If God Is Love Means The Father Eternally Loves The Son, Does God Is Judge Means He Eternally Judges The Son?

Augustine in the eighth book of On Trinity begins to talk of love as involving three substances: the lover, the loved, and love. Modern apologists like Ravi Zacharias have argued that the statement God is Love could only be true if God is essentially and eternally a Triune being: the Father eternally loves the Son through the Holy Spirit. Thus, it was not that God was all alone (a monad) before the creation and had nothing to love, but being the Triune inter-personal God, He ever existed as Love.

Of course, Augustine also talks about the possibility of loving oneself and sees three things involved in this as well: "when the mind knows itself and loves itself, there remains a trinity: mind, love, knowledge; and this trinity is not confounded together by any commingling". However, in this mono-love, there is only one person, though one may divide the experience into the lover, the loved, and love. Loving oneself is not inter-personal, and therefore possesses no love act of self-giving and submission. Therefore, the concept of the Triune God as Love is considered significant.

One objection raised to this argument goes something like this: If God is love means the Father eternally loves the Son through the Spirit, does God is Judge means the Father eternally judges the Son through the Spirit? And this applies to all statements such as "God is jealous" or "God is a consuming fire". Is the Father eternally jealous or eternally consuming the Son? The objection tries to reduce the argument to ad absurdum.

A few clarifications are necessary. The objection misses the difference between love and the other mentioned predicates. "Jealous" here is an adjective, not a noun. "Consuming fire" is metaphorical for the righteousness of God in His judgment. "Judge" is an office which stands in relation to the created world. The statement "God is Love" is not the same as "God is Loving". When one says that "God is Love", there is an identity of substance and not just participation in or possessing of an attribute. This cannot be predicated of any other being. For instance, one cannot say that Mr. A is Love; we only say Mr. A is loving in nature. To say God is Love is to speak in absolute and infinite terms. The statement "God is Love" points to God as the ground of all morality and personality. Note the following excerpt from a previous post:

There are at least three approaches to understanding Trinity.

The Rational Approach. ... personality finds its best explanation in the personal nature of God, whose existence as three persons (I-YOU-HE Sufficiency) in one Godhead is the ground of personhood.

The Moral Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of moral virtues, such as love, goodness, and joy. If God didn’t eternally exist in a subject-object relationship, then He would be amoral and morality would not be absolute. The doctrine of Trinity provides a rational ground for any discussion of morality with respect to its absolute nature.... [See Illustrating Trinity]

Love is the summation of morality and personality and morality cannot be dissected of each other. To be a person is to be moral. Therefore, the reality of personality and morality must find an ontological ground in an infinite inter-personal Beginning and End of all things. The Triune Persons cannot be FOUR since inter-personal sufficiency is sufficed by the I-YOU-HE tri-personal Sufficiency), or else infinitude would be reduced to finite polytheism without any essential unity. Thus, the revelation of God as Love is crucial to our understanding of every other contingent reality of moral personhood.

Augustine On The Invisibility of the Trinity

One key challenge that Augustine counters in Book II of his On Trinity is the question regarding the invisibility of Jesus in His essential nature. The antagonists argued that Jesus as the Son of God was always visible to the Father; therefore, this visibility also implies mortality and changeability. Two texts that Augustine quotes are:

• Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1Ti 1:17 NKJ)


• He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1Ti 6:15-16 NKJ)

Augustine maintains that the invisibility of God means that the Triune God (Father-Son-Spirit) is invisible.

The antagonists argued that the Son was visible not only in flesh through His incarnation but even before that in Himself, and so visibly appeared to the fathers. And, since He was visible in His pre-incarnational existence, He was also mortal, they said. And, so they argued that 1 Timothy 1:17 speaks only of the invisibility of the Father. Further, in that same sense, the Holy Spirit is thought to also be mortal, because He also was visible once as dove and at another time as fire. Both the Son and the Spirit were visible to mortal eyes in various forms and various times, all implying, according to the antagonists, that both the Son and the Spirit were visible, mortal, and changeable; therefore, 1 Timothy 1:17 cannot apply to them but only to the Father.

Augustine begins by asking who the contenders think was walking in the Garden of Eden from whose face Adam hid. Was it the Father or the Son? Why not the Father, especially when the form of the narrative signifies no change of the Divine Person from chapter 1 to chapter 3. If we understand that the world was made by the Father through the Word, why not also accept that Adam saw the Father in a visible form. In fact, the visibility of the Father is not impossible in the same way as the audibility of Father was not impossible (as in John 12:28 and Matthew 17:5 when His voice is heard apart of the Spirit and the Son). Obviously, the voice was not of the Spirit; for, nowhere is Jesus called as the Son of the Holy Spirit. 'But here, where it is written, "And the Lord God said to Adam,"' says Augustine 'no reason can be given why the Trinity itself should not be understood.'

Augustine goes on to examine the theophanies to Abraham, Lot, Moses, the Israelites in wilderness, and to Daniel. Why not accept the three-person appearance to Abraham as the visitation of the Trinity, especially when none of them is shown to be lesser or greater to the other? Next, the two angels that appeared to Lot could be understood to be the Son and the Spirit, since They say that They were sent, and nowhere does it say that the Father is sent; however, He is the sender. The goal of Augustine is to show that visibility cannot be limited to only the Son and the Spirit, but even the Father can be seen as being visible at times. However, in His divine nature, the Triune God cannot be seen corporeally, "but we must believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness."

____________
See Augustine On Trinity, Book II.

If The Doctrine of Trinity Is Illogical, Then Everything Else is Illogical

If the doctrine of Trinity is illogical, then by the same logic, everything else is illogical.

Now, there are some who consider it to be an evidently foolish thing to believe in the reality of God as One and yet three persons. They say, 1+1+1=3 in every case, or else mathematics is absurd. But, let me show you by an ancient argument, once again, that mathematics can’t explain reality as it is. I will adapt only one argument from the many that a Greek philosopher of the 5th century BC, Zeno of Elea, used in order to defeat the then philosophers of mathematics, the Pythogoreans. The argument is commonly referred to as The Dichotomy.

A..A_6..A₅  A₄     A₃          A₂                      A₁                                              B

Suppose a runner is standing at point A and must reach point B in order to finish the race. The only way he can reach point B is by reaching the halfway point, say A₁, between A and B, before reaching B. But then the only way he can reach halfway point A₁ is by reaching the halfway point, say A₂, between A and A₁, and so on ad infinitum in order to finish the course. Thus in order for the runner to reach point B, he will have to traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time, which is impossible, because space becomes infinitely divisible and one has to keep on reaching half-ways before reaching any other point, infinitely; thus, reaching nowhere. Therefore, though empirically apparent, logically, motion is absurd.

Well, but if motion is absurd, then the entire universe, all phenomena, is absurd. If so, what is logical after all?

Conclusion: If logic can't logically explain empirical realities such as continuity of identity in change, unity in plurality, and abstracts in concrete, how can it even begin to understand God who is Spirit? Reason is certainly not above faith. But, as far as the limits of reason exist, faith is certainly expected to not be irrational.

Excerpted: Time-Travel and Trinity

Excerpted from Omniscience

Time-fictions that imagine oneself traveling to the past or the future and being able to see oneself as another self only cash on the imagery of a realistic video playback. One can go to the past in the same way that one can go back to a time frame in a video and playback from there, they imagine; the exception in this reality playback: one can interfere. Similar is the imagination about the future. Of course, this involves the paradox of going back and killing oneself and yet being able to survive in the present. Some have even tried to suggest theories about several parallel universes and possibility worlds, which look interesting to the mind, but pose an interesting plurality. Of course, this could be one area where fiction allows for man to imagine a unity of being and yet a plurality of persons at the same time. For instance, in this imaginary time-trip, I find myself in 2010 at a University campus where I am presenting a paper. I (standing under a tree) see myself (near another building) on way to the Seminar hall inside. There is a duality here. I am standing under a tree and yet I am near another building on way to the Seminar hall. It doesn’t appear very problematic to those who think this could be possible in time travel; because, at least from one point in time (2016), I have gone missing. Nevertheless, it doesn’t seem impossible to the imagination to allow two different persons of the same one being in the same place with two different personalities at the same time. Also, in this view, the present is meaningless; for, 2010 is as really present to me (both me standing under the tree and myself on the way to the Seminar hall) in that framework as 2016 was real to me “earlier” (i.e. in my past). At the same time, due to the possibility of time-travel, I (2016) and myself (2010) are both at the same place and the same time, fictionally speaking. This temporal imaginative permission is incredulous. This violation of reason, perhaps, should forbid us trying to question how the eternal Godhead cannot be three persons in His eternal being.

Illustrating Trinity

There are at least three approaches to understanding Trinity.

The Rational Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of Truth. Truth implies absoluteness of knowledge in a subject-object relationship, which would be groundless if God were a monad. Therefore, Trinity proves to be a solid ground for the possibility of knowledge. Similarly, personality finds its best explanation in the personal nature of God, whose existence as three persons (I-YOU-HE Sufficiency) in one Godhead is the ground of personhood.

The Moral Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of moral virtues, such as love, goodness, and joy. If God didn’t eternally exist in a subject-object relationship, then He would be amoral and morality would not be absolute. The doctrine of Trinity provides a rational ground for any discussion of morality with respect to its absolute nature.

The Empirical Approach. Some have suggested the analogy of the Sun (Sun-Sunlight-Sunheat). Nathan Wood used the now popular 1x1x1=1 analogy with instances from space and time (e.g. Length x Breadth x Height = Space; Past x Present x Future = Time). Still others used more naturalistic analogies; however, these could lead to tri-partiatism or Sabellianism (e.g. these are not acceptable: Water-Steam-Ice; Three parts of humans, etc).

Whatever the method be, there is no arguing the fact that the Trinity is a mystery and attempts to try to explain God could only land one in absurdity. We don’t still understand the mystery of the universe so much, nor of the human mind as it is; how much more difficult to understand the being of God? It would be more disastrous than attempting to explain miracles in order to prove the possibility of miracles. This would be impossible. While we use metaphors like Bread of Life and Rock for God, the metaphors have their limits. To accept the Mystery is a step of faith.

---

Feb 22, 2016
Excerpt from Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Biblical Doctrine of Trinity" (1915)

As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead. Among these there are two which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for their very existence an object over against which the self stands as subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated, however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.

The former of them, for example, is developed by a great seventeenth century theologian -- Bartholomew Keckermann (1614) -- as follows: God is self-conscious thought: and God's thought must have a perfect object, existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God; and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph (73) of Lessing's "The Education of the Human Race." Must not God have an absolutely perfect representation of Himself - that is, a representation in which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that arguments like this prove too much. If God's representation of Himself, to be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses, it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the eternal objective co-existence of all that God can conceive is given in the very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must, of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God's case, would be between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis - the Holy Spirit -remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only a very artificial solution.

The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love. Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer - possibly it was Valentinus himself - who reasoned - perhaps he was the first so to reason - that "God is all love," "but love is not love unless there be an object of love." And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of "the lover," "the loved" and "the love itself," and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of St. Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God's case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God's equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two Divine substances, these two Divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, con-fine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Griutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God's own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.

Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear, in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at that time, he would be twice at once: "The idea he has of himself would be himself again." This now is the case with the Divine Being. "God's idea of Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like Him in every respect. . . . But that which is the express, perfect image of God and in every respect like Him is God, to all intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity." The Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances. "The Godhead being thus begotten of God's loving [having?] an idea of Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other. . . The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will." The inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not, therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God's perfect idea of Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there is nothing in the Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in its image of itself, it is enough to respond - except the Deity itself. What is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.

Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is, it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and elevates all our thought of God.

Trinity

The word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, the doctrine is clear since we find the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons (Matt.3:16,17), and each of the persons is called deity without denying the affirmation that God is One (John 1:1; Acts 5:3-4). The word "Trinity" was chosen by Church theologians to distinguish the Christian concept of God from the non-biblical ones.

I. The Doctrine of Trinity
1.  God is One.
2.  There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
3.  These three don't make three Gods; they are the three persons of the one Godhead.
4.  These three are not different manifestations of one person. They are three persons of the one Godhead.
5.  The three are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial.
6. The oneness of the Triune God is not self-contradictory.

II. Natural Illustrations 1x1x1=1 (Nathan Wood)
1. Length x Breadth x Height = Space
2. Energy x Motion x Phenomenon = Matter
3. Future x Present x Past = Time
4. Space x Matter x Time = Universe
5. Nature x Person x Personality = Man

III. Philosophical Rationality of Trinity
1. Provides the rational-eternal basis for moral categories – If God was a not a Trinity, then categories such as love, joy, and goodness couldn't be absolute.
2. Provides the rational-empirical basis for epistemic categories – if God was not a Trinity, then the knowledge as a subject-object relationship, as analytic-synthetic distinction, and Truth as such couldn’t find an original ground.
3. Provides the relational basis for interpersonal relationships. Therefore, Christ could pray regarding His disciples, “that they may be one, as We are” (Jn. 17:11).
4. Provides the metaphysical ground for a pluralist reality, and unity in diversity of the uni-verse.

IV. Scriptural Proofs
Deut. 6:4; Psa. 2:7; Heb. 1:13; Psa. 68:18; Isa. 6:1-3; Isa. 9:6; Gen. 1:2; 1Ti. 1:17; 1Co. 8:4-6; 1Pe. 1:2; 2Pe.1:1,2; Jn. 1:1,17; Phil. 2:11; Mt. 3:16-17; Acts 5:3-4; 1Jn.5:20

V. False Views of Trinity
1. Unitarianism – Father is creator, Son is creature, Spirit is impersonal.
2. Sabellianism – Modalism, i.e. God appeared historically in three separate modes, as Father in the Old Testament, as Son in the New Testament, and as Spirit now.
3. Tritheism – Father, Son, and H.S. are three distinct gods.

The Rational Anticipation Principle and the Doctrine of Trinity

The third criterion of Revelation in Indian philosophy is Rational Anticipation (Hiriyanna: Indian Philosophy); the first two being the principle of not-this-worldly (alaukika) and the principle of non-contradiction (abadhita; i.e. revelation must not contradict known facts).

The question is whether the doctrine of Trinity meets the principle of Rational Anticipation?

We'll quickly look at two arguments to check out the same.

1. The Argument from the Possibility of Knowledge

a. If God exists, He must be an intelligent being (or else, intelligence is an accident and truth is impossible- but, to say truth is impossible is to contradict self; therefore, truth exists and has its eternal ground in God).
b. Intelligence involves Knowledge and Knowledge involves a Subject-Object distinction.
c. Eternal intelligence must involve eternally a Subject-Object distinction.
d. This distinction must be internal and eternal (since, nothing can be infinite and eternal outside the Godhead - God is by nature infinite, and there cannot be more than one infinite).
e. Complete distinction requires at least three persons (I, You, He/She/They).
f. Therefore, possibility of knowledge rationally anticipates the Three Persons in a Subject-Object relationship.

2. The Argument from Morality
a. If God exists, He must be a moral being (or else, morality is a temporal category and ultimately and eternally meaningless).
b. Morality involves community (Without community, morality is meaningless; for where there is only one person there is no moral obligation to anyone because there is no other person).
c. A community involves persons who are morally responsible to each other.
d. Responsibility involves a witness (which in turn requires the community to be composed of at least three persons, necessarily speaking: beyond that is not-necessary).
e. Therefore, the existence of morality rationally anticipates the Three Persons in an eternal Community relationship.

FREE Outline of Christian Theology E-Book for Mobiles

FREE FOR JAVA MOBILES

This booklet of around 6200 words gives a quick glance at the major doctrines of the Bible and a general outline of theology. The main subjects are Bibliology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Trinity, Creation, Anthropology, Angelology and Demonology, Atonement, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology.

DOWNLOAD FREE JAR/JAD

E-SWORD TOPIC BOOK (FREE)

THEWORD BOOK (FREE)

New Release: A Dialogue on Trinity

A Dialogue on Trinity

By Domenic Marbaniang

View this Author's Spotlight

Ebook, EPUB Format

Download immediately 13-Year Madeleine approaches her dad, Rev. Clarke, for answer to a question on Trinity and a dialogue ensues. They begin by discussing problems of consciousness and personality in the Three persons of the Godhead and proceed on to evaluate various theories, models, and views on the doctrine before finally evaluating the concept of "Unity" in Zeno's paradoxes and in the Priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17.

The Trinity and the Existential Paradox of Reality

From Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007, 2011)

pp. 213-214

The Trinitarian perspective of the Divine as Triune (Unity in Trinity) and the image of God in man as a social unity of plurality (‘male and female…multiply…have dominion’) has been seen as one way of resolving this existential dilemma of unity-plurality. The Divine Community created the human community in its own image of unity in plurality, a concept that cannot be explained fully in either rational or empirical terms. The existential element that harmonizes the paradoxical senses is the divinely rooted gift of Love. Love is neither rational nor irrational, it is trans-rational, it is spiritual (‘the fruit of the Spirit’). It flows from Divine Nature, the Trinity, and resolves the confoundedness of sin-stricken humanity.

Sin brings confusion,^[1] according to the Bible, because of its revolt against relationships for the sake of the ego, that wants to be autonomous. It begins with a revolt against the Divine Community, which also means a revolt against community. As a result the unity-plurality lose existential harmony. Confusion is related to the experience of shame. Shame is the sense of disharmony between self and community. Shame is the result of spiritual lovelessness, of the hesitancy of transparency, the emotional awkwardness of unrelatedness. According to the Bible, the permanency of inner disharmony owing to the presence of sin and the factuality of total depravity rationalizes shamehood. Shamehood can only be dispelled by the experience of infinite death. Dignity can only arise in the New Creation. Thus, shame is not sinful, since it is the existential emotion arising out of the in-built failure to harmonize the dilemma of the sense of unity and plurality within the community through spiritual love. Shamelessness is sinful, since it is the suppression of a justified metaphysical sense in revolt to the harmonizing gift of Love. Shamelessness is Love crucified. Romans 1: 18-32 tells that shamelessness is characterized by the sacrifice of the metaphysical for the physical, by the obfuscation of the plural with the real. It can also be the obfuscation of the non-plural with the real. Biblically, however, the real is a harmony of both the plural and non-plural, of the unity-plurality. Thus, the Bible, in essence, attempts to resolve the problem of unity-plurality through Love.

pp.223-225

Following is an illustration of how the rational-empirical paradox may be resolved in the biblical revelation of divine reality:

i. Unity-Plurality and Divine Tri-unity. The biblical God is essentially a unity-plurality that possibilizes his relationality. He is not a monad, nor is the God-head made up of three gods. On the other hand, the God-head is a trinity. Accordingly, oneness is the attribute of the three and threeness is the attribute of the one. Thus, the Trinity is seen as a harmony of both unity and plurality, in the sense that the Trinity is both a unity and a plurality. It is not one at the disposal of the other, but one in harmony with the other. The existential bond of the Divine Community is secured by Divine Love. The existential distinction is preserved by personality, the divine is three persons, which is the condition of love.

ii. Necessity-Contingency.  God is essentially a necessary-contingent being which possibilizes his relationality. As necessary, God is absolute; as contingent, the three persons within the Godhead work in unamity and love. There is no egoistic centre. Contingency can be seen within the Holy Trinity in the sense that each person within the Divine Community is related to the other.

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

…The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

…the Spirit of truth…shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. ^[2]

iii. Immutability-mutability. God is essentially immutable and dynamic which possibilizes his relationality. He is the eternally unchanging God. And yet, He ‘comes down’ to meet His people, He ‘visits’ the poor, He walks on the waves of the sea, and discourses with man in His inner being. The Bible begins with an acting God: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’^[3] A God who works is a God in motion. God is certainly the God who doesn’t change in essence. However, He is also the God who creates, repents, judges, and saves. The Incarnation is a major example of this. In the Incarnation God did not change in essence but still took on a permanent nature of the human. The Word became flesh doesn’t mean that it was no longer Word but only flesh. The hypostatic union, in this case, secures both the divinity and the humanity of Christ. The noteworthy fact, however, is that the Word became flesh in some point in time and has remained so ever since. Thus, in essence God is unchanging but in His relation He is changing. He is essentially unchanging God who is dynamically active.

iv. Transcendence-Immanence. God is essentially a transcendent and yet immanent being which possibilizes his relationality. God is not only beyond the universe but also in the universe. He is not only Spirit but also the Omnipresent Spirit. He is not only the ‘wholly Other’, but also the ‘wholly Present’; ‘the mystery of the self-evident, nearer to me than my I.’^[4] God is everywhere and yet not everything. God transcends the universe, He is not the universe. In contradistinction to the pantheistic and panentheistic position, the biblical God, in His essentiality, is not affected by any change in the universe since He also transcends it as Spirit.

v. Infinity-finitude. God is essentially infinite and finite which possibilizes his relationality. He is infinitely infinite and infinitely finite. Therefore, the infinitely finite division of space is not devoid of the personal presence of God. God is infinite in power yet He cannot do many things, like He cannot destroy Himself or be the cause of his own destructibility as in the polytheistic myth of Bhasmasur.^[5] Also, He cannot sin, nor can He justify the wicked. Thus, He cannot do many things. The infinity of God, further, does not disallow the existence of the world. Neither is the infinity of God prevented by the existence of the world. Moreover, God is also seen as involved in temporal historical time and yet transcending the temporality of historical time. Thus, God is infinite, but not in the material sense, for that would be empirically impossible. He is spiritually infinite in being, power, and knowledge. However, He can involve Himself in the finite spatio-temporal world. He cannot be contained in a temple made of bricks and stones. But He is said to indwell the heart of a believer. Thus, in divine reality the infinite-finite find harmonious co-existence.

A few illustrations of Biblical theologizing by the existential application of the principles of rational fideism have already been given in the section on the subjective dimension of divine epistemics. Hopefully, such applications will eventually serve to unravel an understanding of the divine not just in the objective dimension but also in the subjective dimension. Thus, also hopefully, the objective cognizance of God will be met by a subjective anchoring in Him. And such anchoring will constitute the substantiality of the faith in divine reality which is not of things seen (empirical) but of things unseen. Thus, according to rational fideism, in matters of knowledge pertaining to divine reality, ‘faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’^[6] Such a view of faith as not only existential but also rational will finally lead theology into a discovery of both subjective and objective meaningfulness in Revelation

---

[1] Cf. Daniel 5: 8: ‘O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face…because we have sinned against thee.’ (KJV)
[2] John 3: 35; 5: 19; 16: 13-14 (KJV)
[3] Genesis 1: 1 (KJV)
[4] Martin Buber, I and Thou, p. 79
[5] Bhasmasur, a demon, was given the boon of turning to ashes anything by laying of hands; however, he in turn attempted to lay his hands on the god who gave him the boon which made the god take to his heels to protect himself from destruction.
[6] Hebrews 11: 1 (KJV)

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2007, 2011

The Importance of the Doctrine of Trinity

1. Ground of Morality
Provides the rational-eternal basis for moral categories - If God was a not a Trinity, then categories such as love, joy, and goodness couldn't be absolute.

2. Ground of Relationality
Provides the relational basis for interpersonal relationships. Therefore, Christ could pray regarding His disciples, "that they may be one, as We are" (Joh. 17:11).

3. Ground of Knowability
Provides the rational-empirical basis for epistemic categories - if God was not a Trinity, then the knowledge as a subject-object relationship, as analytic-synthetic distinction, and Truth as such couldn't find an original ground.

4. Ground of Plurality
Provides the metaphysical ground for a pluralist reality, and unity in diversity of the uni-verse.

A Dialogue on Trinity - III

III

continued from “A Dialogue on Trinity-II”

Madeleine: Then, when did this become a problem?

Clarke: It became a serious problem some 300 years after Christ, when a certain presbyter named Arius began teaching that Jesus was not God but the first creation of God. God created Jesus first; then, all other things through him, he said. Many preachers did oppose him and a Council was called at Nicaea in 325 AD, in which, after rigorous debates from both sides for a period of two months, Arius’ teaching was declared heretical, or false.

Madeleine: Is the divinity of Jesus so important?

Clarke: Yes, very important. If Jesus is not God, He cannot give us eternal life; neither can He provide for us eternal redemption, nor can He be the author of the new creation, nor a proper mediator between God and man.

Madeleine: What if there were no Father and no Holy Spirit, but only Jesus is God?

Clarke: Then, Jesus could neither be moral nor relational. To be moral would require the presence of another person. One cannot possess nor be the embodiment of love unless there exists an object of that love. God is love, because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are bound together in the Holy Triune Community by God’s infinite and divine love. If God were not a person and Triune at the same instance, then He would be a lonely person before the creation. But, God is by nature a good, kind, merciful, and a communicating Master. This is only possible because in His being, God is never a singular person, He is a community of three persons from all eternity.

Madeleine: That almost makes it appear as if He was composed of three different persons.

Clarke: Certainly not.

Madeleine: But, if not, how would persons in the divine community be different from persons in our communities, that is, they are three different people? We come back to the same question.

Clarke: This is where faith exhausts analogy from human experience. This truth is so crystal clear in the Scripture and yet we don't find any illustration that could rightly explain it to us. But, someone has offered a few that are close to it.

We don't believe that the three persons are 1+1+1=3

Let's take the analogy of 1x1x1=1; then as

Length x Breadth x Height = Space,
Energy x Motion x Phenomenon = Matter,
Future x Present x Past = Time,
Space x Matter x Time = Universe,
Nature x Person x Personality = Man;

in the like manner, we can talk of the three persons in the Trinity as one God.

Madeleine: Oh, wow!

to be continued…

© Domenic Marbaniang, February 2011.

---

Buy A Dialogue on Trinity Today

A Dialogue on Trinity-2

continued from "A Dialogue on Trinity"

Madeleine: You are right, Dad! Also, I can see that the three processors would still be parts of the one; so, the analogy does fail.

Clark: You saw it well.

Madeleine: So, we lack an analogy?

Clark: Well, there may be a few natural ones like space which has three dimensions (Length, Breadth, Depth), time has three divisions (Past, Present, Future), persons have three references (First person, Second person, Third person), and the universe has three realities (Space, Time, Matter).

Madeleine: Water has three forms: liquid, solid, vapor.

Clark: Right. However, we must be careful here because there is a false view known as Sabellianism (or Modalism) which says that God has three forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. According to this false view, the Son who died on the cross was the same as the Father.

Madeleine: What are the other false views?

Clark: These are the four chief heresies or false teachings:

Unitarianism: One God = One Person
Modalism: One God =Three Forms
Tripartitism: One God =Three Parts
Tritheism: Three Gods = Three Persons

The Bible teaches us that there is one God; the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.

Madeleine: Was this known to people in both the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Clark: The word "Trinity" was not known to them, of course. Also, the way in which this doctrine is known to us today was not known to them as such, then.

Madeleine: So, they didn't have the confusion.

Clark: Yes. For instance, in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is mentioned several times. Similarly, we find references to the Son of God, the Angel of the Lord, and the Glory of the Lord which we know were references to Jesus. However, there was no confusion regarding the oneness of God. Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus was prayed to, Jesus was worshiped, and the Christians were baptized with the Holy Spirit. But, they didn't have a problem about the Trinity. At least, we don't find any such problem mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. They all knew and believed that God is one. They also knew that God the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins, and that the Holy Spirit dwells among us today to guide us into all truth and help us in our weaknesses.

to be continued...

Go to A Dialogue on Trinity - Part III...

© Domenic Marbaniang, July 2010

Outline of Theology

INTRODUCTION

The Meaning of Theology

• Theology is a study of Christian doctrine and faith. The Queen of sciences, Theology is an attempt towards a systematic exposition of and presentation of Christian doctrine.
• The Need of Theology
• For a clear understanding of faith
• As a rational and articulate defense of faith (1Pe. 3:15)
• For a systematic presentation of God's revealed truths (2Ti. 2:15)
• As a guard against heresy and false teachings (Mt. 22:29; Gal. 1:6-9; 2Ti. 4:2-4)
• For spiritual growth and maturity as Christians (Eph. 4:14).

Divisions of Theology

• Biblical (Exegetical) Theology: Often studied as Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology based on an exegesis of the Bible.
• Historical Theology: Study of the origin and development of theological perspectives in the context of their historical background.
• Systematic Theology: Systems of theology or systematic arrangement of a presentation of doctrines.
• Practical Theology: Application of Theology. Disciplines: Homiletics, Pastoral Theology, Christian Education, Worship (Liturgies), Evangelism, Church Polity (Forms of Church Organization and Government).

Different Theologies

• Roman Catholic Theology – Authority of the Bible (includes Apocrypha) and the Pope's authoritative pronouncements ex cathedra (from the chair); saving grace communicated through the 7 sacraments; and Mary is merciful mediator between man and Christ.
• Lutheran Theology – The 3 fundamental doctrines are sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and sola fide (faith alone). Scripture alone is authoritative and salvation comes only by grace through faith. The Spirit uses an infant baptism to produce faith in them and bring them to salvation.
• Reformed Theology - built around the central theme of the sovereignty of God. Sola scriptura, the sole authority of Scripture in matters of doctrine. Total depravity of all men, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistable grace, Perseverance of saints.
• Arminian Theology – tries to preserve justice (fairness) of God. God's sovereignty along with human responsibility and freedom. Conditional election (predestination on basis of foreknowledge).
• Wesleyan Theology – is essentially Arminian but has a stronger sense of the reality of sin and of dependence on divine grace. The ultimate standard for faith and practice is the Bible. Four means by which truth is mediated: Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Salvation is a 3-step process of grace: prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace. Prevenient grace keeps one from straying very far, and enables one to respond to the gospel. Justifying grace produces salvation in those who respond positively. Entire sanctification or perfection in love is the Holy Sprit's second work of grace.
• Liberal Theology – Immanency of God. Unitarianism. Fallibility of Bible. Denial of Fall, original sin, and substitutionary nature of the Atonement. Christ will not personally return.
• Existential Theology – 'Demythologizing' of Scripture – interprets everything supernatural as mythical. A statement about God is basically a statement about man. The Trinity is a myth. The historical Jesus is not very much known. Salvation is self-realization.
• Neo-orthodox Theology – Hermeneutical. God cannot be known through proofs but only through encounter in revelation. Natural revelation, if it exists, is ineffective towards salvation. Revelation is personal not propositional. The Bible is human and fallible and is reliable only to the extent that God reveals himself through encounters with Scripture. Historicity of Scripture is unimportant.
• Liberation Theology – Theology is not dogmatic but liberative. God is immanent and mutable, the God of the oppressed. Jesus was a messiah of political involvement. The Bible is not concerned with eternal truths but with specific history (often unreliable). The Exodus account proclaims liberation. Salvation is social change.
• Feminist Theology – 3 Models: Rejectionists – reject Bible as patriarchal; Evangelical – The Bible teaches mutual submission and roles of women and men are complementary; Reformist (Liberation) – Discards Bible and Christian tradition as patriarchal and desires to overcome it through 'proper' exegesis.
• Pentecostal Theology – Emphasis on the infallibility and finality of Scripture, salvation by grace, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues, restoration of the five-fold ministry in the Church, the gifts of the Spirit, baptism by immersion, holiness, prayer and fasting, evangelism of the world, spiritual warfare, and return of Christ.

BIBLIOLOGY (BIBLE)

I. Revelation
Strong: {ἀποκάλυψις}

• a laying bare, making naked
• a disclosure of truth, instruction
  -concerning things before unknown
  -used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
• manifestation, appearance (Strong)

General Revelation: Psa. 19:1-3; Acts 14:15-17; Rom. 1:18-20.
Special Revelation: Concerned with the redemptive plan of God. Special revelation is both personal and propositional.

Bible: The Written Word. All historical information (genealogies, covenants, law, events), literature (prose, poetry), prophecy, exposition (e.g, epistles) connected with and necessary for the complete understanding of the redemptive plan of God that He desires and intends us to have.

Visions, Dreams, Prophetic Word. Must accord with the Written Word (Gal. 1:8-9).

The Lord Jesus Christ: The Finality of the Revelation of God (Heb. 1:2-3)

Illumination: The Holy Spirit's revelation of the rhema to the human spirit, whereby man comes to an understanding of the Truth and responds to it through the help of the Holy Spirit's gift of faith. The subjective aspect of Revelation. This illumination accords with the totality of the Written Word and the Finality of Revelation in Christ (Jn. 14:26; Jn. 16:15). Necessary (1Co. 2:11).

II. The Purpose of Writing (Woodrow Kroll)

• Precision: The Bible records the exact words in which God wanted to communicate with us.
• Propagation: The written word spreads the message.
• Preservation: The words are preserved in writing.

III. The Reliability of Bible

• Historical Veracity
• Prophetical Accuracy
• Textual Authenticity
• Pragmatic – It works when put to practice.
• Scientific Accuracy
• Philosophical Consistency.

IV. Inspiration

Theories of Inspiration

• Mechanical or Dictation: The biblical author is a passive instrument in the transmission of the revelation of God. His personality is set aside to prevent its fallible intrusion.
• Partial Inspiration: Only doctrines unknowable to the human authors are inspired. God revealed ideas which the writers penned in their own words.
• Degrees of Inspiration: Certain portions of Bible are more or differently inspired than other portions.
• Intuition or Natural Inspiration: Gifted individuals with exceptional insight were chosen by God to write the Bible. Inspiration is like an artistic ability or a natural endowment.
• Illumination or Mystical Inspiration: Human authors were enabled by God to write the Scriptures. The H.S. heightened their normal powers.
• Verbal, Plenary Inspiration: Both divine and human elements are present in the production of Scripture. The entire text of Scripture, including the very words, are a product of the mind of God expressed in human terms and conditions.

2Ti. 3:16 (Theopneustos): God-breathed

Neither mechanical nor dictational inspiration but organic; i.e, the personality of the writers was involved. The writers were Spirit-borne, led, moved (Phero) (2Pe. 1:21)

The inspiration is verbal; i.e., it extends to the words and not just the ideas.
The inspiration is plenary; i.e., full –"All scripture…" equally.

V. Infallibility: It is open to verification and falsification and is entirely perfect in its communication of the revealed Truth.

VI. Inerrancy: It contains no errors. Complete Inerrancy: The Bible is fully true in all it teaches or affirms. Other Views: Limited Inerrancy: Inerrant in salvific doctrines; Teleological Inerrancy: Inerrant in accomplishing its purpose of reconciling man to God; Irrelevancy: The doctrine is irrelevant; the spirit or purpose of Bible should be considered.

VII. The Bible is eternal and complete.

VIII. Canon: Lit. measuring rod, rule. Canonicity, canonical, canonize.
This word is derived from a Hebrew and Greek word denoting a reed or cane. Hence it means something straight, or something to keep straight; and hence also a rule, or something ruled or measured. It came to be applied to the Scriptures, to denote that they contained the authoritative rule of faith and practice, the standard of doctrine and duty. (Easton's Bible Dictionary).

5-fold Criteria: Authorship (Prophet, Apostle, Holy Man), Local Church Acceptance, Recognition by Church Fathers, Subject matter (Sound Doctrine), Personally edifying.

The OT canon is accepted as accepted by Christ and the apostles. The NT canon is accepted on the basis of apostolic authorship and recognition of the same by Church Fathers.

During the 3rd Council of Carthage (AD. 397) 27 NT Books were declared canonical. St. Athanasius (AD 297-373) in his 39th Paschal letter (AD 367), listed the books of the NT as we know them.

VIII. Symbols of it used in the Bible

• Sword (Heb. 4:12) 
• Hammer (Jer. 23:29) 
• Seed (1Pe. 1:23) 
• Mirror (Jas. 1:23-25)
• Fire (Jer. 23:29; Jer. 20:9) 
• Lamp (Psa. 119:105) 
• Food (1Pe. 2:2) 
• Water (Eph. 5:25-27) 
• Milk (1Pe. 2:2) 
• Meat (Heb. 5:12) 
• Bread (Mt. 4:4) 
• Silver (Psa. 12:6)

IX. Other Names

• The Lord's Book (Isa. 34:16)
• The Book of Truth (Dan. 10:21)
• Scriptures (Jn. 10:35; Mt. 21:42)
• Holy Scriptures (Rom. 1:2)
• Sacred Books (Dan. 9:2; Heb. 10:7)
• The Oracles of God (Rom. 3:2)
• The Word of God (Heb. 4:12)
• The Living Oracles of God (Acts 7:38)

X. The Bible Influences our: Thinking, Living, Values, Destiny.
XI. The Bible has Authority over: Human Wisdom, The Church, Our Experience, The Christian.

THEOLOGY PROPER (GOD)

I. The Existence of God
Arguments: From cause-effect (cosmological argument), from design-designer (teleological argument).

II. The Nature of God
Westminster Catechism: "God is Spirit, Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."

III. Attributes of God

God's Inner Nature (Unrelated Attributes)

• Spirit (Jn. 4:24) 
• Infinite – Immense in relation to space (1Ki. 8:27), Eternal in relation to time (Exo. 15:18; Deut. 33:27) 
• One (Exo. 20:3; Deut. 4:35,39; 1Sa. 2:2; 1Ti. 1:17)

God in Relation to the Universe (Active Attributes) –

• Omnipotent (Gen. 1:1; Gen. 17:1; Job. 40:2; Amos 4:13; Mt. 19:26) 
• Omnipresent (Gen. 28:15-16; Psa. 139:7-10) 
• Omniscient (Gen. 18:18-19); 2Ki. 8:10-13; Jer. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:27-29; 1Pe. 1:2) 
• Wise (Psa. 104:24; Prov. 3:19; Jer. 10:12; Dan. 2:20-21; Col. 2:2-3) 
• Sovereign (Dan. 4:35; Mt. 20:15; Rom. 9:21)

God in Relation to Moral Creatures (Moral Attributes) 

• Holy (Exo. 15:11; Lev. 11:44-45; Rev. 4:8)
• Righteous (Ezr. 9:15; Psa. 116:5; Rev. 16:15)
• Faithful (Exo. 34:6; Mic. 7:20; 2Ti. 2:13; Rev. 15:3) 
• Merciful (Tit. 3:5; Psa. 32:5)
• Love (Deut. 7:8; Jn. 3:16; 1Jo. 4:9-10) 
• Good (Psa. 25:8; Psa. 85:5; Acts 14:17)
  

TRINITY

I. Essential Element s of Trinity

• God is One.
• Each of the persons within the Godhead is Deity.
• The oneness of God and the threeness of God are not contradictions.
• The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is eternal.
• Each of the persons of God is of the same essence and is not inferior or superior to the others in essence.
• The Trinity is a mystery which we will never be able to understand fully.

II. Natural Illustrations 1x1x1=1 (Nathan Wood)

• Length x Breadth x Height = Space
• Energy x Motion x Phenomenon = Matter
• Future x Present x Past = Time
• Space x Matter x Time = Universe
• Nature x Person x Personality = Man

III. Philosophical Rationality of Trinity

• Provides the rational-eternal basis for moral categories - If God was a not a Trinity, then categories such as love, joy, and goodness couldn't be absolute.
• Provides the rational-empirical basis for epistemic categories - if God was not a Trinity, then the knowledge as a subject-object relationship, as analytic-synthetic distinction, and Truth as such couldn't find an original ground.
• Provides the relational basis for interpersonal relationships. Therefore, Christ could pray regarding His disciples, "that they may be one, as We are" (Jn. 17:11).
• Provides the metaphysical ground for a pluralist reality, and unity in diversity of the uni-verse.

III. Scriptural Proofs
Deut. 6:4; Psa. 2:7; Heb. 1:13; Psa. 68:18; Isa. 6:1-3; Isa. 9:6; Gen. 1:2; 1Ti. 1:17; 1Co. 8:4-6; 1Pe. 1:2; Jn. 1:17; Phil. 2:11; Mt. 3:16-17; Acts 5:3-4

IV. False Views of Trinity

• Unitarianism – Father is creator, Son is creature, Spirit is impersonal.
• Sabellianism – (Modalism) Father (OT), Son (NT), Spirit (Present).
• Tritheism – Father, Son, and H.S. are three distinct gods.

CHRISTOLOGY (JESUS CHRIST)

I. Nature

• The Son of God – Deity
• The Word – Preexistence & Activity
• Lord - Sovereignty
• The Son of Man – Humanity
• The Christ – Official Title and Mission
• Son of David – Royal Lineage

II. Offices

• Prophet – Mk. 6:15; Jn. 4:19; Jn. 6:14; Jn. 9:17
• Priest – Heb. 2:14-16; Heb. 8:3; Eph. 1:6
• King – Gen. 14:18-19; Heb. 7:1-3; Psa. 110:1-4; Zec. 6:13

III. Work 
Mt. 1:21; Jn. 1:29; 1Co. 15:1-3

IV. The 2nd Person
Co-Eternal, Co-Substantial, Co-Equal With Each Of The Person Of Trinity (Nicea 345 AD)
Christ's Two Natures: Unmixed, Unchanged, Undivided, Inseparable. (Chalcedon 451 AD)

V. Christological Heresies (in bold, acceptable)

• Ebionism – Denied deity and pre-existence of Christ.
• Docetism – Denied His humanity; affirmed His deity; Jesus appeared human but was really divine.
• Arianism – Denied deity; Christ was the first and highest created being homoiousia, not homoousia. He is subordinate to the Father.
• Appolinarianism – Denied human spirit of Jesus. The divine Logos took the place of the human mind. Affirmed Christ's deity and real humanness (not complete humanness).
• Nestorianism – Denied union of natures, the unity of Christ's person. The union was moral, not organic-thus two persons. The human was completely controlled by the divine. Distinguished human Jesus, who died, from Divine Son, who cannot die.
• Eutychianism – Denied distinction of natures; monophysitist; the human nature was swallowed by the divine to create a new third nature. Maintained the unity of Christ's person.

VI. Kenosis – Phil. 2:7: Lit. to empty oneself, KJV: 'made himself of no reputation,' i.e., to take the form of servant, of man. The context means that Christ being chose to stoop down to live a life of a servant, and being tested and found obedient in all, is now exalted above all creatures as the One in whom the will of God is finally accomplished; He is the embodiment and finality of divine will; and, therefore, worthy of rulership and judgment. Christ lost neither the divine consciousness nor the divine attributes, neither did he withdraw from divine activity in the kenotic event.

Other Kenotic Theories

• Christ emptied Himself of Divine Nature.
• Christ emptied Himself of Eternal Form (which He exchanged for a temporal one).
• Christ emptied Himself of relative attributes, namely omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
• Christ emptied Himself of the integrity of infinite divine existence. The Logos became assumed dual consciousness at incarnation: the divine continued apart from the human, while the human was unaware of the cosmic functions of Deity.
• Christ emptied Himself of divine activity by turning over all His duties to the Father.
• Christ emptied Himself of the actual exercise of divine prerogatives. He retained His divine consciousness but renounced the conditions of infinity and its form.

Sub-Kenotic Theories

• Christ emptied Himself of the use of divine attributes though possessing them. He chose not to use them.
• Christ emptied Himself of the independent exercise of the divine attributes. He worked in submission to the Father.
• Christ emptied Himself of the insignia of Majesty, the prerogatives of deity, the outward form of deity.

VII. The Person of Christ

1. Preincarnate

• Pre-existence (Jn. 1:1; 1Jo. 1:1; Jn. 17:5). 
• Participation in creation (Gen. 1:26; Prov. 8:30; Col. 1:15; Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; 1Co. 8:6). 
• Christophanies (Gen.18,19; Hos.1:7; Gen.22,31; Exo. 3:2; Exo. 14:19; Num. 22:22; Judg.6).

2. Divine Nature

• Divine Attributes (eternal- Jn. 1:1; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 17:5; omnipresent- Mt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23; omniscient- Jn.16:30;21:17; omnipotent- Jn.5:19; immutable- Heb. 1:12; Heb. 13:8)
• Divine Offices (Creator- Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; Sustainer- Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) 
• Divine Prerogatives (forgives sin – Mt. 9:2; Luk. 7:47; raises dead- Jn. 5:25; Jn. 11:25; executes judgement- Jn. 5:22)
• Identified with OT YHWH - I AM (Jn. 8:58; Jn. 12:41; Jn. 8:24; Jn. 8:50-58) 
• Divine Names (Alpha & Omega-Rev. 22:13; I AM –Jn. 8:58; Immanuel- Mt. 1:22; Lord-Mt. 7:21; Son of God- Jn. 10:36; God- Jn. 1:1; 2Pe. 1:1; Tit. 2:13; 1Jo. 5:20)
• Divine Relations (Image of God- Col. 1:15; Hb.1:3; One with Father- Jn. 10:30)
• Accepts Divine Worship (Mt. 14:33; Mt. 28:9; Jn. 20:28-29). Claims to be God (Jn.8:58; Jn. 10:30; Jn. 17:5 – in such case, He is either liar, lunatic, or the Lord that He claims to be, but never can be regarded as merely a good moral teacher)

3. Human Nature 

• Human Birth (Mt. 1:18; Mt. 2:11)
• Human Development (Luk. 2:50-52)
• Essential Elements of Human Nature (Human body – Mt. 26:12; Jn. 2:21; Reason & will – Mt. 26:38; Mk. 2:8)
• Human Names (Jesus -Mt. 1:21; Son of Man- Mt. 8:20; Mt. 11:18; Son of Abraham- Mt. 1:1; Son of David- Mt.1:1)
• Sinless Infirmities of Human Nature (weariness-Jn. 4:6; hunger- Mt. 4:2; Mt. 21:18; thirst- Jn. 19:28; temptation- Mt. 4; Heb. 2:18).
• Repeatedly Called a Man (Jn. 1:30; Jn. 4:9; Jn. 10:38)

4. Union of Natures

• Theanthropic – The person of Christ is theanthropic; He has two natures, divine and human, in one person.
• Personal – Hypostatic union, constituting one personal substance: two natures but one person. 
• Includes the Human and Divine Qualities and Acts – Both the human and divine qualities and acts may be ascribed to Christ under either of His natures. 
• Constant Presence of Both Humanity and Divinity- His natures cannot be separated.

5. Character 

• Absolutely Holy - His human nature was created holy (Luk. 1:35); He committed no sin (1Pe. 2:22); He always pleased the Father (Jn. 2:22)
• Possesses Genuine Love (Laid down His life – Jn. 15:13; His love surpasses all knowledge- Eph. 3:19) 
• Truly Humble (Phil. 2:5-8) 
• Meek (Mt. 11:29) 
• Balanced – 'He was grave without being melancholy. He was joyful without being frivolous.' 
• Prayerful (Mt. 14:23; Luk. 6:12) 
• Incessant Worker (Jn. 5:17; Jn. 9:4)
• Stern (Mt. 16:33; Mt. 23:13-36). Wise (Mt. 22:19; Jn. 2:24; Jn. 7:1)
• Compassionate (Mt. 14:14; Mt. 15:32; Mt. 20:34)

VIII. Impeccability of Christ

Definitions: Peccability – Christ could sin; Impeccability – Christ could not sin. Questions: If Jesus could not sin, how could He be truly human? Vs. If Jesus could sin, how could He be truly divine?

Points of Agreement: Christ's temptations were real (Heb. 4:15); Christ experienced struggle (Mt. 26:36-46); Christ did not sin (2Co. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; Jas. 5:6; 1Pe. 2:22; 1Pe. 3:18).

Conclusion – Impeccability : Temptation implies possibility of sin in general (humans) but not in specific (Christ). For instance, the testing of gold implies the possibility of things not being gold in general, but not the possibility of pure gold not being pure gold. The end of testing gold is to distinguish true gold from false gold. Thus, Christ's not falling in sin proves He could not sin. Since, Jesus is God and sin is rebellion against God, Jesus could not sin, for it is impossible for Him to rebel against Himself, unless His omniscience and omnipotence were brought into question. Thus, being human, He was tempted, but being divine and undivided in His moral nature, He was essentially holy and so could not sin.

PNEUMATOLOGY (HOLY SPIRIT)

I. Nature

Names.

• Spirit of God – Person, Executive of the Godhead
• Spirit of CHRIST. Rom. 8:9 – Sent in Christ's Name (Jn.14:26; Jn. 16:14; Mt. 18:20; Rom. 8:9-10)
• Comforter – Jn. 14-17
• Holy Spirit of the Holy One. Sanctification
• Holy Spirit of the Promise – Luk. 24:49; Eze. 36:27; Gal. 3:14
• Spirit of Truth – Jn. 14:17
• Spirit of Glory – 1Pe. 4:14
• Spirit of Grace – Heb. 10:29
• Spirit of Wisdom & Knowledge Isa. 11:2
• Spirit of Life – Rom. 8:2; Rev. 11:11
• Spirit of Adoption – Rom. 8:13

Symbols

• Fire – Isa. 4:4; Mt. 3:11
• Wind – Eze. 37:7-10; Jn. 3:8; Acts 2:2
• Water – Eze. 17:6; Jn. 3:5; Jn. 4:14; Jn. 7:38,39
• Seal – Eph. 1:13; 2Ti. 2:19
• Oil - Psa. 92:10; Luk. 4:18; Acts 10:38; 1Jo. 2:20
• Dove– Mt. 3:16-17

II. Personality

• 3rd person of the Godhead – Mt. 3:16-17; Jn. 14:16
• Has knowledge – Isa. 11:2; Rom. 8:27
• Has feeling – Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30
• Has will – 1Co. 12:11

III. Attributes

• Is Divine (Acts 5:3-4)
• Eternal (Heb. 9:14)
• Omnipresent (Psa. 139:7)
• Omniscient (Jn. 14:26; Jn. 16:13)

IV. Works

• Active in Creation (Gen. 1:2; Job. 33:4; Psa. 104:30)
• Inspired the Bible Writers (2Pe. 1:21)
• Empowered the conception of Christ (Luk. 1:35)
• Convicts of sin (Jn. 16:8; Gen. 6:3)
• Regenerates (Jn. 3:5-6)
• Counsels (Jn. 14:16-17; Jn. 16:7-14)
• Brings assurance of salvation (Rom. 8:15)
• Teaches or enlightens (Jn. 16:12-14; 1Co. 2:13)
• Aids in prayer (Rom. 8:26-27)
• Resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:11; 1Pe. 3:18)
• Calls to service (Acts 13:4)
• Seals the elect's salvation (Rom. 8:23; 2Co. 1:21-22; Eph. 1:13-14; Eph. 4:30)
• Indwells the believer (Rom. 8:19; 1Co. 3:16-17; 1Co. 6:19)
• Works in the church (1Co. 12:7-11)

V. Baptism in the Holy Spirit

• It's a promise of the Father (Acts 1:3).
• It's a promise of Jesus (Jn. 16).

• Baptizer – Jesus Christ (Mt. 3:11)
• Initial Sign – Speaking in Tongues (Acts2, 10)
• Meaning – Anointing, Filling, Being immersed
• Results – Power, boldness, guidance, miracles, gifts of the Spirit
• Means – Faith (Gal. 3:14), Laying of Hands (Act 8)
• Prerequisites – Salvation, Desire, Prayer, Expectancy, Water Baptism

VI. Gifts of the Spirit (1 Co. 12)

• Gifts of Power – Faith, Healing, Miracles
• Gifts of Knowledge – Word of Kn. W/Wisdom, Discern./spirits
• Gifts of Speech – Tongues, Interpretation, Prophecy

VII. Fruit of Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23)

VIII. Offences Against the Spirit

• Resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51)
• Insulting the Spirit (Heb. 10:29)
• Blaspheming (Mt. 12:31-32)
• Grieving (Eph. 4:30-31)
• Lying (Acts 5:3)
• Quenching (1Th. 5:19).

CREATION

I. Theories of Creation
Evolutionism, Deism, Dualism, Non-Dualism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Materialism, Panentheism.

II. Origin of Creation

• The Six Days of Creation (Gen. 1, 2; Exo. 20:11)
• False Views: Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism, & Theistic Evolutionism- None of them have support from traditional hermeneutical history nor explicit Biblical support (except recourse to jumble of words and out-of-context interpretations) nor authoritative support from scientific discoveries or theories.
• Creatio ex nihilo – Creation out of nothing (Heb. 11:3). The world, therefore, is basically nothing in itself and by itself.
• Free Creation – God didn't create the world out of necessity, but of His own free and sovereign will.
• Creation of Darkness – Darkness is not co-eternal with God and, therefore, a created reality (Isa. 45:7).
• Creation of Space-time- God is not contained by space, neither does He move in time; space and time are physical dimensions (conditions) of material objects and are part of creation. It is, therefore, false to conceptualize a temporal God. Creation of Time (Psa. 90:2 – 'or ever thou hadst formed {Hb. Chul- to rotate, spin} the earth and the world').
• Creation of Life- biological (flora and fauna). Unconscious and world-conscious creation.
• Creation of Humans- rational, moral, volitional, spiritual. Self-conscious and God-conscious.

III. Nature of Creation

• Spatio-Temporality: Linear Time; Space & Time are physical dimensions.
• Contingency: Dependent on God
• Plurality
• Finitude
• Uniformity: The Laws Of Nature
• Open – the universe is not a closed system but open, and so miracles are possible.

IV. Purpose of Creation (Three Views)

• Anthropo-centricity – Man is at the center of creation and all is for him, the view of humanism.
• Eco-centricity – Life (flora & fauna) is at the center of creation and eco-balance is necessary for sustenance of earth as habitat of life.
• Christo-centricity – Christ is the center of creation and all is by Him, through Him, and for Him (Col. 1:16), 'that in all things He might have the pre-eminence' (Col. 1:18), to bring all things under the headship of Christ (Eph. 1:10).

V. Man's Relation to Creation

• Man is to have dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26; Psa. 115:16)
• Man is steward of God's creation (Gen. 2:5,15)
• After Fall, nature turned hostile to man (Gen. 3:18)
• Man was to rule by fear and violence; the age of innocence had ceased (Gen. 9:2-3)

Non-biblical Relations

• Pantheism – Man is equal to all creation.
• Asceticism – Physical world is man's enemy.
• Utilitarianism – Man exploits nature.

VI. Divine Providence – The doctrine that God has not only created the world but also sustains it.

• God is the reason behind the uniformity of the laws of nature (Job 38).
• God rules over the world and controls its processes by wisdom and power (Job. 38:41; 39; Exo. 3:20; Job. 9:10; Psa. 77:14).

VII. Problem of Evil – Theodicy – If God is both powerful and good then why is there evil in the world?

• Non-dualism – Evil is an illusion.
• Pantheism – Evil is part of the world.
• Dualism – Good and Evil and two eternal forces.
• Evolutionism – Evil is part of the struggle for existence.

The Biblical Answer – Evil is the result of Adam's disobedience, whereby sin and death entered the world, sicknesses and demonic forces ran rampant ravaging human lives. God's answer is Christ by whom evil is conquered and the Kingdom of righteousness inaugurated. This is done through the , whereby men are saved, and finalized at the second coming when salvation will be complete and justice fully dealt.

ANGELOLOGY (ANGELS)

I. Nature of Angels

• Creatures (Rev. 19:10; Rev. 22:8-9; Col. 2:18)
• Spirits (Heb. 1:14)
• Immortal (Luk. 20:34-36)
• Numerous (Dan. 7:10; Mt. 26:53; Luk. 2:13; Heb. 12:22)
• Sexless (Lk. 20:34-35)

II. Classification (1Pe. 3:22; Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:20-21)

• The Angel of the Lord (Exo. 23:20-23, 32,34; Isa. 63:9)
• The Archangel: Michael (Jud. 1:9, Rev. 12:7); Gabriel (Luk. 1:19; Dan. 8:16; Dan. 9:21)
• Elect Angels – Stood true during Satan's rebellion (1Ti. 5:21)
• Angels of the Nations (Dan. 10:13,20; Eph. 3:10; Col. 2:15)
• Cherubim – Connected with God's retributive (Gen. 3:24) and redemptive purposes (Exo. 25:22)
• Seraphim – 'Burning Ones' (Isa. 6)

III. Character

• Obedient (Psa. 103:20; Jud. 1:6; 1Pe. 3:22)
• Reverent (Neh. 9:6; Heb. 1:6)
• Wise (2Sa. 14:17; 1Ki. 8:39; 1Pe. 1:12)
• Meek (2Pe. 2:11; Jud. 1:9)
• Mighty (Psa. 103:20)
• Holy (Rev. 14:10)

IV. Work

• God's Agents – Executors of God's decree of judgments (Gen. 3:24; Mt. 13:39-41, 49; 2Ki. 19:35; Acts 12:23)
• God's Messengers (angels) – (Lk. 11:20; Mt. 1:20,21; Gen. 28:12; Rev. 1:1)
• God's Servants (Heb. 1:14; Mt. 4:11; Gen. 16:7; Psa. 103:20)

V. Classification 2

• Ministering Spirits
• Warring Angels
• Worshipping Angels
• Messenger Angels

DEMONOLOGY (Demons)

SATAN

I. Origin (Isa. 14:12-15; Eze. 28:12-19)

II. Character

• Adversary (Satan)
• Slanderer (Devil)
• Destroyer (Apollyon)
• Serpent
• Tempter
• Prince and God of this world (Jn. 12:31; 2Co. 4:4, 1Jo. 5:19; 1Jo. 2:16)
• Father of lies (Jn. 8:44)
• Wicked one (Mt. 13:19)

III. Activities
A. Nature

• Opposes God's work (1Th. 2:18; Mt. 13:19; 2Co. 4:4)
• Snares the wicked (Luk. 22:3; Rev. 20:7-8)
• Presumptuous (Mt. 4:4-5);
• Proud (1Ti. 3:6)
• Powerful (Eph. 2:2);
• Malignant (Job. 2:4)
• Subtle (Gen. 3:1; 2Co. 11:3)
• Deceitful (Eph. 6:11)
• Fierce and Cruel (1Pe. 5:8)
• Can cause physical illness (Job. 2:7)

B. Sphere – Highest Circles (Eph. 2:2)
C. Motives – Intent on our ruin (Jn. 10:10)
D. Limitations – Only with God's permission – Time Limited (Rev. 12:12)
E. Destiny – (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12:9; Rev. 20:10; Mt. 25:41)


DEMONS

Gr. Daimon, daimonion – fallen spirits

I. Description

• Angels who fell with Satan (Mt. 12:24)
• Divided into two groups: one group is active in opposing God's people (Rev. 9:14; Rev. 16:14) and another is confined in prison (2Pe. 2:4; Jud. 1:6)
• Iintelligent (Mk. 1:24) 
• Know their doom (Mt. 8:29) 
• Have their own doctrine (1Ti. 4:1-3)

II. Pictures

• Scavenger Birds (Rev. 18:1-2) – unclean and dirty
• Frogs (Rev. 16:13-14) –living in dark regions
• Locusts and Scorpions (Rev. 9:2-3,7-10) –torturing men
• Serpents and Vipers (Luk. 3:7) – totally, morally depraved in character

III. Activities

• Seek to hinder God's plan (Dan. 10:10-14; Rev. 16:13-16)
• Inflict illnesses (Mt. 9:33; Luk. 13:11-16)
• Possess animals (Mk. 5:13)
• Promote false doctrine (1Ti. 4:1)
• Influence nations (Isa.14; Eze.28; Dan. 10:13; Rev. 16:13-14)
• Possess unbelievers (Mt. 9:32-33; Mt. 10:18; Mk. 6:13)

IV. Limitations

• Limited by place like unfallen angels (Mt. 17:18; Mk. 9:25)
• Are used by God for His purposes when He desires (1Sa. 16:14; 2Co. 12:7)
• May be expelled and return back to the one from who exorcised (Luk. 11:24-26)

V. Destiny: Will be cast along with Satan into lake of fire forever (Mt. 25:41).

VI. Expelling Demons

• As a believer, you have Christ-given authority to cast demons (Mt. 10:1,8; Mk. 16:17). It is Christ's power, not yours. You're only safe in Christ.
• Christ cast them out by the Spirit of God (Mt.12:28).
• Prayer, fasting and total submission to God is required (Mk. 9:29; Jas. 4:7).
• Pray for the gift of discerning the spirits (1Co. 12:10).
• Do not talk with demons, as a general rule (Mk. 1:24). They are deceivers.
• Cast them out in the Name of Jesus (Acts 16:18).
• Do not close your eyes when casting out demons: you are commanding, not praying; demons are sometimes seen to be physically violent (Mt. 17:15; Acts 19:15,16).
• Do not allow the demon to weaken your faith in God, His Word, and the power of Christ's Holy Spirit.
• In every deliverance session, there must be order and discipline among the servants of God; let one minister in authority while the rest back him/her in prayer.
• All amulets, charms, fetishes, and occultic objects must be removed before any deliverance can take place. The possession of such things provide strongholds for demonic oppression. (Acts 19:19).
• The delivered must be guided into confession, repentance, belief, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit to avoid serious consequences of demonic return (Mt. 12:44,45). A life of holiness and keeping in the will of God is imperative (1Jo. 5:18).

VII. Can Believers be Demon-Possessed?

• A believer can never be demon-possessed since his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and has no room for demons (1Cor.6:19; 1Cor.10:21).
• Christians must guard themselves against demonic wisdom (Jas. 3:13-16; Acts 5:1-4; 1Ti. 4:1-5).
• Christians must be sober-minded, watch and pray (1Pe. 5:8).
• Christians must resist the devil being steadfast in faith (1Pe. 5:9; Jas. 4:7) by the blood of Christ and obedience to God's Word (Rev. 12:11; Mt. 4:4). Know that Jesus is with you (Mt. 28:20).
• Do not give place to the devil. Watch your words, temper, actions, and relationships (Eph. 4:26,27; 2Co. 2:10,11).
• Live a Spirit-filled life (Luk. 4:1,14; Jud. 1:20-23; Eph. 6:10ff).

ANTHROPOLOGY (MAN)

I. Origin Gen. 1, 2

II. Nature

• Body – 2Co. 5:1; Dan. 7:15 Matter, Senses, Instinct - World Consciousness
• Soul – Intellect, Will, Emotion - Self-Consciousness
• Spirit – Num. 16:22; Num. 27:16 Intuition, Conscience, Communion - God-Consciousness

III. Imago Dei

• Kinship with God
• Moral Character
• Reason
• Capacity for Immortality
• Dominion over the Earth

At Fall the image of God in man has been marred but not erased (Gen. 9:6; 1Co. 11:7; Jas. 3:9). Man has not lost his freedom of will and power of reasoning. However, they have been severely depraved by sin. Therefore, without the work of the Holy Spirit no man can be saved. No man can climb uphill to God (Ex. 20:26). God, in Christ, and through the Spirit, meets man where he is and reconciles him to Himself (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 5:16; 1Co. 12:3).

IV. Original Sin

• Pelagianism – Man's soul is created by God at birth and so is free from hereditary corruption.
• Arminianism – Man receives from Adam a corrupted nature but does not receive Adam's guilt. This nature is corrupted physically and intellectually, but not volitionally. Prevenient grace enables man to believe.
• Calvinism – 2 Views: Federal Headship (creationist view of origin of the soul) – The individual receives the physical nature from parents. God creates each soul. Adam was representative of all humanity and thus, when he sinned all humanity sinned. Natural Headship (traducianist view of origin of soul-Augustine) – The individual receives the physical nature and the soul from the parents. Thus, all people were present in Adam in germinal or seminal form. Each individual participates in the sin of Adam. Thus, each individual inherits Adam's sin.

Conclusion: Humanity suffers death as physically (naturally) born of Adam (natural headship); Christians receive eternal life as a gift, by faith, being born, not physically but, spiritually (spiritual headship of Christ) (1Co. 15:45-50; Jn. 1:13; Jn. 3:5,6; 1Pe. 1:23).

ATONEMENT

I. Atonement in Old Testament

Origin of Sacrifice

• Ordained in Heaven. Rev. 13:8; Exo. 12:3,6; 1Pe. 1:19,20; Tit. 1:2; Acts 2:23
•  Instituted on Earth. Gen.3; Rev. 5:6-10

Mosaic Sacrifices – Law
OT Sacrifices good; NT Sacrifices CHRIST – Better (Heb. 10:17,18)

II. Atonement in New Testament

• Atonement 'to cover' (Heb. Kaphar; Gk. Katallage) – Exchange, reconciliation, ransom, substitute, covering. (Jer. 18:23; Isa. 6:7; Psa. 32:1)
• Propitiation 'removal of wrath' Rom. 3.25; removal of enmity, Expiation – removal of sins
• Substitution Isa. 53:5; 2Co. 5:21; 1Pe. 2:24
• Redemption 'buy back by payment, release from bondage by paying a price' (Mt. 20:28; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 14:3,4; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 4:5; Tit. 2:14; 1Pe. 1:28)
• Reconciliation 2Co. 5:18,19; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21; removal of enmity

Efficacy

• Pardon. (Jn. 1:29; Eph. 1:7; Rev. 1:5; Jn. 5:24; Heb. 9:22-28)
• Freedom. (Rom. 6:14; Tit. 3:5-7)
• Deliverance from Death. (2Co. 5:21; Jn. 11:26; Rom. 8:10,27)
• Life Eternal. (Tit. 1:2; Rom. 6:22)
• Victorious Life. (Rev. 7:14; Gal. 2:20; Rev. 12:11)

SOTERIOLOGY (SALVATION)

I. Nature

3 Aspects

• Justification – Courtroom scene – declaration as righteous.
• Regeneration (inward experience) – Adoption (outward privilege) – Household scene
• Sanctification – Temple scene (Luk. 2:37).

Subjective and Objective Aspects

• Objective Aspect – Provided by the atoning work of Christ – Justification, adoption
• Subjective Aspect – The work of the Holy Spirit –Effectual calling, conversion, regeneration, sanctification.

On the cross 'Christ procured for us salvation; the Holy Spirit produces in us salvation.' Watchman Nee

II. Justification – Rom. 4:25

• Declared (not made) righteous – imputation of Christ's righteousness and restoration to God's favor (Rom. 3:22; Rom. 5:17; Rom. 13:21)
• Change in standing
• Removal of penalty. Rom. 4:7; 2Co. 5:19; Rom. 8:1
• Forgiveness of sins. Col. 2:12,13
• Ground – Blood (Death) of Christ. Rom. 5:9; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 3:25.
• Means – Faith. Rom. 3:34-35
• Spring – Grace. Rom. 3:24
• Proof – Resurrection. Rom. 4:25

III. Regeneration – New Birth

• New Creation – 1Co. 5:17; Jn. 3:3-7; Gal. 6:15; 1Ti. 3:5
• New & Divine Life – Jn. 3:3-7; Eph. 2:15; 1Jo. 5:24; Rom. 6:24; Jas. 1:8; Col. 2:12,13
• New Nature – 2Pe. 1:4; Mk. 2:21,22; 1Jo. 2:9; Col. 3:10
• New & Divine Impulse – Acts 26:19-22

IV. Adoption (Huiothesia – 'placing as son')

Blessings

• Family Name. 1Jo. 3:1; Eph. 3:14,15
• Family Likeness. Rom. 8:29
• Family Love. Jn. 13:35
• Family Spirit. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:13
• Family Service. Jn. 14:23,24; Jn. 15:8

We Receive

• Chastisement. Heb. 12:5-1)
• Comfort. 2Co. 1:4; Isa. 66:13)
• Inheritance. Rom. 8:17; 1Pe. 1:3-5)

Privileges

• Child-like confidence. Gal. 4:5-11
• Boldness, Access. Eph. 3:12
• Fellowship of the Brethren. Eph. 2:19; Eph. 3:6; Col. 1:7; Col. 2:25; Rom. 16:7; Col. 4:10; Phm. 1:24

V. Sanctification. Holiness 'set apart'


Implications

• Separation from the world
• Dedication to God

Steps

• Positional. 1Co. 6:11; Heb. 10:14
• Progressive. Gal. 4:19; 2Co. 3:18; 1Pe. 2:2; Eph. 4:15; 1Pe. 1:14-15; Gal. 3:3
• Prospective. Perfect. 1Jo. 3:2

Other Views of Sanctification

• Wesleyan: Sanctification as 2nd Work of Grace that is result of total surrender and faith in the Holy Spirit and means perfection in love.
• Keswick: Sanctification is a distinctive experience that marks the point where the defeated Christian is transformed into a victorious Christian in a total surrender and consecration to God captured in the phrase 'Let Go and Let God.'
• Reformed: Sanctification is growth in holiness through spiritual disciplines.
• Chaferian: At the point of conversion, Christ is accepted as Savior and a natural man becomes a believer, though being a carnal man; at sanctification, the carnal man accepts Christ as Lord and becomes a spiritual man.

ECCLESIOLOGY (CHURCH)

I. Nature

• Name – Ekklesia – an assembly of called out ones
• Kuriake – that which belongs to the Lord
• Christians are called – brethren, believers, saints, elect, disciples, Christians, those of the Way (Ac. 9.2)
• Illustrations-The Body of Christ (1Co. 10:16; 1Co. 12:27)
  -The Temple of God (1Pe 2:5,6; Eph 2:21,22; 1Co 3:16,17)
  -The Bride of Christ (1Co. 11:2; Eph 5:25-27; Rev. 19:7)

II. Founding

• The Rock (Mt. 16:18) – The Confession of Jesus being the Son of the living God (His Being) and the Christ of God (His Work – Ministerial Title)
• Eph. 2:20 – Apostles & Prophets (Christ – The Corner/Cap Stone)

III. Membership – By faith in Christ and obedience in Water Baptism

IV. The Work of the Church

• Evangelisation – Mt. 28:19-20
• Edification – Eph. 4:7-16
• Exaltation – Worship – 1Pe. 2:5-10

V. Ordinances

1. Baptism

• Mode: Immersion
• Formula: Mt. 28:19
• Recipient: Believer (Mk. 16:16)
• Efficiency: Public Acceptance
• Meaning: Pictures of Salvation, Experience of Death & Resurrection with Christ, Regeneration

2. Lord's Supper

• Commemoration of Christ's Death: New Covenant
• Looking Forward to His Coming

ESCHATOLOGY (LAST THINGS)

The Bible teaches us that all moral beings will be brought to judgment before God in the Last Day of the world. Jesus gave the signs that precede the coming of this Last Day. They are: an increase of apostasy, of false prophets, the coming of the anti-Christ who will persecute the people of God and politically control the world, wars, earthquakes, famines, growing crime rates, rise of cults, and signs in outer space among many things (Matt. 24). After these things, the Son of God will appear in the sky with His mighty angels (2Thess.1:7). He will appear this second time for the salvation of His people and the judgment of the world (Heb.9:28). The dead in Christ will rise first and those disciples who are living will be caught up to Lord to be with Him forever (1Thess.4:16,17). The devil and his angels will be punished in hell (Matt.25:41; Rev.20:10). Those whose names are not written in the Book of life will be thrown into the Lake of fire (Rev.20:15) because they will be judged according to their deeds (Rom.2:5,6; Jude 15).

The faithful in Christ will inherit the Kingdom of God (Rev.21:7)

I. Key Terms to the Second Coming of Christ

• Parousia – 1Th. 3:13; 1Th. 4:15; lit. 'being by' 'presence'
• Apocalypse – 1Co. 1:7; 2Th. 1:6-7; 1Pe. 4:13; lit. 'revelation'
• Epiphany – 1Ti. 6:14; 2Ti. 4:8; Tit. 2:13-14; lit. 'appearance'

II. Rapture

• Pre-tribulation- Christ will come for His saints before the 7-year. trib. period; afterward He will come with His saints. The first stage is Rapture; the second, Revelation.

Other Views

• Partial Rapture – only believers who are watching and waiting for the Lord will be raptured at various times before and during the 7-year. trib.
• Mid-tribulation – the church is raptured in the middle of the tribulation period, prior to the Great Tribulation.
• Post-tribulation – living believers are to be raptured at the second coming of Christ, which will occur at the end of the Tribulation.

DANIEL’S 70 WEEKS (DAN. 9:24-27)
Formula: 1 Week = 7 Years (Gen. 29:7)

“Going forth of the commandment” – March 14, 445 B.C. (Neh. 2:5)
“After 62 weeks shall Messiah be cut off.” – April 06, A.D. 32 (Mt. 21)
62+7 = 69 Weeks (Dan. 9:25) x 7 x 360 days = 173,880 days (Jewish Calendar)
March 14, 445 – April 06, 32 = 173,880 days (Our Calendar)
The Final Week (7 years of Tribulation) when the Anti-Christ will be revealed is the 70th week (Dan. 9:27).

Signs – Mt. 24: Wars, False Teachers, Persecution, Apostasy, Callousness, Return of Jews, Restoration of land (Isa. 35:1); Trees plantation (Eze. 36:30); Inhabiting desolate cities (Isa. 54:3); Federation of Nations (Dan.2:44), etc.

III. Millenium. Various Theories

• Dispensational Premillenialism – Christ's revelation (2nd phase of 2nd Coming) will be followed by a literal 1,000 years. of reign on earth during which time the Abrahamic covenant will be completely fulfilled in Israel (Gen. 12:1-3). Its outworking is seen in the Palestinian, Davidic, and new covenants. The church shares the blessings of the new covenant, but does not fulfill its promises (Gal. 3:16).
• Historic, Classical, and Nondispensational Premillenialism – The rapture will occur at Christ's second coming and will be followed by an earthly kingdom of Christ. Church goes through the future Tribulation. Millenium is both present and future. Christ is reigning in heaven. Millenium not necessarily 1,000 years.
• Postmillenialism – The kingdom of God is now extended through teaching, preaching, evangelization, and missionary activities. Tribulation is experienced now. The world is to be Christianized and followed by a long period of peace and prosperity called the Millenium. This would be followed by Christ's return.
• Amillennialism or Realized Millenialism – There is no literal Millenium on earth after 2nd coming. The kingdom of God is now present in the world through His Word, His Spirit, His Church. Christ's return is a single event. Tribulation is experienced in this present age. Church is the new Israel.

References used
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1937.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
House, H. Wayne, Charts of Christian Theology & Doctrine Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Kroll, Woodrow. Back to the Bible Series.
Menzies, William W. & Horton, Stanley M. Bible Doctrines Madras: Bethesda Communications, 1993.
Pearlman, Myer. Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1995.
Purkiser, W.T. (ed.), Exploring our Christian Faith, Rev. Edn. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1978.
Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology, Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1988.