as
He is possessor of heaven and earth (v. 19).
El Olam. Translated the
“Everlasting God,” it stresses the unchanging character of God (Gen. 21:33;
Isa. 40:28).
Others. There are other
compound terms that are sometimes mentioned as names of God, but they may
simply be descriptions of God: Yah- weh-jireh, “The Lord Will Provide” (Gen. 22:14); Yahweh-Nissi , “The Lord Our Banner” (Ex. 17:15); Yahweh-Shalom, “The Lord is Peace” (Judg. 6:24); Yahweh-Sabbaoth, “The Lord of Hosts” (1 Sam. 1:3); YahwehMac-caddeshcem, “The Lord Thy Sanctifier” (Ex. 31:13); Yahweh-Tsidkenu, “The Lord Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6).
THE TRINITY OF GOD
Definition of the Trinity
The Trinity of God is a doctrine that
is fundamental to the Christian faith; belief or disbelief in the Trinity marks
orthodoxy from unorthodoxy. Human reason, however, cannot fathom the Trinity,
nor can logic explain it, and, although the word itself is not found in the
Scriptures, the doctrine is plainly taught in the Scriptures. The early church
was forced to study the subject and affirm its truth because of the heretical
teachings that arose opposing the Trinity.
The term Trinity
is not the best one because it emphasizes only the three persons but not
the unity within the Trinity. The German word Dreieinigkeit (“three-oneness” ) better expresses the concept. A
proper definition then must include the distinctness and equality of the three
persons within the Trinity as well as the unity within the Trinity. The word Triunity
may better express the doctrine.36 A proper definition
of the Trinity states: “the Trinity is composed of three united Persons without
separate existence—so completely united as to form one God. The divine nature
subsists in three distinctions—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”37
Misinterpretations of the Trinity
Tri-theism. In early church
history men such as John Ascunages and John Philoponus taught that there were
three who were God but they were only related in a loose association as, for
example, Peter, James, and John were as disciples. The error of this teaching
was that its proponents abandoned the unity within the Trinity with the result
that they taught there were three Gods rather than three Persons within one
Godhead.
Sabellianism or Modalism. This teaching,
originated by Sabellius (c. a.d.
200), erred in the opposite from that of Tri-theism. Although Sabellius spoke
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he understood all three as simply three modes
of existence or three manifestations of one God. The teaching is thus also
known as modalism because it views one God who variously manifests
Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Arianism. Arian doctrine
had its roots in Tertullian, who subordinated the Son to the Father. Origen
carried Tertullian’s concept further by teaching that the Son was subordinate
to the Father “in respect to essence.” This ultimately led to Arianism, which
denied the deity of Christ. Arius taught that only God was the uncreated One;
because Christ was begotten of the Father it meant Christ was created by the
Father. According to Arius there was a time when Christ did not exist. Arius
and his teaching were condemned at the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325.
Explanation of the Trinity
God is one in regard to essence. Early in church
history the question developed whether Christ was the same as the Father in
substance or in essence. Arius taught that Christ was like the Father in
substance, yet the Father was greater than Christ; hence, althought some
equated the terms substance and essence, the proper way to designate the
Trinity became “one in essence.” The essential oneness of God is linked to
Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (Heb. echad, “compound
unity; united one” ). This statement stresses not only the uniqueness of God
but also the unity of God (cf. also James 2:19). It means all three Persons
possess the summation of the divine attributes but yet the essence of God is
undivided. Oneness in essence also emphasizes that the three Persons of the
Trinity do not act independently of one another. This was a constant theme of
Jesus in rebuffing the charges of the Jews (cf. John 5:19; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10).
God is three with respect to Persons. The word persons
tends to detract from the unity of the Trinity, and it is readily
recognized that persons is an inadequate term to describe the relationship
within the Trinity. Some theologians have opted for the term subsistence,
hence, “God has three subsistences.” Other words used to describe the
distinctiveness of the Three are: distinction, relation, and mode. The term persons
is nonetheless helpful inasmuch as it emphasizes not only a manifestation
but also an individual personality. In suggesting God is three with respect to
His Persons it is emphasized that (1) each has the same essence as God and (2)
each possess the fullness of God. “In God there are no three individuals
alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal
self-distinctions within the Divine essence.”38 This is an important
deviation from modalism (or Sabellianism), which teaches that one God merely
manifests Himself in three various ways. This unity within three Persons is
seen in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 48:16 where the Father has sent
the Messiah and the Spirit to speak to the restored nation. In Isaiah 61:1 the
Father has anointed the Messiah with the Spirit for His mission. These
references emphasize both the equality and the unity of the three Persons.
The three Persons have distinct
relationships. Within the Trinity exists a relationship that is
expressed in terms of subsistence. The Father is not begotten nor does He
proceed from any person; the Son is eternally begotten from the Father (John
1:18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The term generation suggests the
Trinitarian relationship in that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son (John 14:26;
16:7). The word procession suggests the Trinitarian relationship of the
Father and the Son sending the Spirit.39 It is important to
note, however, that these terms denote a relationship within the Trinity
and do not suggest inferiority in any way. Because the terms can tend to
suggest inferiority some theologians deny their usefulness.40
The three
Persons are equal in authority. Although terms like generation and
procession may be used in referring to the functioning within the
Trinity, it is important to realize that the three Persons are equal in
authority. The Father is recognized as authoritative and supreme (1 Cor. 8:6);
the Son is also recognized as equal to the Father in every respect (John
5:21–23); the Spirit is likewise recognized as equal to the Father and the Son
(cf. Matt. 12:31). (This topic will be developed further under the discussion
of the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit.)
OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING
While there is
no definitive or explicit statement in the Old Testament affirming the Trinity,
it is fair to say that the Old Testament allows for the Trinity and implies
that God is a triune being in a number of passages. In the creation account of
Genesis 1 both God the Father and the Holy Spirit are seen in the work of
creation. It is stated that God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1) while the
Holy Spirit hovered over the earth to infuse it with vitality (Gen. 1:2). The
term God in Genesis 1:1 is Elohim, which is a
plural form for God. Even though this does not explicitly teach the Trinity, it
certainly allows for it as seen in the plural pronouns “us” and “our” in
Genesis 1:26. In Psalm 110:1 David recognized a distinction of persons between
“LORD” and “my Lord.” David implies that Messiah is One greater than an
ordinary human king because he refers to Messiah with an ascription of deity,
“my Lord.” In the prophecy concerning Christ in Isaiah 7:14 the Lord makes it
clear that the One born of a virgin will also be Immanuel, “God with us.” It is
an attestation to Messiah’s deity. Two additional passages previously mentioned
that imply the Trinity are Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1. In both of these passages all
three Persons of the Godhead are mentioned and seen as distinct from one
another.
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING
Ultimately, to demonstrate that the
Scriptures teach the Trinity, two things must be affirmed: that there is only
one God, and that all three Persons are called God. While a fuller
demonstration of the deity of each member of the Godhead is discussed under the
respective categories, the teaching can be concisely stated here. The Father
is called God (1 Cor. 8:6); the Son is called God (Heb. 1:8–10); the
Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:34); God is one God (Deut.
6:4). Combining these four statements affirms the Trinity. There are additional
New Testament passages in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen in
such a relationship as to affirm both their unity and equality.
In the act of
making disciples Jesus commanded that the apostles were to baptize the new
disciples “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt.
28:18). It seems clear that the equality as well as the unity of the three
Persons is intended. In Mary’s conception the Trinity is involved: the Holy
Spirit came upon Mary, the power of God overshadowed her, and the resultant
offspring was called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). All three are also seen as
distinct at the baptism of Jesus (a denial of modalism; cf. Luke 3:21–22). In
John 14:16 the unity of the three is again mentioned: the Son asks the Father
who sends the Spirit to indwell believers forever. The unity of the three is
clear. In Romans 8:9–11 all three are mentioned as indwelling the believer. The
benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14 surely is a strong affirmation of both the
equality and unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. also 1 Cor. 2:4–8; Rev.
1:4–5).
Difficulties with the Doctrine
Those who deny the Trinity sometimes
object to the use of certain terms that seem to imply that Christ is inferior
to the Father, which if true, would deny the Trinity. Several of these
problematic terms are noted here.
Meaning of begotten. The term begotten
is used in several senses with respect to Christ. First, it is evident from
Matthew 1:20 that Christ was begotten in His humanity but not in His deity.
Christ was God from all eternity (Mic. 5:2), but at Bethlehem He took to Himself
an additional nature, namely, a human nature. The Holy Spirit superintended
Mary’s conception to assure the sinlessness of the humanity of Christ. It is
with reference to the humanity of Christ that the term begotten is used;
it could never be used with reference to His deity. Begotten does not relate to
Jesus’ being the Son of God. In time and space Jesus was declared to be the Son
of God (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:32–33; Rom. 1:4). These verses all emphasize that
Jesus’ Sonship is vindicated or verified as a result of the resurrection, but
the resurrection did not make Him the Son of God. Jesus has been the son of God
from eternity. Thus, Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33 emphasize that begotten refers to
the public declaration of the Sonship of Christ (but not the origination of the
Son ship).42
Meaning of first-born. Those who deny
the deity of Christ frequently do so by referring to the term first-born,
suggesting that if the term relates to Christ it must imply He had a beginning
in time. However, both a lexical study of the word as well as a contextual
study of the usages provides a different solution to the meaning for
first-born. In its Old Testament culture the predominant emphasis was on the
status of the oldest son. He enjoyed the double portion of the inheritance
(Deut. 21:17), privileges over other family members (Gen. 27:1–4, 35–37),
preferential treatment (Gen. 43:33), and the respect of others (Gen. 37:22).
Figuratively, the word denotes priority or supremacy (Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9)43
and is so used of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 where Christ is referred to as
first-born the meaning is clear: as firstborn, Christ is Head of the church and
preeminent in everything.44 This is an example of synthetic
poetry in Hebrew in which the second line explains the first. In this Messianic
Psalm God affirms that Messiah will be the first-born, that is, the highest of
the kings of the earth. First-born is explained as ruling over the kings
of the entire earth. From both a linguistic and exegetical study it is clear
that first-born draws attention to the preeminent status of Jesus as
Messiah.
Meaning of
only-begotten. The term only-begotten (Gk. monogenes) (cf. John
1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9) does not suggest a beginning point in time but
rather means that Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God is “unique,” “the only
one of its kind,” “the only example of its category.”45 Only-begotten
“is used to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings.”46
In Genesis 22:2, 12, 16 it reflects the concept of “only, precious” as Isaac
was viewed by his father, Abraham.47 John the apostle
describes the glory radiated by the unique Son of God—no one else radiated the
glory of the Father (John 1:14); moreover, the Son “explained” the Father—no
one but the unique Son could explain the Father. It was the unique Son whom God
sent into the world; eternal life was provided only through the unique Son of
God (John 3:16). In examining the passages it is evident that only-begotten does
not suggest a coming into existence, but rather it expresses the uniqueness of
the person. Christ was unique as the Son of God, sent by the Father from
heaven.
DECREES OF GOD
Definition of God’s Decree
The decrees of
God have been established in eternity past and have reference to God’s
sovereign control over every realm and over all events. The decrees are
reflected in Ephesians 1:11 in that He “works all things after the counsel of
His will.” Question 7 of the Westminster Shorter Confession states: “The
decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will,
whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”
Ultimately, there are only two options. Either God is sovereign and has
absolute control over the world and universe or God does not have
sovereign control, and the world and universe carry on in defiance of His holy
will. Of course, the former is true; the world does not operate by chance. God
has absolute control. Yet it must also be affirmed that man is responsible for
sinful actions. God is never the author of sin nor does His sovereignty
eliminate man’s responsibility.
Characteristics of God’s Decree
The decree is a single plan
encompassing all things. Nothing is outside the scope of God’s
sovereign rule. Ephesians 1:11 emphasizes “all things” are brought to pass by
His decree. Because everything is encompassed in God’s sovereign plan it is
sometimes spoken of in the singular—it is one decree.
The decree covering all things was
formed in eternity past but is manifested in time. The believer
was chosen by God in eternity past (Eph. 1:4; the phrase “before the foundation
of the world” = “from all eternity” ).48 The believer’s
salvation and calling is once more related to God’s determination from eternity
past (2 Tim. 1:9). In this passage it is emphasized that it is according to
“His own purpose.” Purpose (Gk. prothesin) emphasizes
the resolve or decision of God in His calling and saving the believer. The decision
for Christ to take on humanity and shed His blood for humanity was also made
“before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20).
The decree is a wise plan because God
Who is wise has planned what is best. In Romans 9–11 Paul discusses the
sovereignty of God and His election of Israel and concludes this “difficult to
comprehend” section with a doxology extolling the wisdom of God in His
sovereign acts (Rom. 11:33–36). God’s wisdom and knowledge cannot be
comprehended, and His decisions cannot be tracked as footprints in the sand.
God has consulted no one and no one has advised Him. But because God knows all
things He controls and guides all events for His glory and for our good (cf.
Ps. 104:24; Prov. 3:19).
The decree is according to God’s
sovereign will—He does as He pleases. God does not adjust His plan according
to the events of human history; instead, His decree governs human history.
Daniel 4:35 is all encompassing: God “does according to His will” in the
angelic realm as well as with the inhabitants of earth. In the context of the
book of Daniel God determines the course of human history and the rulers of the
kingdoms of earth (Dan. 2:21, 31–45). God has established His decrees in
freedom and in independence of everything and everyone else.
The decree has two aspects. (1) The
directive will of God. There are some things in which God is the author; He
actively brings about the events. He creates (Isa. 45:18); He controls the
universe (Dan. 4:35); He establishes kings and governments (Dan. 2:21); He
elects people to be saved (Eph. 1:4).
(2) The permissive will of God. Even
though God has determined all things, He may actively bring them about Himself,
or He may bring them about through secondary causes. Sinful acts, for example,
do not frustrate the plan of God, but neither is God the author of them. They
are within the scope of God’s decree and are part of His eternal plan and
purpose, but man is nonetheless responsible for sinful acts. Hence, “a
distinction must be made between the decree and its execution.”49
All acts—including sinful acts—conform to the eternal plan of God, but He is
not directly the author of all acts. For example, when the people of Israel
demanded a king to rule over them, they sinned against the Lord (1 Sam. 8:5–9,
19–22). But the Lord had foreordained that kings would come from Abraham’s
lineage (Gen. 17:6; 35:11), culminating in Messiah. The people sinned, but
God’s plan was being executed.
The purpose of the decree is the glory
of God. The creation of the world is designed to reveal God’s
glory (Ps. 19:1). The vastness of the heavens and the beauty of the flora and
fauna of earth reflect the glory of God. God’s sovereign act whereby He
predestined believers to salvation (Eph. 1:4–5) is “to the praise of the glory
of His grace” (Eph. 1:6, 11–12). God is glorified in the display of His
unconditional grace (cf. Rom. 9:23; Rev. 4:11).
Although all things are encompassed in
the decree, man is responsible for sinful actions. This is known
as an antinomy and is important in understanding the concept that although God
is sovereign and has decreed all things, nonetheless man is responsible for
sinful acts. Antinomy comes from the Greek word anti, meaning
“against,” and nomos, meaning “law,” hence, an antinomy is
something that is contrary to law or contrary to human understanding. An
antinomy, of course, is such only in the mind of man; with God there is no
antinomy.
In Acts 2:23 Peter explained that Jesus
died because of the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” “Plan” (Gk. boule) stresses the
predetermined will or decision of God. Foreknowledge is a rough equivalsent and
suggests not merely previous knowledge but action. Hence, Christ died because
of the decision of God in eternity; nevertheless, Peter held the people responsible
for killing Christ saying, “you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men
and put Him to death.” Although Christ’s death was a result of the decree and
plan of God, wicked men were responsible for His death.
Similarly, in Habakkuk 1:6 God explained
to the prophet that He was raising up the Chaldeans to chastise His disobedient
people in Judah. But when the Chaldeans concluded their work, God would hold
them responsible (Hab. 1:11). Although God has decreed all things, man is
responsible for his sins.
Some aspects of
the decree are carried out by people. This distinguishes the decree of God from fatalism. The
decree cannot be fatalism because the decree also involves the means, not only
the end. For example, the decree of God involves electing certain ones to
salvation, yet no one is saved apart from evangelism. On the one hand, the
decree says the believer is chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world
(Eph. 1:4), yet someone must present the gospel to the person to enable him to
believe and be saved (Acts 16:31). In the matter of salvation, God uses people
in evangelism to carry out His decree.
MANIFESTATION OF THE DECREE50
In the material realm. The creation of
the world and universe in all its aspects comes under the divine decree of God
(Ps. 33:6–11). Verse 6 emphasizes that heaven and earth were both created by
the decree of God and He governs them from generation to generation (v. 11).
Moreover, God has also appointed the nations and their boundaries (Deut. 32:8;
Acts 17:26). The length of human life has also been decreed (Job 14:5), as well
as the manner of our departure (John 21:19; 2 Tim. 4:6–8).
In the social realm. God has decreed
the family (Gen. 2:18) and ordained that marriage be indissoluble (Matt.
19:1–9); the decree of marriage also involved children (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7). God
also established government (Rom. 13:1–7); moreover, He is the One who
establishes and removes kings (Dan. 2:21; 4:35). God sovereignly chose Israel
and established her as a nation (Gen. 12:1–3; Ex. 19:5–6). Despite Israel’s
failure God has decreed her future restoration under Messiah (Joel 3:1–21;
Zech. 14:1–11), and all nations will come under Messiah’s rule (Psalm 2; Zech.
14:12–21). Although the church was decreed from eternity, it was not revealed until
the New Testament that God would unite Jew and Gentile into one in the Body of
Christ (Eph. 2:15; 3:1–13).
In the spiritual realm. (1) The order
of the decrees. Debate has gone on for centuries in attempting to relate the
sovereignty of God and man’s freedom of choice in salvation. This difference is
reflected in how different people have viewed the order of the decrees. The
accompanying chart reflects the range of belief concerning election, the Fall,
and the application of grace for eternal life.51
(2) Sin and the decrees. Additional
issues related to sin may be summarized as follows. God may permit men to
manifest evil (Rom. 1:24–28).
God is never, however, the author of evil, nor does He
solicit people to sin (James 1:13). God may directly prevent evil (2 Thess.
2:7). God may direct evil acts of men to accomplish His purpose (Acts 4:27–28).
God does not make men sin, yet all things are within the scope of God’s
sovereign plan. God determines the boundary of evil and overrules evil (Job
1:6–12). God limited Satan in testing Job.
(3) Salvation and the decrees. God chose and predestined
believers to salvation from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4–5; 2
Tim. 1:9). He chose Jews and Gentiles united as one body in Christ (Eph. 3:11).
God chose believers for individual blessing (Rom. 8:28).
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
Objection: The decree does not allow
for man’s free will. The decree allows for man’s responsible action, and man
is held responsible for sinful choices. The concept of God’s sovereignty and
man’s responsibility is an antinomy but is such only in the mind of man. With
God there is no inconsistency in this; moreover, the biblical writers do not
view it as an inconsistency (cf. Acts 2:23—Peter saw no contradiction in this).
It should also be noted that God does not bring about all aspects of His decree
through His directive will but rather through secondary causes, hence, sinful
man acts according to his sinful nature. Man acts in harmony with his nature,
and all these acts are within the scope of God’s decree and man is held
responsible for them. Additionally, there is a difference between an unbeliever
and a believer. An unbeliever is compelled by his sinful nature to make
decisions on the basis of his fallen nature; he is incapable of making
righteous choices. The believer has greater latitude in making decisions
because he is capable of making righteous choices.
Objection: The
decree makes it unnecessary to preach the gospel. The objection
relates once more to the antinomy in the mind of man. Paul taught that God had
predestined people to salvation (Eph. 1:5–11) and taught the doctrine of
election (Rom. 1:1; 8:30; 9:11), but with equal fervency Paul taught the
necessity of preaching the gospel in order that people might be saved (Acts
16:31; Rom. 10:14–15; 1 Cor. 9:16). People are lost not because it has not been
decreed for them to be saved but because they have refused to believe the
gospel.
CONCLUSIONS
The decrees of God have very practical
ramifications. (1) We should stand in awe of a great God who is wise, powerful,
and loving. (2) We can entrust our entire lives to an Almighty God. (3) We
should rejoice in the wonder of our salvation—that we were the choice of God in
eternity past. (4) We should rest in peace as we observe the tumultuous world
events, knowing that God is sovereignly controlling all things (this does not
imply indifference). (5) God holds people responsible for sin. Although sin
does not frustrate the plan of God, neither is He the author of it. (6) This
teaching militates against the pride of man. Man, in his pride, desires to run
his own life; the recognition that God is sovereign is humbling.
J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), pp. 82–84. Buswell discusses the necessity for
the cosmological argument. The only other option is the eternality of the
universe which can be refuted through the second law of thermodynamics.
Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised by Vernon D. Doerksen
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 28.
Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 32–33. See this work for a
response to the anti-theistic theories. For a further refutation also see Lewis
Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:162–78.
Many excellent works have been
written refuting the false teachings of evolution, particularly through the
writing of biblicists like Bolten Davidheiser, Henry Morris, and others. Some works that ought to be
consulted are John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Early Earth (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1972); Henry M. Morris, The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1963); S. Maxwell Coder and George F. Howe, The Bible, Science,
and Creation(Chicago: Moody, 1965); and Henry M. Morris, The Biblical
Basis for Modern Science(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). The student
researching this subject should consult the material provided by the Creation
Research Society of San Diego.
Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 34–38. See this work for a
refutation of the various forms of pantheism as well as the other anti-theistic
theories.
Gordon R. Lewis, “God, Attributes
of,” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1984), p. 451.
S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Deuteronomy in The International Critical Commentary 3rd ed., (Edinburgh: Clark,
1978), p. 90.
See Leon Morris, Testaments of Love (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981)
for a definitive discussion of the biblical nature and meaning of love.
Ibid. 73
See Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody, 1968), pp.
22–36, for a discussion tracing God’s universal kingdom throughout eternity.
It
is important to recognize that in speaking of God’s knowledge or foreknowledge it does
not imply a passive awareness of what will happen, but in connection with His
knowledge or foreknowledge He has decreed all events. Compare Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology, 1:353–58, 396–99.
Rudolph Bultmann,
“Eleos,” in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964),
2:479–85.
The Hebrew word chesed really denotes “loving-kindness,”
and the concept overlaps into both mercy and grace.
Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God (Chicago: Moody, 1963), pp. 9–26.
This is a most helpful book on the entire subject of grace and is highly
recommended for a proper understanding of this most important doctrine.
Wm. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1:365–85, for an excellent,
extensive discussion of the subject.
Frank M. Cross, “El,” in Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament, 6 vols., revised, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck
and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 1:244.
Merrill F. Unger
and William White, Jr., eds., Nelson’s
Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (Nashville: Nelson, 1980), pp. 228–29; and Otto
Eissfeldt, “Adhon,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
1:59–72.
J. E. Rosscup,
“First-born,” in Merrill C. Tenney, ed., Zondervan Pictorial Encyclope dia of the Bible, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1975), 2:540–41.
The participle proteuon emphasizes kind of action and draws attention to
Christ in His preeminent status. The emphatic position of proteuon intensifies the emphasis.
William F. Arndt
and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, revised by F. Wilbur Gingrich
and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979), p. 527; see
also D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised
Standard Version,” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953), pp. 213–19.
Raymond E. Brown,
“The Gospel According
to John I–XII” in The Anchor Bible, 34 vols., 2d ed. (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966), 1:13–14.
Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to Greek New
Testament,
translated and edited by Cleon Rogers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 521.
49.
Berkhof, Systematic
Theology, pp.
102–3 gives a clarifying discussion of the distinction between God enacting His
decree or God determining His decree through secondary causes.
50. Thiessen, Lectures in
Systematic Theology, pp. 104–10, for this section. This carefully organized
and discussed section is most helpful in understanding this teaching.
51.
Benjamin B.
Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977);
Walter A Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pp. 560–61,
1059–60; Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1979), pp. 382–94; and Buswell, Systematic Theology, 2:134–36.
No comments:
Post a Comment