A Survey of Christian Doctrine - New Covenant Ministries International

NCMI

TRAINING MANUAL

A SURVEY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by N.N. DAY-LEWIS

This document may be duplicated whole, or in part, in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) without express written permission, providing it is not used for commercial purposes.

2

CONTENTS

Page

Author's Preface 3

Introduction to Doctrine 5

1 The Doctrine of Revelation 9

2 The Doctrine of God 25

3 The Doctrine of Creation 40

4 The Doctrine of Angels (and Demons) 58

5 The Doctrine of Man (and Sin) 69

6 The Doctrine of Jesus Christ (and the Atonement) 83

7 The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit 98

8 The Doctrine of the Salvation 114

9 The Doctrine of the Church 133

10 The Doctrine of Last Things 145

Bibliography 171

3

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

In 1991 I presented a course entitled "A Survey of Christian Doctrine" (Doctrine Survey,

for short) at the Glenridge Bible College, a part-time training ministry of Glenridge

Church International (Durban, South Africa). Like all the other modules at the College,

the course consisted of ten lectures of one and a half hours each. In 1993 we repeated the

Doctrine Survey and this time I was able to prepare a full set of lecture notes for the

students. Since then many people have requested the notes, and those who today run

with the course at Glenridge continue to use them to varying degrees. It has often been

suggested that I put the notes into manual form; and now has come the request to provide

material for the Doctrines module of the International Theological Correspondence

Course (I.T.C.C.) recently started by the New Covenant Ministries International apostolic

team. Hence - at last! - this manual, which is the finished product of my lecture notes.

My purpose with the course was to provide a quality and useful overview of what

Christians believe (i.e. what Scripture teaches). My aim was to be comprehensive

(touching on all areas of doctrine) and substantial (avoiding the superficial and ultimately

insufficient approaches of some surveys) but, at the same time, concise and clear

(avoiding the complexities that are often found in this discipline but which have little or

no interest or relevance outside academia). Thus, while the course served for many as an

introduction to the subject, it aimed to go further and to give as much depth as most

Christians are ever likely to require. Even for those who desire or need to study further,

the course seeks to give them the framework of understanding and the tools of procedure

which will make their further study easier and more fruitful.

I have attempted to set out what is generally believed by historical, orthodox, evangelical

Christianity (i.e. that tradition which holds Scripture to be the inspired Word of God to

man and thus our final authority on all matters of life and doctrine). Nevertheless, the

theology reflected in these pages must be taken as the author's only and not necessarily as

that of any person or persons who use this manual as part of a course they are presenting

or under whose umbrella such a course may run. Such a qualification is necessary for

two reasons. (1) Obviously, my desire throughout has been to be as biblical as possible

in setting forth what Christians believe. Just as obviously, however, none of us

apprehend truth perfectly; this area of our lives is a pilgrimage as much as any other - and

I am on it as much as any student. (2) There are times when orthodoxy allows - even

calls for - personal opinion and at such times I have given mine. Students need to discern

when this is the case and, of course, to feel free to disagree.

There are two sub-disciplines which are normally included in systematic theology: the

history of doctrine and contemporary theology. The first traces the origins and

development of a doctrine in church history, with particular attention to the formulations

of that doctrine in creeds, debates, synodal resolutions, confessions of faith, etc and by

leading theologians. The second surveys the approaches and positions of

recent/contemporary theologians and schools of theology. I have for the most part

excluded both of these sub-disciplines and have proceeded directly to a summary

4

statement of what (I believe) Scripture teaches on the matter.

My thanks go to the Glenridge Eldership for inviting me to run the course in the first

place; to the several hundred students who enrolled in '91 and '93 and were so

encouraging of my efforts; and to the Team, whose request has now spurred me on to this

project. My particular thanks go to Dawn Castleman for her help in the production of the

original notes, and to Wojtek Kukulski for his assistance in producing this manual.

I hope that this manual will greatly assist many Christians in many places to understand

and celebrate the great truths of Scripture; and that this in turn will greatly equip and fire

the Church in her task of discipling the nations and advancing the Kingdom.

Nigel Day-Lewis

London : July 1996

5

INTRODUCTION TO DOCTRINE

1. A DEFINITION OF DOCTRINE (What?)

Doctrine is the study of what Christians believe. As such it needs to be distinguished

from other areas of Christian study: ethics (how Christians live); apologetics (why

Christians believe); cults and religions (what Christians don't believe); etc.

In formal academic circles this study is often known as systematic theology or dogmatics.

It will thus be helpful to define some of these terms.

a) Theology

"Theology" is not - as the anti-intellectualism of much charismatic Christianity would

have us believe - a four-letter word! Theology is simply the reflection that follows faith:

it is the attempt (sometimes conscious but often instinctive) to understand and

systematize our spiritual knowledge and experience. In this most pure sense of the word

every Christian is a theologian for we have all theologised. That is, we have all reflected

on our spiritual experience in the light of Scripture and sought to better understand the

God whom we have encountered. What we call a "theologian" is simply someone who

does this in a more formal, systematic and perhaps academic way.

In this more formal context, the root and strict meaning of "theology" is the science (-

ology) of God (theo-). However, in common usage the word has both wider reference

and a variety of meanings, for example: general studies on the Christian faith and related

matters ("he is studying theology"); a person's or movement's position on a particular

doctrine (his theology of baptism); a school of Christian thought (Reformed Theology,

Liberation Theology, etc).

Systematic Theology is the particular subject within theological studies which seeks to

examine each area of Christian belief (eg. about God, Jesus, Man) separately and

systematically.

b) Doctrine

"Doctrine" comes from didache (Gr.) and dogma (Lat.): the body/collection of the

apostle's instruction/teaching. Thus doctrine simply means: the Biblical instruction:

teaching on various matters; the essential truths/beliefs of the Christian faith.

As before, doctrinal studies or dogmatics is simply the attempt to study each of these

matters or truths/beliefs separately and systematically.

6

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF DOCTRINE (Why?)

The New Testament abounds in texts stressing the importance of "watching" our

doctrine, of receiving true teaching and exposing the false. There is possibly no area of

knowledge more vital to the Christian other than knowledge of Scripture itself.

The pastoral epistles are particularly emphatic on this point. A careful reading will show

that doctrine is the most important qualification for leadership next to character and

lifestyle. This is hardly surprising, for the same books declare that next to shaping their

people's character and lifestyle, the leader's most important responsibility is shaping their

doctrine - teaching true doctrine and refuting false teaching. (1 Timothy 1:3, 1:10-11, 3:9,

3:15, 4:16, 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; Titus 1:9, 1:13-14, 2:1.) For those in or those

aspiring to leadership, therefore, doctrinal studies are particularly needful.

From the above and other texts it is clear that doctrinal studies serve various vital

purposes:

(1) They enable us to understand and appreciate, develop and preserve, and above

all unify and systematize, the many great truths in God's profusion of riches in the

Bible. Studying the Bible (as in a Bible Survey or biblical theology) has been

likened to walking through a magnificent natural garden: we come across the

same species of fruits and flowers in many different places, all growing alongside

other plants and creating an unordered but beautiful explosion of life. In contrast,

studying doctrine (as in a doctrine survey or systematic theology) is akin to

walking in an orchard or greenhouse, where the different species have been

extracted from the various places in the garden where they were growing and

have been transplanted together with others of their kin to enable us to study each

species separately and systematically.

(2) They strengthen our faith by providing grounds and reasons for our beliefs and

experiences, and so stabilize us against doubt and deception (Ephesians 4:11-14).

(3) They enable us to discern truth from error; to expose false teaching and refute

false teachers.

(4) They will enable us to live in a manner pleasing to God, for the biblical

assumption is always that right belief/doctrine will lead to right living: ethics

(and, conversely, that wrong behaviour always stems from false doctrine). This is

why nearly all of Paul's letters first establish correct doctrine before proceeding to

address behaviour.

(5) They enable the church to know, preserve and preach the truth and so bring

salvation to men. If the church, as the only recipient and guardian of the truth (1

Tim 3:15), departs from true doctrine and preaches a false gospel, how can men

be saved?

7

(6) They are of invaluable practical use in every area of ministry: preaching,

teaching, pastoring, counselling, evangelism, apologetics, polemics, etc.

There are, of course, limitations to doctrine and doctrinal studies: knowledge of right

doctrine does not automatically lead to the salvation of the unbeliever or the maturity of

the believer, and doctrinal studies are thus not a substitute for the activities mentioned

above (teaching, pastoring, evangelism, etc). However, neither the salvation of

unbelievers nor the maturity of believers can be attained without right doctrine, and so

these are dependent (however indirectly) on doctrinal studies.

The often implied dichotomy between knowing God and knowing about God is a false

one. One can know about God without knowing him but the reverse is not true: one

cannot know God without knowing about him, and the more one knows about him the

better one will know him, the more able one will be to trust him and the more willing to

obey him. The Bible never contrasts faith and knowledge/understanding. On the

contrary, all Paul's prayers for the church include a prayer for increased knowledge (eg.

Ephesians 1:17-19, Colossians 1:9-11) because he knows this will increase their faith.

(In a diving competition it is our dive [faith in God] that counts. However, if we have no

board to dive off [knowledge of God], we will not be able to dive very well. The higher

the board of knowledge we dive off, the higher we will be able to extend our faith.)

Pursued with the right heart, then, the acquisition of right doctrine will and must lead not

only to increased knowledge about God but increased faith in and intimacy with God. We

must beware an undevotional theology, certainly, but equally we must beware an

untheological devotion.

We embrace the study of doctrine, therefore, as necessary for knowing God, maturing in

faith, growing in obedience, preserving the truth and persuading the lost.

3. THE DIVISION OF DOCTRINE (How?)

How do we go about investigating the complete spectrum of doctrine found in the Bible?

How do we divide "God's profusion of riches?" How many species are there to separate?

To some measure, any division we make for the purposes of study is arbitrary; the

student will notice a slightly different division and outline in every book of doctrine he

looks at. I have divided the field into ten main doctrines; others will have less, some

more. Thus some will treat man and sin in separate chapters where I have put them in the

same; similarly with Jesus and the Atonement. Conversely, some will include revelation,

creation and angels in the same section as God (amongst the works of God) where I have

given each of these chapters on their own.

Whatever the division of the field, there will be a similarity between all sources in the

order in which the doctrines are discussed. This is because there is an inherent logical

and chronological progression in God's works and dealings with man (a certain order of

events in God's plans of creation and redemption). This order will become clear to the

8

student as we progress through the survey.

The classification (division) and order I will adopt on this course is set out below. I have

added in the traditional names given to each of the doctrines because you may have

worked with these names before or you may come across this terminology in your further

reading and study - but I will not generally use them in these notes:

Revelation (Bibliology)

God (Theology)

Creation (Cosmology)

Angels (and Demons) (Angelogy:Demonology)

Man (and Sin) (Anthropology)

Jesus Christ (and the Atonement) (Christology)

Holy Spirit (Pneumatology)

Salvation (Soteriology)

Church (Ecclesiology)

Last Things (Eschatology)

9

Chapter 1

THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION

Chapter Outline: 1. The Meaning of Revelation

2. The Reasonableness of Revelation

3. The Need for Revelation

4. The Means of Revelation

5. The Characteristics of Revelation

6. The Content of Revelation

7. The Goal of Revelation

8. The Limits of Revelation

9. Revelation and Salvation (Which Words can save?)

10. Revelation and Authority (Which Word has the highest

authority?)

11. Revelation and Illumination (Has revelation ended?)

12. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS

1. THE MEANING OF REVELATION

The word "revelation" comes from the Greek word apokalypsis (apocalypse), which

means: the uncovering/unveiling/revealing of something previously

covered/veiled/hidden (verb); the knowledge resulting from this event (noun).

This definition immediately shows us that revelation (vb & nn) is to be distinguished

from natural processes of learning (vb) and the knowledge gained by those processes

(nn).

REVELATION LEARNING/DISCOVERY

Knowledge unattainable by man Arrived at by normal rational processes

Immediate communication of truth Gradual increase in knowledge

Brought by external agency/manifestation Arrived at by man himself

*(Truth is instantaneously conveyed, although it may only be fully understood later.)

In the biblical context, "revelation" means something supernaturally revealed, through

divine initiative and agency, which man couldn't otherwise have known (eg Ephesians

3:2-5).

10

The Doctrine of Revelation, then, refers to the Bible's teaching on why and how God

revealed himself to man, and to the content of that revelation. It thus surveys "revelation"

both as a verb (God's revealing activity) and as a noun (the saving knowledge/truth left in

man's possession as a result of that revealing activity).

2. THE REASONABLENESS OF REVELATION

The case for the Gospel begins with this doctrine - as does the attack against it. It is often

alleged that the whole basis for the Christian faith (i.e. revelation) is faulty because it is

irrational (i.e. it does not accord with reason): the human cannot know the divine; divine

intelligence cannot (or would not) communicate itself to the human understanding.

Against this it must be asserted that Christianity's foundation of revelation is profoundly

rational. It is totally reasonable to expect that an omnipotent God who had created man

as a covenant partner both could and would communicate with him, and that a creature

created in its Creator's image would be able, at least in part, to understand and respond to

this communication.

Furthermore, it is thoroughly reasonable to believe, on the basis of the objective

evidence, that Jesus, the Bible, natural creation, etc are examples of such divine

communication with man. In fact, it is far more reasonable to believe this about them

than not to. (Such proofs belong in the realm of Apologetics and so are not reproduced

here.)

3. THE NEED FOR REVELATION

Before the Fall, man enjoyed perfect, uninterrupted and undistorted communication with

God. Man grew naturally in his knowledge of God; supernatural revelation as we

understand the term today was unnecessary. But, with the entry of sin, man's knowledge

of and communication with God became imperfect, partial and distorted; incapable in his

fallen state of a true and saving knowledge of God, revelation became necessary.

Even after the Fall, something of the image of God remains in man, causing man to be

dimly aware of God's existence and nature; but this dim awareness falls far short of, and

cannot lead to, a true and saving knowledge of God. Moreover, in his fallen state, which

is one of proud and rebellious independence from God, man is also running away from

and rejecting the true God. Man's religions, his attempt to find and satisfy God, are thus

an abiding paradox: they reflect both man's search for God and his rebellion against God.

But they can never lead man to a true, saving knowledge of God.

Man cannot and would not know God by his natural instincts, efforts and knowledge.

We are utterly dependent on God's gracious self-revelation for knowing him. Without

this stimulus, we would not even look for God - or, at least, we would not look in the

right place. God is not found, discovered or invented by man; man, blinded and confused,

is found by God.

11

All religion - man's efforts to find and define God - is thus futile, resulting in a god made

in man's image. Revelation is utterly opposed to religion - and represents a judgement on

all religion, an emphatic statement from God that he is only to be found in the revelation

he has made of himself and only to be truly known by submission to that revelation. God

is to be found in the Bible (the revelation he has given of himself) and we must accept

what he says about himself there if we are to know him at all.

Even the Bible, itself a product of God's revealing activity, asserts God's inscrutability

(unknowability) were it not for revelation - and sometimes even inspite of it! God is

unsearchable, his ways beyond understanding and his plans beyond finding out. (Job

11:7-8, 23:3&8-9; Isaiah 40:13-14&18&25, 55:8-9; John 1:18a; Romans 11:33; 1

Corinthians 1:21a, 2:6-16; 1 Timothy 6:16.)

It can now be seen, firstly, why we began by defining "revelation" as the communication

of truth that cannot be known or attained by man. The truth communicated by God is

God himself - and man cannot know God lest God reveal himself.

Secondly, it is now clear why we begin our survey with this doctrine. It may seem that

we that we should start with God as the pre-existent fount of all. But we could and would

not know anything about his person and works were it not for his self-revelation - and so

we must begin by studying where and how God has revealed himself to ensure that we

look in the right place and find the true God!

P.S. Not only does revelation lead to true God (vs. the false gods of our invention) but

true man. Revelation means that theology and theologizing does not start with man but

with God. In all other realms of knowledge, man is the subject (he who initiates and

conducts the study) and the field in question is the object (that which is studied). In

theology, however, man is only truly known and defined by God (his own understanding

of himself is always distorted by his sinful nature). If man wants to know not only who

God really is but who he really is he must submit to what God says about him - that is, he

must submit to revelation. In theology, then, God is the subject and man the object - and

man can only study God once he has learnt and accepted God's study of him. Put

differently: in all other disciplines, man is above the object of knowledge; here man is

below that which he desires to know.

4. THE MEANS OF REVELATION

God has revealed himself to man by various means. That is, he has spoken several

different "words". They divide naturally into two groups.

a) General Revelation

Also called Natural or Immediate Revelation. It gives an Innate

Knowledge of God.

12

(i) Creation : Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-20 (cf. vv21,23,25,28).

(ii) Conscience : Romans 2:14-15 (cf. 1:32).

(iii) Providence : God's benign government of the nations (secular history)

and of the natural universe. Psalms 104 & 107; Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-28.

b) Special Revelation

Also called Supernatural or Mediate Revelation. It gives an Acquired

Knowledge of God.

(i) Israel : God's special dealings with Israel (sacred history) and the

special means used to communicate with them (theophanies, angels,

audible voice, prophecy, dreams, visions, signs [burning bush, writing on

the wall]). Deut 4:6-8&32-39, 28:1&10&25&37&46; Psalms 78, 105 &

106, 103:7.

(ii) Jesus Christ : John 1:1&14&18, 14:7&9; Colossians 1:15&19, 2:9;

Hebrews 1:1-3.

(iii) The Bible : Psalms 1:2-3, 19:7-11, 119:72&89&105&130; 2 Timothy

3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21.

5. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REVELATION

A personal revelation

A covenant revelation

A saving revelation

A Trinitarian revelation

A Christocentric revelation

A word-and-deed revelation

A historical revelation

A final revelation

(I will leave you to ponder on these points. Reflection will show, amongst other things,

how different God's revelation is to the supposed revelation of other gods.)

6. THE CONTENT OF REVELATION

A myriad of things, but in essence –

(1) God Himself. God does not simply reveal to us timeless truths, abstract

principles or saving systems. His revelation is not even limited to divine

characteristics or to his will and his ways (although it includes these). God

reveals (gives us) himself.

(2) The Way of Salvation. Revelation records everything man needs to know to

be saved (which includes how to have and live the fullness of life which God

intended for him).

13

7. THE GOAL OF REVELATION

8. THE LIMITS OF REVELATION

Revelation (noun) includes everything we need to know about God, ourselves and

salvation but it does not tell us everything about everything. There are limits to

revelation (Deuteronomy 29:29). This means that we have to submit as much to what is

not revealed (i.e. to the fact that it is not revealed) as to what is revealed. Non-acceptance

of this, and the attempt to delve into "the hidden things", however spiritual this pursuit

may seem, is a further instance of man's proud rebellion against God. We must refrain

from going beyond revelation (e.g. in the areas of angels and demons and of the end

times). This is the common tendency of fringe groups in the church and of cults, and

leads to heresy and destruction.

9. REVELATION AND SALVATION (Which "Words" can save?)

There are various non-Christian views of the relationship between revelation of the divine

and the salvation of man, including pantheism (creation is divine, and man can be saved

through meditating on it), humanism (man is divine, and can be saved through following

his conscience) and syncretism (Jesus and the Bible are special revelations but only in a

limited sense: other religious leaders and writings also constitute special revelations, and

man can be saved by following any of these).

Putting aside such obviously unacceptable positions, we need to ask, within the

parameters of Christian doctrine, what is the relationship between general and special

revelation; more particularly, which levels of revelation can lead to salvation?

Basically, there are two positions:

a) The Catholic Position

This states that there are two different and independent kinds of knowledge about

God. Both are saving, although one obviously gives a more complete and thus

satisfying knowledge.

It argues thus: it is possible from general (natural) revelation, and the innate

REVELATION

(God’s initiative)

FAITH

(Man’s

response)

COMMUNION

SALVATION The Glory of God (Eph 3:10)

The Fulfilment of Covenant!

(Revelation 21:3)

14

knowledge of God it gives, to attain a certain effective (i.e. salvific) - but not

complete - amount of knowledge of God (natural theology, natural religion). This

stands alongside the knowledge given by special (supernatural) revelation as an

independent pillar, or `below' it as a foundation on which the latter builds.

b) The Reformed Position

This states that a saving knowledge of God comes only through special revelation.

It argues thus: both creation and conscience have been distorted by the Fall and

we can no longer know God truthfully through these means. General revelation,

at best, gives only a vague, ineffective (i.e. non-salvific) knowledge of God; at

worst, its inexactness allows for a multitude of distortions (as demonstrated by the

gods of man's religions). Man needs to know God in his special revelation to be

saved - i.e. in Jesus (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5) and the Bible (2

Timothy 3:15). His knowledge of God through general revelation, even if it does

serve as a prelude or stepping-stone to a saving knowledge of God through special

revelation, needs to be repented of and renewed when special revelation comes

(Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-31).

Only once we know God through special revelation, can we know and appreciate him in

general revelation (can we reliably, and with a renewed mind, see him there). The

progression is thus not from general to special, but from special to general. (To illustrate:

the saying "One is nearer to God in a garden [general] than anywhere else on earth" is

pantheistic rather than Christian. One is nearer to God in Christ [special]; and once this

has happened, the divine infusion in creation can be better and more reliably

appreciated.) At most, general revelation and the awareness of a God it creates, serve as

independent or neutral proofs of the existence of God and of the reasonableness of

expecting a special revelation from him.

If, lastly, we try and define more closely the role of general revelation in the salvation or

condemnation of men, we find two sub-positions within the Reformed position. Both

agree that general revelation is sufficient to alert a man to his need for God and to

condemn him if he rejects it (negatively, it can condemn but, positively, it cannot save).

Beyond this they differ.

(i) asserts that, while many reject the light of general revelation and are

condemned, some heed it (God-fearers); for these God will illuminate the

message of special revelation when it comes, leading them to salvation (Acts

10:1-6, 16:14). The following analogy has been suggested: if I could help you

with a small part of a very big debt you owed, and you turned your nose up at it, I

wouldn't be inclined to help you out with the remainder if and when a large sum

of money came to my disposal. The weakness of this sub-position is its implied

injustice: there must have been many "God-fearers" in unreached people groups

who would and should have been saved (according to this scheme) but weren't

15

because the gospel didn't reach them.

(ii) asserts that all men have a knowledge of God through general revelation but

reject it. This is the thrust of the pericope in Romans (1:18-3:20) which contains

the texts about man's knowledge of God through creation (1:18-20) and

conscience (2:14-15); it is not a knowledge which saves but which, because

universally rejected, universally condemns. "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under

sin" (3:9); "men are without any excuse" (1:20). General revelation, then, far

from giving a saving knowledge of God (the Catholic position), or even from

preparing men for salvation through special revelation when it comes (the

Reformed sub-position [i] above), leads to God's just condemnation of the entire

human race. This gives the Great Commission the highest possible importance

and urgency, viz. the transmission by the church of the message of God's special

revelation, by which alone men everywhere can be saved.

10. REVELATION AND AUTHORITY (Which "Word" has the highest authority?)

Revelation is, by definition, authoritative. Every Word of God to man necessarily carries

authority: man must take note and listen. But there are many Words; which carries the

highest authority?

The knowledge of God afforded by general revelation is clearly inferior to that provided

by special revelation; moreover, creation and conscience have been distorted by the Fall

and are unreliable pointers. Obviously, special revelation has greater authority than

general revelation.

God's revelation of himself by various means to and through Israel clearly possessed

more substance than the revelation to the surrounding nations (general revelation). But

even this revelation was in turn dwarfed by that through Jesus Christ; the former was

merely a preparation for the latter; the latter fulfilled and superseded the former. Jesus

Christ was, is, and always will be, the supreme Revelation of God, the last and greatest

Word of God to man.

But, for us today, we only know of these revelations through Israel and Jesus because of

the record of them contained and preserved in the Bible. A written record is more

reliable and enduring than an oral one. Moreover, the Bible is not just a humanly written

record but a divinely inspired one, and thus inerrant and infallible and possessing great

authority (see the Appendix which follows this chapter). The Bible is the norm against

which all other revelation and interpretations of revelation (past, present and future) must

be measured; it is our final (highest) authority in all matters of life (how we live) and

doctrine (what we believe).

Man (or the devil!) is constantly trying to displace the Bible from this preeminent

position, with the inevitable result each time of error and destruction, and the loss of the

truth and power of the gospel. Even within the church, at least 3 things have been given

equal or even greater authority:

16

(i) Reason. In certain periods (e.g. during and after the Enlightenment, or Age of

Reason), reason has been hailed as man's highest faculty, even as that part which

represents God's image in man. Reason is then made the measure of all else,

including revelation, and that within the Bible which supposedly is irrational,

which cannot be explained or proved by reason, is discarded as

myth/symbol/superstition. But, of course, man's finite, creaturely mind cannot

hope to rationally define the infinite Creator (to think that it can is yet another

instance of man's proud rebellion); moreover, his reason, like all his faculties, is

not only finite but fallen (distorted through sin). Rationalism of this sort is

fundamentally humanistic: it makes man the subject and God the object (instead

of the other way around); it constructs a God made in man's image.

(ii) Church Tradition. The Catholic Church holds tradition (the teachings of the

church) to be equal in authority to Scripture. This has two outworkings: (1)

Scripture is said to be only properly interpreted by the church hierarchy (in this

way, Tradition actually comes to possess greater authority than Scripture, for now

Tradition is the norm of Scripture and not the other way round as it should be); (2)

Tradition becomes a distinct source of revelation-truth alongside and independent

of Scripture (hence the many papal bulls and pronouncements of the church

hierarchy which were promulgated as divinely inspired and true and yet which

had absolutely no root in Scripture). The result of such an authority structure, of

the abandonment of the Bible as the highest authority, can be clearly seen in the

sorry history of the church; this history shows that men, even redeemed men,

cannot be guaranteed to preserve the truth - another reason for the preeminent

place of the unchanging written Word of God. Against Rome, the Reformers

trumpeted sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"): while the church plays an important

role in interpreting and applying revelation, Scripture is the norm against which

all church pronouncements and practices must be measured; moreover, neither

church hierarchies nor anyone else can act as a source of revelation, adding to the

Bible things we supposedly need to believe or do for salvation. Any "revelation-

truths" not found in scripture, and any interpretations contradictory to Scripture,

must be discarded.

(iii) "The Spirit". Periodically in church history, during and following revivals

when manifestations and gifts of the Spirit have been at a height, and personal

experience of the Spirit has been emphasized, people have unconsciously

promulgated unbiblical beliefs and practices with the supposed sanction of the

Spirit ("The Spirit told me..."; "The Spirit showed me..."). This sounds very

spiritual, and fringe groups and cults have led thousands into error with this kind

of logic; but obviously the Holy Spirit will never reveal anything contradictory to

what He has already revealed in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21), and

we need to be careful to measure all such "revelations", promptings,

manifestations, gifts, visions, etc against Scripture.

To conclude: godly reason, purified church tradition and genuine spiritual

experience/insight can and should help us to understand and apply God's revelation in the

17

Bible (especially, for example, as regards contemporary questions not directly addressed

in Scripture) - but their conclusions must always be measured against Scripture. The

Bible is the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant record of all God's revelation to men,

and is our final authority in all matters of life and doctrine. It contains everything we

need to know for salvation, and nothing can or must ever be subtracted from or added to

it (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19).

11. REVELATION AND ILLUMINATION (Has revelation ended?)

According to conservative evangelical theology, revelation has ended. Scripture contains

everything necessary for salvation and nothing can or need be added to it. But

charismatic evangelical theology maintains that God still reveals himself to people and

we still receive revelation - through gifts of the Spirit, dreams and visions, sudden insight

into truths and scriptures, inner promptings, guidance, etc. Charismatics are often heard

to say, "I had a revelation today". Who is right?

The “conflict” can be resolved by returning to the Reformed concepts of revelation and

(versus) illumination. Much of what we call "revelation" is not really revelation in the

strict sense that Jesus and the Bible are revelations. They are not the addition of raw

material to the deposit found in these two. They are illuminations on the existing

revelation: Spirit-given understandings, interpretations and applications of the truth

already revealed. These "revelations" may cause one to grow in one's personal

knowledge of God, but the total possible knowledge of God is already contained

(revealed) in the Scripture; they may give guidance in a matter unique and new to

yourself, but the truths determining that guidance are already revealed in Scripture.

Indeed, Jesus told us that a large part of the Spirit's work would be to illumine what he

had revealed (John 16:13-15). This is not to make a big issue about words and to suggest

that we must all stop saying "I had a revelation today" - as long as we know what we

mean (viz. illumination) and are clear that we are not pretending to revelation on a par

with Jesus and the Bible.

Both the conservatives and the charismatics, therefore, are right. In one sense, revelation

has ended and in another it hasn't. God continues to reveal himself to believers and

unbelievers every day - and yet everything to be known about him has already been

revealed in Jesus and the Scriptures! God's revelation of himself since New Testament

times is thus experiential, not substantive - it adds subjective experience of God not

objective substance about God. Jesus is the supreme and final revelation of God. He

shows forth the fullness of God. What more can God reveal? Similarly, the Bible is the

complete and sufficient record of that revelation. It asserts this - and warns against

addition. Through both natural learning and supernatural illumination we grow in our

apprehension of truth, and in our ability to live it out in our day, but our "revelations" add

no new truth about God and his salvation. "If it's new it's not true, and if it's true it's not

new."

18

In closing, we can accept "revelations" in our day, provided that:

(i) They never contradict Scripture (our norm and final authority);

(ii) They never claim equality with Scripture in inspiration, inerrancy/infallibility

and authority;

(iii) They are not regarded as an independent source of truth alongside Scripture

(as if the latter was incomplete);

(iv) They add no beliefs or practices obligatory for salvation to what is stated in

Scripture;

(v) They are directed only to certain individuals/groups (vs. true revelation, which

is for the universal church).


TRUTH

ERROR

REVELATION (vb): Man knows God only because

he has revealed himself to us

RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY: Man can find/define

God

REVELATION: (nn): God (and thus salvation)

found only in this revelation

HUMANISM/PANTHEISM/RELIGIONS: God

(and thus salvation) found in man/creation/religions

SPECIAL REVELATION: Saving

knowledge of God only through special

revelation

GENERAL REVELATION: Incomplete

but saving knowledge of God through

general revelation THE BIBLE:

1. Highest authority for life and doctrine

2. Complete record of God‟s revelation

REASON/CHURCH TRADITION/‟THE SPIRIT”:

1. Equal/surpass Scripture in authority

2. Complete record of God‟s revelation

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1

Chapter 1 placed the Bible within its larger context of the self-revelation of God:

it is merely one of the means of revelation. For us, however, the Bible has a special

place. Consequently, by way of this appendix, I want to focus on two aspects of the

Bible that have a doctrinal content and significance: the inspiration of the Bible and the

characteristics of the Bible. [I have borrowed these notes from my Bible Survey Lecture

1: Introduction to the Bible. There are other introductory matters discussed there - the

formation of the Old and New Testament books and canons, texts and translations (i.e.

how the Bible has come down to us), the scopus, themes and structure of the Bible, etc -

but these belong more to biblical than doctrinal studies.]

13. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

a) The Claim to Inspiration

Perhaps the most important fact about the Bible is that it is inspired. By this is not

19

meant inspiration in the vague sense of elevated wisdom or unusual beauty. Nor

does it refer to an inspiration grounded in the subjective experience of the writer

("I felt inspired from without") or the reader ("It inspired me"). The Bible's

inspiration is grounded in the objective fact that God has inspired it, whether we

experience/believe it to be inspired or not.

The Bible, over and over again, makes this claim of itself - and nowhere more

powerfully than in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed"

(Gr.theopneustos). The difference between the Bible and other inspired Christian

writings is like that between the image of God in Jesus (complete and perfect) and

the image of God in other men (partial and corrupted).

The Bible's claim to inspiration is emphatic:

- the Old Testament claimed this for itself: phrases such as "the Word of the Lord

came to me" and "the Lord says" are used over 3800 times (Hosea 1:1 et al);

- Jesus endorsed this Old Testament claim (Matthew 5:17-18, 19:5 [cf. Genesis

2:24]*, Mark 7:8-10&13*, John 10:35); he constantly quotes from and appeals to

the Old Testament as having divine authority;

- the New Testament accepted this Old Testament claim (Acts 4:25, 28:25,

Romans 3:2, 9:17 [cf. Exodus 9:16]#, Galatians 3:8 [cf. Genesis 12:3]#, Hebrews

1:1&7-9&10-12 [cf. Psalm 104:4, 45:6-7, 102:25-27]*;

- Jesus indicated the New Testament would be similarly inspired (John 14:26,

15:26, 16:13-15);

- the New Testament claimed this for itself (1 Corinthians 2:10a&13, 14:37-38,

Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:2-5), 2 Peter 3:15-16);

- what Scripture says is equated with what God says (*) and vice-versa (#); this

further demonstrates the Bible's claim to be "God-breathed".

b) The Mode of Inspiration

But how did God breathe? It must not be thought that, because God inspired the

Bible, the Biblical writers were uninvolved and the Bible is in no way a human

book. The writers were neither overwhelmed (put in a trance) nor dictated to

(reduced to impersonal, mechanical typewriters). The Bible is a miraculous

blending of the human and the divine - and, just as with the mysterious fusion of

the human and the divine in Jesus, it should not be surprising if it is difficult to

analyse the process by which this blending took place.

On the human side: the normal human faculties and thought-processes involved in

speaking/writing were operative and not superseded. The writers researched,

20

collected and selected their material (Luke 1:1-4); they wrote with a consciously

chosen particular purpose in mind (John 20:31); they attempted to understand,

interpret and apply the revelation they received to their and succeeding

generations (although often only partially understanding what they saw and

sometimes not at all); they sought for the right words to express this revelation;

and they displayed their different individual temperaments, concerns and styles

(in the same way that differently shaped sticks move differently through the water

even though it is the same current carrying all of them). Indeed, these were often

part of the message. God seems to have purposely chosen men greatly differing in

these respects so that his Word would reflect the many-sidedness of life and

mankind.

On the divine side: simultaneously, the Holy Spirit, the Revealer and Motivator in

the process, saw to it that adequate words were found by the writer; words were

approved by the Holy Spirit as they were expressed by the writer. The Holy Spirit

so "brooded" over the writer that the words used were the best possible for

conveying the truth he (the Spirit) intended; he so guided the writer that the latter

could not introduce any human defect (false history, inaccurate description,

misguided doctrine) - i.e. an inspiration that prevented the negative rather than

dictated the positive (inspiration without dictation)(cf. Matthew 22:43, 1

Corinthians 14:32, 1 Peter 1:10-11, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

In short, God's Spirit directed the prophets' spirits (the divine motivation) but "the

spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets" (1 Corinthians

14:32 - the human co-operation). The experience of scriptural writing was akin to

the experience of prophesying - except that here the writer's submission to the

Spirit was complete.

The result is a book both human and divine, yet without error - just like Jesus!

And, just as Jesus was never only human or only divine, but always both, so the

Bible is the perfect blend of both throughout. It is God bringing the revelation of

himself as close to the defective apprehension of fallen man as he can. It is the

Holy Spirit inspiring man to the most perfect expression of infinite truth in finite

human language.

c) The Extent of Inspiration

But to what extent of detail is the Bible inspired? Is each word inspired or merely

the concepts/truths they express?

Often the claim to inspiration is made not only for an individual word (Matthew

22:32, 22:41-46 cf. Psalm 110:1) but for a single letter (John 10:34 cf. Psalm

82:7, Galatians 3:16 cf. Genesis 12:7, Matthew 5:18 - the "jot" was the smallest

letter in the Hebrew alphabet) and even for part of a letter (Matthew 5:18 - the

"tittle" was a 1:16th inch stroke distinguishing certain Hebrew letters).

21

In other phrases, however, different words are used to describe the same thing -

e.g. the slightly differing versions in each of the four gospels as to what was

written on the board hung on the cross above Jesus' head (cf. Matthew 27:37,

Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19). No one would claim that this amounts to a

contradiction, however; each version accurately expresses the essence of what the

board contained.

A flexible concept of the extent of inspiration is perhaps best, therefore, one

which simply states that the biblical text in each part is inspired to the extent that

it conveys fully and without error the revelation truth it contains.

The 66 canonical books - every part of these 66, but none others than these 66 -

are thus wholly inspired and without error in the original autographs; and, except

for copyist errors and vernacular mistranslations, are similarly inspired and

inerrant for us too. This inspiration extends as much to historical, geographical,

biological and other "secular" material as to the doctrinal and "spiritual" sections.

However, the total Bible's total inspiration does not mean that:

(i) There are no problems of seeming inaccuracy and discrepancy. However,

many "errors" have been solved in the past by archaeological discoveries,

historical research and improved exegesis, and there is thus more ground for

trusting that the remaining difficulties will be likewise solved in the future than

for questioning the accuracy of the biblical text.

(ii) All parts of the Bible are equally important in their revelation of God or their

application to the believer today. For example, word for word, John 3 is

obviously more valuable and applicable for us than Leviticus 3! The doctrine of

inspiration means only that each part is fully inspired for the truth it is intended to

reveal. Equal inspiration does not mean equal application.

(iii) Every word in Scripture is God's. For example, the self-righteous false

counsel of Job's friends and the fatalism of the apostate Solomon are accurately

recorded in Job and Ecclesiastes respectively, but these passages in no way reflect

God's perspectives (in the same way that the meaninglessness of life expressed by

the ungodly Macbeth at the end of that play is the Scottish king's perspective and

not Shakespeare's). These and other such words are included under inspiration for

our warning and not for our doctrine and application!

d) False Models of Inspiration

(i) Natural inspiration: inspired through natural talent (as with the work of any

artist/writer).

(ii) Illuminated inspiration: biblical writers were inspired geniuses like other great

writers but with the addition of being inspired by the Holy Spirit - i.e. merely

22

inspired to a greater degree than other writers. (But the inference here is that any

gifted Christian writer can write Scripture.)

(iii) Neorthodox position: the Bible is a witness to (record of) the Word of God

(God's revelations) in history (particularly in Christ) but it is the product of

fallible writers and hence not inerrant.

(iv) Concept inspiration; the basic truths and not their expression (the actual

words) are inspired.

(v) Partial inspiration: only the portions of Scripture containing the otherwise

unknowable (creation accounts, prophecy,, etc) are inspired. The rest was simply

researched and written by men using available material.

(vi) Purpose inspiration: the Bible is inspired in (and perfectly accomplishes) the

purpose God has for it - to bring a saving knowledge of God to man. But, while it

has doctrinal ("religious") integrity, it contains factual ("secular") errors. (But if

errant in one, how can it be trusted in the other? Furthermore, history and

doctrine cannot be separated; try this with the resurrection!)

(vii) Experience inspiration: as the words stand on the page, they are merely the

words of men. But the Holy Spirit can illuminate them to become divine

revelation to us (the Bible contains/becomes the Word of God).

(viii) Verbal dictation: God dictated every word, reducing the writers to

impersonal, mechanical typewriters.

e) The Proofs for Inspiration

Thus far we have simply accepted the Bible's claim to inspiration. This may

present no problem for the Christian, who has the conviction of the indwelling

Holy Spirit as to its truth. But the non-Christian may want some objective

evidence before he/she is prepared to consider or embrace the gospel we are

presenting - a gospel which we are constantly founding on Scripture. Knowing

why we trust the Bible is also valuable for Christians - for both their own faith

and their witness.

But is there any such objective evidence with which we can prove the inspiration

of Scripture. Yes, overwhelmingly so! (Such proofs belong to the realm of

Apologetics rather than Doctrine, however.)

f) The Consequences of Inspiration

There are two particularly important consequences of Scripture being inspired:

(i) Infallibility/Inerrancy. Because the whole Bible is wholly inspired, it follows

23

that it is infallible (cannot be proved false) and inerrant (without error). It is thus

also wholly reliable and trustworthy as a revelation of the true God and of the true

way of salvation.

(ii) Authority. Because the Bible is God's Word to us it is authoritative: we must

listen and obey. The Bible represents Absolute Truth, Value and Right. It is our

final authority for all matters of life and doctrine, against which everything else

must be measured.

Neither the hierarchy or tradition of the church (denominations), nor a leader's

pronouncements or writings (cults), nor personal spiritual experience or gift-

utterances (charismatics), is our final authority. History demonstrates that even

Christian men and structures, when not held in check by Scripture, tend to gross

error. Far from the church conferring on Scripture whatever authority it has and

determining how it should be interpreted, it is Scripture that is normative and by

which everything that the church is and does must be measured.

14. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCRIPTURE

The Reformers, having asserted, against Rome, that Scripture and not church tradition

was the final authority for life and doctrine, went on to assert five further "characteristics"

of the Bible.

a) Inherent Trustworthiness

Rome held that the Bible was trustworthy (only) because the church said it was

so. The consequences of this position are that Scripture derives its authority from

the church (not vice-versa) and that, accordingly, the church can introduce

ecclesiastical tradition as another authority alongside (and even over) Scripture.

Against this the Reformers asserted that the Bible is inherently trustworthy, i.e.

trustworthy in itself, because it contains within itself the evidences for this; it is,

moreover, a trustworthiness attested to by the witness of the Spirit, who convinces

us that it is God's Word when we read/hear it.

b) Necessity (Indispensability)

Rome asserted that the church, as the able custodian of the truth, was all that was

necessary to bring men to salvation. At the other extreme, "spiritism" asserted

that spiritual experience was all that was needed for us to know and dispense

saving truth. Against both, the Reformers contended that Scripture alone reveals

and preserves the truth without corruption, and therefore that without the Bible

men cannot be saved.

24

c) Sufficiency (Completeness)

Rome asserted that the Bible did not contain everything we need to know for

salvation and discipleship. Consequently, the church was free - indeed, duty

bound - to impose additional teaching concerning faith and morals as binding on

her people and necessary for salvation, even if these things did not have warrant

from Scripture. Against this, the Reformers asserted that Scripture gives a

complete revelation of everything required by God for salvation and discipleship;

the church cannot impose any belief or practice as an obligation of faith without

direct scriptural authority.

d) Clarity (Perspicuity)

Rome held that the meaning of Scripture was obscure and inaccessible to the

layman. The layman needed the church, i.e. its trained clergy, to interpret it to

him. Indeed, he was not to be allowed access to the Bible because he might

distort its meaning to his and others' damnation. The Reformers did not deny the

existence of difficult passages but denied that these predominated. It would be

self-defeating, they rightly argued, for God to give man an incomprehensible

saving revelation! They asserted that the main thrust of Scripture is plain and

clear to every genuine reader and therefore that the Bible be read by all. (Hence

one of the Reformers' chief principles of biblical interpretation: take the plain

sense meaning as the true and intended one; cf. the various non-literal approaches

of medieval [Catholic] exegesis.)

e) Relevance

Rome also justified its keeping of the Bible from the laity with the argument that

the Bible dealt with issues theological, the realm of the church's theologians, and

not with everyday matters that concerned the people. The Reformers argued that

the Bible was gloriously relevant to the common man - meeting the spiritual,

mental, emotional, physical and social needs of every man in every place and

time!

25

Chapter 2

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

Chapter Outline: 1. The Existence of God (Does God exist?)

2. The Knowability of God (Can God be known?)

3. The Attributes of God (What is God like?)

4. The Names of God (What is God called?)

5. The Trinity

6. The Father


1. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (Does God exist?)

The existence of God is mentally accepted by any theist and experientially proven by

every believer. But since the existence of God is not universally regarded as a given

(some deny it, others feel that it cannot automatically be assumed but must be

demonstrated), it seems necessary to begin a study of God with the question of his

existence and of whether there is any proof for this.

However, it may immediately be objected (and often has been) that to attempt to prove

God's existence is unnecessary, even blasphemous, for God proves himself (has always

done so, is doing so and will always do so) by his word-and-deed intervention into human

history. Of course, this is so: God did not first need Israel to prove and so believe in his

existence before he did anything; he just burst devastatingly into their lives with word-

and-deed, thereby both proving his existence (that he was) and revealing his nature (who

he was) at the same time. Similarly, many have God's existence “proved” to them today

by his sovereign intervention into their lives.

Nevertheless, there is a place for demonstrating the reasonableness of believing in the

existence of God (that it is more reasonable to believe in it than not to), especially for the

unbeliever who is resisting any intervention of God into his life, or shaking the faith of

believers or the searching of would-be believers, by his denial of God's existence. Even

the Bible, which on the whole simply assumes God's existence, occasionally argues for

his existence (e.g. from creation: Psalm 19:1-6; Isaiah 40:26; Acts 14:17).

There are two lines of argument, one using reason and the other revelation. (Actually,

both lines involve both tools : the first line is the application of reason to general

revelation and the second the application of reason to special revelation.)

26

a) Rational Proofs

These are the so-called five traditional or rational proofs for the existence of

God. (Actually there are many more: some apologists list thirty!)

(i) Ontological. Onto is Greek for "to be"; ontology is the science of

being/existence. According to this very abstract line of reasoning, for man to have

an idea of something, that thing must exist. Man commonly has the idea of a

supreme, perfect Being: such a Being must, therefore, exist. Further, this science

holds that actual existence is more perfect than mere conception; hence, God must

have actual rather than conceptual existence, or there would be a greater Being

who did exist.

(ii) Cosmological. Everything is an effect brought about by a cause. Either

nothing caused the universe (but the uncaused emergence of something has never

been observed) or something did. It is more reasonable to identify this

“something” with God than with an impersonal force, chance, an eternal cosmic

process, etc.

(iii) Teleological. The universe displays a great deal of design (Greek: teleos) and

purpose - i.e. it betrays an intelligent cause. Again, it is more reasonable to

believe in God as this intelligent Designer than “blind” chance, natural selection,

etc.

(iv) Anthropological. Again, God is a more reasonable accountant than evolution,

etc for man's unique properties - intelligence, emotions, spiritual sensibility of the

divine, longing for meaning and purpose - properties not shared by the rest of the

natural universe and thus seemingly imposed from without rather than emerged

from within.

(v) Moral. Similarly, as an explanation for man's universal sense of morality

(conscience), and for the near agreement of all cultures on what is right and

wrong.

Of course, these five arguments have limitations: (i) they seldom lead to

conversion; (ii) they prove only the existence of a Supreme Being and not the

identity (nature) of the true God.

Nevertheless, they have some value: (i) they can establish a presumption in favour

of the existence of God, which will prepare the hearer for receiving special

revelation (the gospel); (ii) they produce sufficient evidence to make the hearer

responsible for his knowledge should he reject God and to free God from any

further obligation should he so choose.

27

b) Revelation Proofs

If the divine presence (Word) in one or more of the claimed avenues of revelation

can be proved (and it can), this automatically proves divine existence. It can be

shown, for example, that it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe that :

(i) the Bible is divinely inspired; (ii) Jesus is divine. (As before, these proofs lie

within the realm of Apologetics rather than Doctrine and so are not discussed

here).

Ultimately, of course, belief in the existence of God and knowledge of the true

God comes only through faith - a personal encounter with, and experience of,

God. This apologetic frustration (we cannot empirically prove God and so force a

decision), far from being an oversight on God's part, is intended by him and is an

act of grace: he does not want us to be sure of his existence (so becoming an

object of detached, academic analysis and debate) without us struggling and

reaching to find and meet him (being saved); he does not want to be "God" (out

there) but "our God" (found and known). Only once we've met him (experiential

knowledge), and made the submission to what he says of himself (and us) that this

always involves, are we able to safely study him (intellectual knowledge).

2. THE KNOWABILITY OF GOD (Can God be known ?)

Once past the atheist's hurdle (denying God's existence) we come to the agnostic's hurdle

(denying God's knowability). It is asserted that, even if there was a God, we could not be

sure of his existence, either because the divine intelligence could not make itself

intelligible to the human, or because the human intelligence could not apprehend the

divine, or both. We thus have to demonstrate that God can be known before we can

proceed to discussing what we know of him.

There is a measure of truth in the agnostic's assertion: as finite (and fallen) creatures we

will never be able fully to know and understand the infinite (and perfect) Creator. But

both logic and experience suggest that we can know God, at least in part: it is logical to

believe that a God (who can do all things) who creates a creature to fellowship with him

will be able to make himself known to him, and that a creature thus created in his

Creator's image will be able to respond to this communication; our experience (and that

of millions) is that this logical possibility has been realised. And so man can know God.

It may then be contended (and often has been) that we can know the nature (attributes) of

God but not his being (essence). Again, this what is true to a measure but not in the

main. We can know who God is (what he is like) but not what he is: we would have to

be divine ourselves (or of an even higher order) to be able to define him. (We cannot

even define man!) But, on the whole, such a distinction (namely, that between

nature:attributes and being:essence) is an artificial one. To know a person's character,

temperament, personality traits, characteristic behaviour, etc is surely to know him; it is

to know his heart - which is his essence. Similarly, to know God's character, behaviour,

28

etc as revealed in the Scriptures is to know his essence. There is no hidden or actual or

essential God behind he who is revealed through his words, deeds and relationships in

history as recorded in Scripture. God's self-revelation is a description not a definition -

because, in this case, description is definition.

It remains only to repeat what was emphasized in the last lecture: all of the above about

our ability to know God is true of man in the created and redeemed states. In the fallen

state, we have at best a knowledge of God that is vague, ineffective and subject to gross

distortion. In this state we could and would not know God were it not for his sovereign

and gracious self-revelation.

God exists and we can know him. At last we can proceed to the biblical revelation of our

God. Who God is, what he is like, can be learnt from both his attributes and his names.

3. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD (What is God like?)

a) List of the Attributes

This is the systematic attempt to describe God as comprehensively as we can, a

formal rather than devotional statement of God's being and character.

Such a list is always incomplete and somewhat arbitrary: we cannot know God

fully, and what we do know of him can be categorized/defined in numerous ways.

In the past, the attributes have often been divided into two groups, roughly

synonymous with the distinction that was made between God's essence/being and

his nature/character: the incommunicable/unrelated attributes (those we cannot

share in - e.g. God's eternity) and the communicable/related attributes (those we

can - e.g. God's love). However: (1) any distinction between God's essence and

character is, as we have seen, highly questionable; (2) the decision as to which

category certain of the attributes should be placed in is very arbitrary. We

therefore list them all together.

God is...

(i) Self-existent (Life). Not caused by anything else; not owing his existence to

anyone else. God has life in himself (cf. all creatures, who have life only in

him)(John 5:26, 10:17-18).

(ii) Self-sufficient (Perfect). Containing all things in himself; without lack or

need, or defect in any attribute.

(iii) Invisible (Spirit). John 4:24; Deuteronomy 4:15; 1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16; 1

John 4:12; - but Jesus! (John 1:18, 1 John 1:1-3).

29

(iv) Infinite (Limitless). Unlimited by any finitude in time, space or attributes. It

is difficult for us to grasp this: we can only define it negatively (everything in our

experience is finite).

(v) Immortal (Eternal). Fills all time. Not only pre-, supra- and post-temporal but

the creator and container of time: there is no sense of time apart from his creating

it; God lives both above time and in timelessness. This does not mean that time is

unreal to God: he sees past and future as clearly as the present, and all three as an

uninterrupted succession of events, but is not himself bound by that succession

(Deuteronomy 33:27; 1 Chronicles 29:10; Nehemiah 9:5; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy

1:17, 6:16).

(vi) Sovereign (Supreme). Absolute ruler because possessing absolute authority

(1 Timothy 6:15). Makes all decisions (does as he wills) - and these, by virtue of

his absolute authority, are always right (cf. the decisions of a human ruler, which

are authoritative/right only in a certain realm and only if they do not contradict the

authority/decision/will of God). Although the decisions of fallen men and angels

have real significance in determining/affecting history, above and beyond these

the Sovereign God works out his plans and achieves his purposes (Isaiah 46:10;

Ephesians 1:11).

(vii) Omnipotent (Almighty). The Bible says this of God 56 times - and of no one

else. Absolute power in distinction from absolute authority ([v] above). Means

that God has the power to carry out that which he sovereignly decides. God's

power is power-in-himself, the creative source of power (cf. human power,

merely the harnessing/employment of pre-existing power). In the present age,

God voluntarily limits/postpones the exercise of his power (his omnipotence, like

his sovereignty, is hidden - an article of faith); his patience/grace, or his abiding

by the principles he has sovereignly instituted, does not deny his omnipotence.

(viii) Omniscient (All-knowing, All-Wise). Absolute knowledge; knows and

understands all things. This God has by nature (by the mere fact of existing) and

not by learning (cf. human knowledge, which is acquired and added to our

existence/nature). Knows what has happened, what is happening, what will

happen and what might have happened: it is because of this that God can work out

all things for our good and to his glory; can judge fairly; can save to the uttermost.

(Psalm 139:1-6&13-18; Jn 16:30)

(ix) Omnipresent. Fills all space; sees all things; not bound by space/place.

Present everywhere at once (but not present in everything: this is pantheism). Yet

present in different places and times to varying degrees (Exodus 33:15) and with

varying purposes (i.e. different facets of his character are manifested). Yet it is

always all of God present, never just a part of him. His presence is sometimes a

physical manifestation but normally a spiritual one (i.e. he is seen by faith). God

is not just to be found everywhere; he is the everywhere itself: there is not and

cannot be anything beyond or apart from God. We cannot escape/hide/flee from

30

God (Psalm 139:7-12; Amos 9:1-4).

(x) Transcendent. God is superior-to/different-from his creation and his creatures,

and thus detached from them.

(xi) Immanent. But God is also near to his creation/creatures (Deuteronomy

30:11-14; Psalm 145:18), and something of his nature pervades and is reflected in

it (Romans 1:18-20; Psalm 19:1-4).

Christianity is unique is combining transcendence and immanence. The two must

be kept in balance to avoid the opposite errors of agnosticism/deism and

pantheism/animism (cf. Isaiah 57:15; Acts 17:24-28).

(xii) Holy (Light). God's absolute moral purity and perfection. He is the totally

Other/Opposite, separate from and innocent of everything impure. His presence

immediately expels and judges sin, and those who would know/look-on/live-with

him must become holy themselves. To be defined positively (a life-giving

righteousness) and not merely negatively (the absence of sin) - just as health is

more than the absence of sickness. (1 John 1:5-7; 1 Timothy 6:16; Exodus 33:20;

Habakkuk 1:13; Leviticus 19:2; Matthew 5:48)

(xiii) Righteous (Just). The expression/outworking of his holiness in his dealings

with men; that in God which gives rise to and upholds the moral order in the

universe. All God's decisions and dealings are upright, just, true, equitable,

impartial. All persons will receive full justice (fair trial); this knowledge brings

meaning to the injustices of the present age. (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 96:13,

98:9, 145:17; Acts 17:31; Revelation 19:11)

(xiv) Love (Compassionate). The defining attribute of God's person and the chief

revelation of himself contained in his works (1 John 4:7-12&16-21). But love

must be defined by God and not God by our concept of love. Biblically, love is

that which seeks the greatest possible good for another and which sacrifices itself

to make this possible (John 3:16; 1 John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7). It includes

both the cuddling and the correcting aspects. Even anger and jealousy are

expressions of God's love - but these are reactions. Spontaneously, God is only

loving. God becomes angry, etc but God is love. To say "God is love" is more

than saying "God is loving": God does not choose to be loving (rather than e.g.

malicious) at a particular moment or towards a particular person; he is always and

towards everyone automatically and by nature loving. He cannot be anything else

- for God is love. (Psalm 30:5, 145:8; Lamentations 3:31-32)

(xv) Gracious (Merciful). That God is love means that he desires and works for

the good of man. His grace and mercy mean that he extends his love even

towards those who do not deserve it and perseveres in it even when it is spurned.

(Exodus 34:6-7)

31

(xvi) Good. The expression/outworking of God's love in his dealings with man;

that in God's person and works which gives man the greatest possible blessing.

(Psalm 34:8, 145:9; Jeremiah 29:11; Romans 12:2; 1 Timothy 6:17; James 1:17)

(xvii) Truth. God is the source and measure of all truth; everything he represents

and decrees is absolute Truth. He cannot, and therefore has not, revealed

anything false to us (Psalm 18:30, 19:7-11; John 14:6; Romans 3:4). Because of

this he is trustworthy.

(xviii) Constant (Immutable). God is neither developing/maturing nor

changeable: capricious. God is unchanging and unchangeable (without variation

or diminishing) in all of his attributes (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8).

Because of this he is faithful - i.e. constant in his love, in keeping his covenant, in

fulfilling his promises (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 145:13; Nehemiah 1:5; Dan 9:4; 2

Tim 2:13).

(xix) Free. God is independent of his creatures; he is never forced or obligated by

any of them, or by circumstances, into doing or not doing anything (Isaiah 40:13-

14). His acts and decrees stem solely from his own sovereign will. The only

restrictions on God's freedom are the restrictions of perfection, and since

perfection is no restriction in reality, God is not restricted in any way; he has

perfect freedom. (Isaiah 29:16, 45:9, 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6-10; Romans 9:14-21)

(xx) Glorious. God's person - who he is, all of his attributes taken together - is

glorious. All of his works further glorify him; indeed, this is the motivation and

purpose for all that he does. Together they give beauty, splendour, majesty,

honour and renown (1 Chronicles 16:29; Psalm 27:4, 29:2, 50:2, 96:3-9). God

does everything he does (even when it may seem to be for our sake) for his glory,

for only when he is glorified, when he receives the glory which is his due alone

(and this comes only when we acknowledge him for who he really is and so do

not give glory to another), only then does truth triumph and can man be saved and

fulfilled. His anger and jealousy at glory being given to another, and his pursuit

of his glory, is thus (like everything else) an act of love. To glorify God is why

we were created and why we were redeemed - and what we shall be doing for all

eternity. (Psalm 24:7-10; Isaiah 43:9&21&25, 45:5-6, 48:9-11; Ezekiel 36:20-

23&32)

b) Relationship between the Attributes

(i) These aspects of God's character are separated only for the purpose of

reflection and understanding: it is only by treating each characteristic of the divine

nature separately that we can begin to comprehend the full-orbed greatness of

God. In actuality, God is an indivisible whole (without parts), the attributes

fused, integrated and expressed in one personality. Each must therefore be kept in

the closest possible association with all the others.

32

(ii) God's nature is the sum total of his attributes (if these could be exhaustively

enumerated). But each attribute doesn't represent a part of God's being: his whole

being is loving, righteous, etc. (The attributes are not to be likened to separate

slices of a cake but to different ingredients inseparably mixed throughout the

whole.)

(iii) Consequently, we must avoid setting up dualisms or tensions within the

person of God, whereby one part of his nature (e.g. love) antagonizes (and has to

be reconciled with) another (e.g. justice). God's justice is consistent with his love

- it is a judicial disapprobation not a resentment or passion. Indeed, it is an

expression of his love (upholding right and wrong and so leading men to

conviction, repentance and salvation).

(iv) Consequently also, everything God is or does at anytime is the simultaneous

expression of all his attributes. He can do nothing apart from the exercise of all

his attributes acting harmoniously together. Nothing that God does can be done

apart from being in complete harmony with his whole nature (God is always

consistent with himself): an act not in such harmony is impossible in God for

perfection cannot contain contradiction (and to be free from contradiction is not a

restriction). This remembrance will remove many misunderstandings and

ridiculous questions about God: he is not a cruel dictator (power without

goodness) or a capricious ruler (sovereignty without constancy) or an

accommodating universalist (love without holiness) or a manipulable benefactor

(love without freedom).

(v) Human attributes are accidental: for example, no matter how characteristic

love was of a man's personality, he would still be Mr A- when he wasn't loving.

In contrast, the divine attributes speak of God's essential being: God would not be

God if he were not loving, righteous, etc - and these fully all the time. His

attributes are not features which qualify/describe something else which forms the

irreducible essence of his being. God is not loving but love; he can only act

lovingly because he is essentially loving.

A postscript: the formal (intellectual) description of God in this section is

valuable and necessary as both a stimulus and parameter to our experiential

(spiritual) knowledge of God. But, of course, deepening of the latter is more

likely to proceed from prayer and worship than from analysis - just as the Psalms

and other devotional passages reflect the greatest experiential knowledge of God

to be found in Scripture.

4. THE NAMES OF GOD (What is God called?)

Names in Israel were never a matter of chance, sentiment or mere identification: they

33

contained a record or a hopeful prediction of an individual's character and deeds.

Similarly, the names God gives himself reveal his nature and deeds, his relationship to

the objects of revelation (those who use the names) and the content (message) of that

revelation. Some God instituted himself; others men ascribed to him consequent on a

particular experience of him - but these were inspired by the Spirit and included by him

in infallible Scripture.

a) Old Testament

(i) Primary Names

1. EL (si): ELOHIM (pl) (translated: god/God)(used >2000x & 250x)

The common, generic noun for "god" in the Hebrew language. Its root means

"strong one", the name thus denoting strength/might, a powerful governor of the

universe and man. Because it refers to gods in the widest sense, it is often, when

used of the true God, connected to one of his attributes (e.g. mercy, in

Deuteronomy 4:31) to distinguish him from other (false) gods. Being the most

general name of God, it has the least specific significance (meaning). The use of

the plural (e.g. in Genesis 1:1&26) indicates not a plurality of gods but a plural of

majesty, the fullness of reign (similar to the English idiom of the royal "we"). It

allows for a distinction in the Godhead and the later revelation of the Trinity.

2. YAHWEH: JAH (abb)(translated: LORD)(used 7000x & 49x)

God's most personal, unique name, having therefore the greatest significance

(meaning). It is first revealed in Exodus 3:14 (to Moses at the burning bush) but

is used retrospectively in Scripture. Its revelation at this point in Israel's history

gave it special significance and in turn revealed much about Israel's God. It is

further especially associated with God's holiness (Leviticus 11:44-45), his hatred

of sin (Genesis 6:3-7) and his gracious provision of redemption (Isaiah 53:1&5-

6&10). The Jews regarded this name as so holy, they had such a superstitious

dread of it, that they would neither write it out in full or take it up on their lips:

they wrote YHWH and said ADONAI (see below). The vowels of the latter were

later placed in the former to make it more pronounceable: YaHoWaH; this was

anglicised to JEHOVAH.

3. ADON (si): ADONAI (pl)(translated: Lord)(used 30x & 280x)

This word was also used of human master-slave relationships (Exodus 21:1-6)

and so denoted Lord, Sovereign Lord, Master or Owner. Applied to God, it

conveys God's absolute authority (Joshua 5:14; Isaiah 6:8-11) but also his

protection.

34

(ii) Compound Names

There is virtually an endless list of these, each embroidering on the primary

names of EL, YAHWEH or both. They are not distinct names in the strict sense

but designations: ”titles” bestowed on God by someone who had just experienced

him in the particular way expressed in the title.

1. On EL: EL ELYON, the most high God (Genesis 14:22, Isaiah 14:14); EL

OLAM, the everlasting God (Genesis 21:33, Isaiah 40:28); EL SHADDAI, the

almighty God (Genesis 17:1 - the root of "Shaddai" means mountain, and so this

name denotes “the God as mighty as a mountain”); et al.

2. On YAHWEH: YAHWEH JIREH, the LORD provides (Genesis 22:14);

YAHWEH NISSI, the LORD is my banner (Exodus 17:15); YAHWEH

SHALOM, the Lord is my peace (Judges 6:24); YAHWEH SABBAOTH, the

Lord of hosts (1 Samuel 1:3); YAHWEH MACCADDESHCEM, the LORD my

sanctifier (Exodus 31:13); YAHWEH ROI, the LORD my shepherd (Psalm 23:1);

YAHWEH TSIDKENU, the LORD our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6);

YAHWEH SHAMMAH: the LORD is there (Ezekiel 48:35); et al.

3. On both: YAHWEH ELOHIM ISRAEL, the LORD God of Israel (Judges 5:3);

et al.

(iii) Other Names

On rare occasions names not connected to one of the three primary names are

used, but these (like [ii] above) are normally statements of God's character rather

than names. For example: QADOSH ISRAEL, the Holy One of Israel.

b) New Testament

(i) THEOS. Greek equivalent for EL/ELOHIM, and thus meaning simply

God/gods.

(ii) KURIOS. YAHWEH ("I am who I am") is explicated a few times by

variations of a descriptive kind ("the Alpha and the Omega", "the first and the

last", "the beginning and the end", "who was, who is and who is to come"). But

for the most part the New Testament writers followed Judaism in substituting (for

YAHWEH) KURIOS, the Greek equivalent of ADONAI (its root means power).

This name thus designates God and Christ as the Mighty One, the Lord, the

Possessor, the Ruler, the One who has legal power and authority over his subjects.

(iii) PATER. Greek for "Father". The New Testament introduced this name as

descriptive of a distinct person within the Godhead, although "Father" had been

used in the Old Testament to designate the special theocratic relationship God had

with Israel (Deuteronomy 32:6). In the New Testament it is used in the general

35

sense of Originator/Creator, or to express the special relationship between the

First Person of the Trinity and Jesus, or to express the relationship between God

and all believers as his spiritual children.

5. THE TRINITY

a) Need for, and development of, the doctrine

Neither the word "Trinity", nor the doctrine of that name, are explicitly mentioned

in Scripture. The belief is the result of organizing/harmonizing certain facts/truths

revealed in Scripture which confront us and demand our attention. These are, on

the one hand, that there is only one true God and that this God is one, and, on the

other, that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are called God. The church thus

reached this doctrine by a process of induction applied after collecting and

collating what Jesus and Scripture had said concerning the Godhead and the three

Agents of salvation. While the doctrine was only formally stated for the first time

at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 431, this does not mean that the church suddenly

invented it in that year: the church had always believed it (necessitated as it was

by Scripture) but, being a difficult concept, it was susceptible to distortion, and

the large number of heresies concerning the Trinity which were emerging made a

definitive formulation necessary.

b) Evidence for Oneness

Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 4:35, 5:7, 6:4, 32:39; Isaiah 46:9, 54:14; 1

Corinthians 8:4-6; Ephesians 4:3-6; James 2:19.

c) Evidence for Threeness

(i) Old Testament

While the Old Testament does not explicitly reveal the Trinity, it implies it and

allows for the later revelation of it in the New: the plural name for God (e.g.

Genesis 1:1); the plural pronoun for God (e.g. Genesis 1:26); the Angel of God is

recognized as God and yet is distinct from him, indicating two equal persons; the

Messiah is called "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6) and "eternal" (Micah 5:2), again

indicating two equal yet distinct persons; Isaiah 48:16b intimates all three

persons.

(ii) New Testament

The Father is God: John 6:27; 1 Peter 1:2.

Jesus Christ is God: he has the attributes of God, e.g. omniscience (Matthew 9:4),

omnipotence (Matthew 28:18) and omnipresence (Matthew 28:20); he has the

36

authority of God, e.g. to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12); he received worship (John

20:28); he is explicitly ascribed divinity (John 1:1).

The Holy Spirit is God: he is equated with God (Acts 5:3-4); he shares God's

attributes, e.g. omniscience (1 Corinthians 2:10) and omnipresence (Psalm 139:7);

he shares God's work, e.g. he regenerates man (John 3:5-8).

d) Evidence for Trinity

Matthew 28:19 (three persons but one name); John 14-16; 2 Corinthians 13:14 &

Matthew 3:16-17 (three persons associated in equality). [The earliest and most

reliable manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7.]

e) Definition

There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three

eternal and co-equal Persons *, the same in substance (attributes/personality -

what makes them God) but distinct in subsistence (existence/being).

* The word "Persons" is not ideal - it implies separate individuals in the Godhead

- but there is no better word (illustrating the struggle of finite language to describe

the infinite). In all probability, true personal existence belongs only to God, and

the three ways in which the divine essence exists cannot be adequately described

by man.

The following essential elements must be held in tension in any definition of the

Trinity:

(i) God is one, single, unique, a unity; there must be no implication of three Gods,

of three separate individuals.

(ii) The distinctness and yet the full deity and equality of the three Persons (each

is eternal, self-existing, etc and not created). The Three fully possess all the

qualities of the One, equally and without separation (the divine essence is not

divided into three: it is fully present in each of the persons). The three Persons

are self-conscious and self-directing but, because they share the same

substance/nature, they are always in perfect agreement and cannot act in

opposition to one another (three centres of expression in one identical nature).

(iii) The subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father - in relationship (an

order of relation), not deity. The Son (God of [out of] God) is "begotten" by the

Father (the Fount of all Deity); the Spirit proceeds from the Father and (although

not all Christians agree on this) the Son. [See the Doctrines of Jesus Christ and the

Holy Spirit respectively.]

37

f) Analogies

Because of the difficulty of the concept, many analogies have been sought to

illuminate it, e.g.: the sun, its light and its power; the tripartite nature of man

(body, soul, spirit); the three parts of the soul (mind, heart, will), which can

“fellowship”/”debate” with each other; the three elements of consciousness; the

three states of matter (e.g. of water); shamrock leaves.

These and other analogies can be useful but care must be taken with them. They

often only illustrate one aspect of the truth and so unguarded extension of them

("making them walk on all fours") can lead to imbalance. Similarly, subconscious

attempts to build doctrine on them (by the drawing of doctrinal inferences from

further seeming parallels in the analogy) can lead to heresy. For example, the

analogy of water (the same substance in three forms), if taken too far, can lead to

the heresy of modalism (that the three Persons are merely different

“manifestations” of the one God: see below). Thus it must be remembered that

they are only illustrations not definitions, and that no one analogy can ever fully

capture the truth of the Trinity. Ultimately, this supra-rational truth about the

infinite God is beyond the reasoning powers of finite man.

g) Errors

It is the inability to accept this last point, and the difficulty of the concept itself,

that has led to this doctrine being surrounded by more error and misunderstanding than

any other. The multitude of Trinitarian heresies fall into three types.

(i) Threeness without oneness: Tritheism - three distinct Gods/individuals,

perhaps even with different natures/personalities.

(ii) Oneness without threeness/Modalism/Sabellianism - merely three modes of

existence, three different manifestations of the same unitary God, temporarily

assumed for the purposes of redemption.

(iii) Oneness with threeness, but without equality: Monarchianism/Unitarianism -

Son and Spirit possess inferior deity (not co-equal and co-eternal with the

Father)(the Spirit may even be denied personhood); or Arianism - Son and Spirit

are “relegated” still further to created (willed-into-existence) beings. It can be

seen that these heresies amount to a sophisticated variation on the second type (ii).

It is often easier to recognize a wrong conception of the Trinity than to define the

correct one. We may not be able to express adequately in words the exact

midpoint of the spectrum pictured below left but we can recognize views tending

to either extreme and “pull” them back towards the centre.

38

6. THE FATHER

The First Person of the Trinity, known and delineated in Scripture particularly with

respect to:

a) His Relationships

(i) By creation, the Father of all men (Acts 17:29). A Creator-creature

relationship, not a spiritual relationship.

(ii) By covenant, the Father of Israel (Exodus 4:22). Both a spiritual relationship

(with believing Israelites) and a governmental relationship (with all Israelites).

(iii) By incarnation, the Father of Jesus (Matthew 3:17).

(iv) By redemption, the Father of all who believe in Christ (John 20:17; Romans

8:14-17; Gal 3:26 - 4:7; 1 John 3:1).

b) His Works

Almost everything God does involves in some way or other all the Members of

the Trinity (necessarily, because God is one). So when we speak of the particular

works of the Father we are not excluding the other Persons but simply delineating

those things which seem to be the prerogative of the Father in a special way.

(i) The author of the salvific plan or decree of God (Psalm 2:7-9).

(ii) The author of salvation and election (Ephesians 1:3-6).

ONENESS

without

THREENESS

THREENESS

without

ONENESS

THREENESS

and

ONENESS

MODALISM/SA

BELLIANISM

HOLY

TRINITY TRITHEISM MONARCHIANISM/

UNITARIANISM and

ARIANISM/J.W.’s

39

(iii) The sender of the Son to this world and the orchestrator of his mission (John

5:37).

(iv) The disciplinarian of his children (Hebrews 12:9).


TRUTH ERROR THEISM: God exists ATHEISM: Denial of God‟s existence

REVELATION: God has revealed himself and

therefore we can know him

AGNOSTICISM: Man cannot know whether God

exists or (even if he can) what God is like

MONOTHEISM: There is only one God POLYTHEISM: There are many gods

BIBLICISM: God is only as he has revealed

himself in Israel/Jesus/the Bible

SYNCRETISM: The many gods worshipped by man

are, in fact, the same god

PERSONAL: God is a defined personal being IMPERSONAL: God is an impersonal cosmic force

“DUALISM”: God is distinct from the rest of

existence (He created it)

MONISM: Everything that exists is God (Hinduism,

New Age, etc.)

TRANSCENDENCE: God is separate from,

and superior to, creation

PANTHEISM/ANIMISM: The divine

infuses/animates creation

IMMANENCE: God continues to

govern/sustain creation (Providence)

DEISM: God is removed from, and uninvolved with

his creation

TRINITY: God is Three-in-One; Father, Son

(Jesus), and Holy Spirit

TRITHEISM: Three Gods (three personalities)

MONARCHIASM/ARIANISM: Only the father is God/fully God; Son and Spirit are lesser

deities/created beings.

40

Chapter 3

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION

Chapter Outline: 1. The Origin of Creation (Who?)

2. The Mode of Creation (How?)

3. The Purpose of Creation (Why?)

4. The Characteristics of Creation (What?)

5. Providence

6. Man and Nature


By "creation" we mean both God's act of creation (verb) and the result of that creating

activity, the universe (noun).

By the doctrine of Creation, therefore, we mean the biblical revelation about who created

and how, why and what he created.

1. THE ORIGIN OF CREATION (Who?)

a) God created

That an intelligent Supreme Being is responsible for the creation of the material

universe is arguable (as was the existence of God) from both reason and

revelation.

(i) Reason. It is far more reasonable to believe in such a Cause for the universe

than in chance, spontaneous evolution, etc (cf. Chapter 1.2).

(ii) Revelation. It can be demonstrated that it is more reasonable to believe than

not to that the Bible is the inspired and thus inerrant Word of God, and the

overwhelming thrust of the biblical message about creation is that "In the

beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

Reason inclines us towards a Supreme Being as the Originator of creation;

Revelation tells us who this Supreme Being is - YAHWEH, the God of Israel.

b) The Trinity created

The Doctrine of the Trinity (Chapter 2.5) has shown that all the members of the

Trinity are necessarily involved in any act of God (because God is one). The

plural name of God (ELOHIM) used in Genesis 1:1, and the plural pronoun used

in 1:26 ("let us make"), show that this is true of his act of creation. Other texts

also speak generally of God (i.e. of the whole Godhead) as Creator (e.g. Mark

41

13:19 [cf. v32]; Romans 1:25; 11:36).

We also saw, however, that particular aspects of God's different works are seen to

be the special prerogative of different Persons within the Trinity. This is also true

of God's act of creation.

The Father creates: 1 Corinthians 8:6; Acts 17:24-28; Hebrews 2:10; Revelation

4:11.

The Son creates: John 1:1-3 (& v10); 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16;

Hebrews 1:2.

The Spirit creates: Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30. The Spirit's role in creation is also

implied in the revelation that he is the Giver of life (ruarch, the Hebrew for

"Spirit", also means a man's spirit or breath): Genesis 2:7, 6:3; Job 27:3, 34:14-15;

Psalm 104:29.

Summarising, we could say that the Father is the Author of creation and the Son

the Agent of creation ("Creator" is used of the whole Godhead or of the Father,

but never of the Son); or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, respectively, the

preparatory, efficient and completing Causes of creation.

2. THE MODE OF CREATION (How?)

The question of how the universe originated has always intrigued men. Christians, by no

means exempt from this fascination, have often tried to construct an account of how God

created the universe from biblical passages about creation (especially Genesis 1 & 2),

with the following common assumptions and conclusions:

(i) Genesis 1 & 2 et al tell us how God created the universe (and this account

refutes evolution, etc);

(ii) The Bible identifies a single way in which God created, viz. by his Word (cf.

the various ways of other myths/religions);

(iii) This mode of creation (the spoken Word) is unique to the Bible.

But these assumptions/conclusions are untrue; at best, they are oversimplifications. In

fact:

(against ii) Genesis 1 & 2 contain several concepts (ways) of creation (only one of

which is the spoken Word);

(against iii) All of these (albeit sometimes in a different form), including the

Word, can be traced in the creation narratives of other cultures/religions.

42

The real significance of the Biblical creation narratives (vs other accounts) lies not in

their supposedly unique revelation of the spoken Word as God's (single) mode of creation

but in the way in which various ideas of creation existing among Israel's neighbours were

adapted, modified or rejected as being useful or otherwise for illustrating the real truth

about who created the heavens and the earth, viz. Yahweh. And so:

(against i) The thrust of Genesis 1 & 2 et al is not how the universe was created

but who created it.

Indeed, it is doubtful whether in any substantial way the Bible can be said to tell us how

God created. What evidence can we advance for this conclusion?

a) Two different accounts of creation

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 represent two rather differing versions of creation (e.g. in

the order of things created). If they were intended as literal, scientific accounts of

how God created, or if we read them as such, we land up with a contradictory

(and thus imperfect and untrustworthy) Bible. Clearly, both narratives are at least

in part symbolic: archetypal, and the point of each narrative is to reveal and

illustrate certain truths about the God who created the universe and about the

purpose (why) and nature (what) of his creation. The Holy Spirit, the divine

Author of Scripture, knew that both accounts were necessary to communicate all

the truths about the creation (vb & nn) that God desired to reveal. Obviously, the

Spirit felt the “how” differences between the two accounts were not

important/problematic. The “hows” were merely incidental to the narrative,

useful for illustrating the essential truth being conveyed, viz. who.

b) Five different concepts of creation

In the creation myths of man at least five ideas of how creation took place can be

found. All five can be traced in one or other form within the two biblical

accounts of creation.

(i) Origin. This is the idea that the world, and especially certain things within it,

were not made/created by a creator-god but originated/issued from something else

(e.g. man from a tree or the leg of another being, or out of the ground). This idea

is clearly in the background of Genesis 1:24 ("Let the earth bring forth living

creatures") and Psalm 139:15 ("My frame was not hidden from you when I was

made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depth of the earth").

But in other accounts even gods could originate or be brought forth from

something else in this way, whereas in the biblical usage of this concept there is

never a hint of God's origin or coming forth from something else. In the Bible

God stands on “the other side” of creation and origin. He allows procreation to

take place, or commands something to produce (as in Genesis 1:24), but he

himself is uncreated, eternal, without origin.

43

This idea of creation appears seldom and then only incidentally in the Bible, but

already it can be seen that the uniqueness of the biblical message of creation is not

that its mode cannot be found in any other account, nor that none of the modes

found in other accounts appear in its own. Its uniqueness lies in how it modifies

the modes found elsewhere because they do not conform to the truth about Israel's

God. And so we return to the same conclusion: the real message of the biblical

creation narratives is not how but who.

(ii) Birth. Very common in the creation accounts of other people is the idea of

birth: heaven and earth, plants and animals, even man, were given birth to by

gods, who were in turn given birth to by older gods, and so on. But, significantly,

this idea is rejected in the Bible: there is no hint that either the natural world or

man was born from God, as this would cause them to be divine and so lead to

pantheism or humanism. Moreover, this omission/rejection is deliberate: the

writer knew about such ideas of creation - he says of the creation process, "This is

the genealogy [These are the generations] of the heaven and the earth " (Genesis

2:4) - but knew also their inappropriateness for describing the truth of God's

creation (vb & nn).

(iii) Conflict. The concept of creation arising out of chaos or conflict (e.g.

between gods, or between good and evil) occurs in the creation accounts of many

peoples - and in the Bible. Genesis 1:2 speaks of the earth being "formless and

empty" (Heb. tohu and bohue: devastation, chaos, wilderness, wastes [cf. Isaiah

34:11; Jeremiah 4:23]) and of "darkness" (always a negative, threatening concept

in the Old Testament) over "the deep" (Heb. tehom: abyss, raging ocean). Other

texts speak of conflict between God and various forces of chaos, whether created

elements (e.g. the sea) or creatures (e.g. sea-monsters), and of the need for God to

set bounds for them (Job 26:10-13, 38:8-11; Psalm 74:13-17; 89:9-10; 104:5-9; et

al). Again, however, there are differences between the biblical and non-biblical

uses of the concept: in Scripture, the conflict occurs after creation, not before; and

it is between God and things he has created, not between God and other gods (as

nothing is co-eternal with God, nothing but God himself exists before or outside

of his creation).

(iv) Act. God is represented in many creation narratives as creating through an

act, by doing something, most commonly through separating/dividing or forming

(e.g. out of clay/earth). The first, separation, is clearly present in Genesis 1: God

separates light from darkness (v4), water from water (v6) and water from land

(v9); moreover, the root of bara (the Hebrew verb used for "make"/"create"

throughout the chapter) means "separate" or "divide". The second, formation, is

used in Genesis 2:7 ("the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground")

and v19 ("Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the

field and all the birds of the air"); indeed, the Hebrew word for man (adam) is

directly related to earth (adamah). This depiction of the creation of man through

formation from the earth, and even the fact that he is created after a divine

decision and in the image of God, is not unique to the Bible. The uniqueness of

44

the biblical account lies in the content and quality of the life man receives because

he is created by the true God.

(v) Word. Even this concept of creation, the dominant one in Scripture (although,

as we have seen, by no means the only one), is not unique to the Bible. Many

other creation accounts speak of a god calling things into existence by his spoken

word. Moreover, this concept no more precisely tells us how God created than

any of the others: (1) four times God speaks "And it was so", but four times God

speaks and then makes (Genesis 1:6 cf. v7, v14 cf. v16) - and , as we have seen, a

variety of concepts of making are used, giving us no definitive clue as to how God

actually made; (2) that God creates through his word may be the dominant “how”

of creation in the Bible, but the New Testament reveals that this too is really a

“who”: Jesus is the Word through whom all things were made (John1:1-3).

Conclusion: If these five concepts were meant to be literal, scientific descriptions

of how God created we would have a contradictory narrative (and Bible). Just as

with the different “hows” of the two accounts of creation, the five different

concepts of creation they contain are obviously merely incidental. They serve as

complementary illustrations of the essence of the narratives, viz. that man and his

world came about through the creative acts of Israel's God, and how this God (and

his creation) differs from the gods (and their creations). Not how, but who.

c) Mockery of the gods

Throughout Israel's history, her neighbours believed that various elements were

gods: heaven; sky; sun; moon; planets; earth; land; seas; mountain; rivers;

animals; etc. Into this religious pantheon, Genesis 1 comes as a mockery of the

gods: they are not gods at all but merely created things - things, moreover, created

by Israel's God. He has absolute power over them; indeed, they have no existence

apart from him.

The sun and moon, those supposedly great deities on whom man is dependent for

light, warmth and the regulation of night and day, are not even named. To God

they're just the "greater light" and the "lesser light". How insulting! Indeed, God

created light and the regulation between night and day, and then only afterwards

created the sun and the moon to perform these duties for him. (Clearly, this is a

statement of spiritual truth; as a literal, scientific statement it is nonsensical.) So

we are dependent for these things not on the false gods of the sun and moon but

on the true God, Israel's God.

When seen in this light it becomes clear yet again that the true message of the

biblical creation narratives is not how but who; it is the revelation of the greatness

and superiority of Israel's God. He is mentioned thirty-four times in the opening

thirty-four verses of the Bible. Yahweh, and only he, created everything .

45

d) Beyond comprehension

Even if the above arguments did not exist, we should not even expect that God

would attempt to communicate to us how he created - for surely the actual

mechanics of this stupendous, supernatural act are beyond our comprehension.

And if beyond our comprehension at the end of the twentieth-century A.D., how

much more so for all the previous B.C. and A.D. generations who heard/read

God's Word and for whom it had to be accessible and understandable. The

creation narratives had to be in concepts and language comprehensible to each

successive period in history - another reason for expecting that they are at least in

part symbolic, treating of the broad spiritual truths concerning God's act of

creation and the origin of the world.

In this second section of the lecture (The Mode of Creation) we set out to examine

how God created. The evidence has suggested, however, that the creation

narratives do not really tell us how God created and that any investigation of them

leads us back repeatedly to the question of who created, the essence of the

narratives (back to section one: the Origin of Creation).

Genesis 1 & 2 are not scientific documents on the mechanics/processes of

creation. Anyone who tries to make them such invariably lands up in difficulties.

They do not provide an alternative scientific theory to evolution, for example, and

in so doing provide us with a tool to disprove that theory. Of course, their

essential message about who created does challenge the atheistic base of

evolutionary thinking - as it does all other theories which posit the universe as

either eternal (eg Platonism) or divine (eg Pantheism).

The real (vs imagined) claims of Genesis 1 & 2 are simply but stupendously: (1)

the world had a beginning, coeval with time; (2) YAHWEH, the God of Israel, is

the one and only Creator of everything; (3) there was a succession of free creative

acts by God; (4) man was the result of a special creative act and given a special

position.

Taking (3) as an example: the Bible does not tell us how, or in what order, God

created each element/creature. It asserts only that each new appearance of life

was the result of divine intervention. The Hebrew verb (bara) used to describe

God's act of creation in each instance, indicates a definite, powerful and

supernatural operation of the divine will. But it does not tell us if that act of

creation was instantaneous/immediate or gradual/progressive. Similarly, it is not

the time factor involved in each of the six "days" that is important (cf. 2 Pet 3:8)

but the assertion of God's intervention in each case.

However, despite the above qualification concerning the biblical revelation on

how God created, there are two important truths about God's act of creation

contained in the Bible.

Creation out of nothing

46

This is the ancient doctrine (Lat. ex nihilio)(cf. Hebrews 11:3) that, in the

beginning, God created "out of nothing" (he did not recreate/reshape what already

existed); that, antecedent to God's creative act, there was no other material or

spiritual existence (nothing exists outside of God's creation except God himself;

nothing existed before or co-eternally with God). Genesis 1 deliberately and

meticulously includes everything that exists in its account of what God created,

and nowhere is anything mentioned as a "raw material" used by God (cf. the

creation accounts of other religions).

This is an important doctrine because, if not true:

(i) If there had been in existence any uncreated (co-eternal) matter or spirit, we

could not be sure that God was (and is) able to control it. (Dualistic philosophies

and religions explains evil thus.)

(ii) If there is one such type of uncontrollable matter or spirit we cannot be sure

that there are not other types, also uncontrollable.

(iii) If God had used existing material when creating, we could not be sure that he

succeeded in doing with it (with his now limited power and authority) what he

wanted.

(iv) For the same reason, we could not be sure of his final triumph; he might be

frustrated by this material, which exists by as good a right as God himself.

It is this aspect of the biblical doctrine of creation which really sets it apart from

that of other religions. The creations (nn) of the gods in other religions are not the

same as God's creation (nn) in the Bible, and the gods are not creators in the way

God is Creator: the gods are themselves created; they work with existing material;

they therefore never have absolute power and authority over all other existence;

they are often forced by their material or creations into creating/recreating.

The force of the earlier sections is that God created everything; the force of this

doctrine is that everything is created by God and is thus dependent on him for life

and existence. Thus, too, all other beings or things which may be regarded as

"gods" are not gods at all, but, at best, created things, utterly dependent on God

for existence.

Creation in freedom

In contrast to the creation accounts of many other religions, God was not

compelled to create by any co-eternal god/force (e.g. to prove a superiority or win

a victory over evil) as there is nothing co-eternal with God; nothing exists outside

of God's creation except God himself ([m] above).

Nor was God compelled to create by an ontological need within himself. Some

47

maintain that as the impersonal foundation or ground of Being, God needed other

(personal) beings to exist for him to be complete and so fully God. Without them

he is incomplete/unfulfilled, like a foundation without a structure. Thus he was

not free not to create. But God is both the ground/foundation of Being (he gives

existence to everything else; nothing can exist without him) and a perfect personal

Being. He is thus ontologically complete in himself.

Nor was God compelled to create by an "emotional" need within himself: either

because, if he was not in relationship with, and receiving love from, someone, he

would "pine and decline" from loneliness (the mystics); or because, as LOVE, he

needed an object to love in order to express his essential nature and be

fulfilled/complete. Again, if God for this reason was not free not to create, he

cannot be said to have created in freedom. But, because God is Trinitarian, he in

himself possesses an eternal community of relationship and love. God is

sufficient in himself (self-sufficient); he can perfectly express his nature in

himself; he has no essential need that can only be satisfied outside of himself.

The conclusion of all this is: God created in absolute freedom. He was perfectly

free to create and equally perfectly free not to create.

[God did not need us at creation - whether to be ontologically complete or

emotionally fulfilled or to express his nature: he possesses all these in himself.

Equally, he does not need us now (although he may use us if he so chooses and

we are available): it was in the freedom of his love that he made us and it is in the

freedom of his love that he uses us.]

3. THE PURPOSE OF CREATION (Why?)

Why then (the question begs to be asked) did God create? Why, especially, when we

consider what it cost God; when we consider how perfectly blessed his fellowship within

himself was and how little he needed the pain and frustration that he must have known

the creation of man and his world would cause him?

There seems to be only one simple yet mindboggling answer: God wished to do so! Out

of sheer goodness, not wishing to enjoy his eternal fellowship of love and joy of life

alone, he decided in his free love to create a creature in his image who could share this

eternal fellowship of love and joy of life. God's creation (vb & nn), then, like all his

works, is a colossal act of grace, of goodness towards those who can make no claim on it.

As to why God created when he did not need to, this is as full an answer as we can get

and yet it is ample and profound. Now we need to ask more systematically: what is the

purpose or goal of creation? What did God intend by it; what does he aim to achieve

through it?

48

a) Creation itself

We do not need any supposedly more spiritual reason to justify creation. Creation

itself is a reason or purpose for creation. To be a creature of the Creator; to exist,

live, play and be together in his creation is joy and fulfilment enough. We are so

consumed with doing, and measure our purpose and our fulfilment so exclusively

in terms of what we achieve (progress, success, winning), that we have forgotten

how to simply be; how being - being alive and in relationship (with the Creator

and our fellow creatures) - is in itself a purpose of our existence, and one which

brings great fulfilment.

To exist as man is, particularly, a worthy goal in itself, a good enough reason for

God to have created us. The life of man is an exalted, privileged existence, for

man is made in the image of God. To be human is not to be frail and weak (an

excuse for our shortcomings) but is wonderful and glorious! When God created

man he did not produce miserable, ailing creatures but the crown and masterpiece

of all his creations. To exist as man in God's world, enjoying God and creation, is

thus a goal in itself. "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever."

God's purpose in creating, then, was the existence and continuation of creation.

The creation is not a mere "burp in eternity" to be got out of the way as quickly as

possible so we can get on to heaven. God's intention was that Adam and his

descendants would enjoy a rich life and eternal fellowship with him on the earth;

and the future rich life and eternal fellowship we will have with God will be on

the new earth. The created world is thus the arena for God's fellowship with man,

the arena for history and eternity.

b) Man's salvation

When we remember that "salvation" means wholeness or well-being, we realize

that the salvation (wholeness, blessedness) of man is not only a post-Fall but a

pre-Fall purpose of creation. Man was created to share in God's life and love; the

whole of the rest of the natural universe was created as man's habitat and garden,

for his use and good pleasure.

When we asked the question earlier as to why God created when he didn't need to,

we answered it by saying that he wished to share his life with another and so

created a creature in his image - man - with whom he could do this. But you may

have noticed a certain deficiency in our answer: it does not explain why God

created everything else in addition to man. After all, man is such a small and

seemingly insignificant part of the universe. Here we have the incredible

remainder of the answer: the entire universe was created for man as his

"playground". Man is neither marginal to, nor insignificant in, the universe. On

the contrary, he is the reason for and the centre of the created world. And so,

even before the Fall, man's salvation was the purpose of creation.

49

But, of course, the created world is also the arena for man's post-Fall redemption;

and, because of God's foreknowledge of the Fall, this can be said to be one of

God's purposes for/with creation from the beginning. The restoration of man's

well-being, the holistic prosperity of Israel and the nations, is God's pursuit and

concern throughout the Old and New Testaments.

c) God's glory

Man was created to share God's life and the universe was created for man to live

in and enjoy. But God's creation - both man and nature - give him glory. God's

greatness is reflected in the magnificence of what he has made (Romans 1:18-20)

and so nature declares the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4). But man especially

glorifies God: through the sheer brilliance of his unique creation; through the

conscious praise and worship he gives to God; through his redemption which

testifies in the spiritual realms of the grace and goodness of God (Ephesians 3:10).

So through his creation God glorifies himself.

There is no tension between man's salvation and God's glory as purposes of

creation, as if in pursuing man's blessing God becomes man's slave (man becomes

the centre of existence, not God), or as if God pursues his glory at the expense of

man (man becomes incidental to creation, an expendable tool in God's hands).

Rather, the two are integrally linked. Man's salvation, his fullest possible

blessing, comes when he is what he was created to be, i.e. the image of God -

when he becomes like God, when his life reflects (images) God's and he

represents God on earth - and such a life obviously gives God glory. So it is not

man's blessing apart from or outside of God, but precisely the blessing that man

enjoys when he glorifies God, that is pursued by God as the purpose of creation.

("The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.") Conversely,

for God to pursue his glory apart from, or at the expense of, man would slur his

Name rather than glorify it. It is precisely in his goodness towards man,

especially in his gracious redemption of man, that God is glorified. And so the

glory of God and the salvation of man go hand-in-hand as the purpose of creation.

The glory of God is the saving of man and the salvation of man is the glorifying

of God.

d) The Covenant

This conclusion implies a particular relationship between God and man and leads

us to the fourth and most comprehensive statement of the purpose of creation: the

fulfilment of the covenant between God and man.

Although the word "covenant" does not appear in the creation narratives, it is

clear that all the elements of covenant were present (two parties, a contract,

mutual responsibilities and privileges, blessings and curses) and that this was the

nature of the relationship between God and Adam (cf. Hosea 6:7). It was the

beginning of the long attempt by God to walk in covenant with his people. The

50

"covenant formula", "I will be your God and you will be my people", is the most

repeated phrase in Scripture. Despite recurring setbacks, God pursues this goal

throughout history. And, while the Fall and God's subsequent plan of redemption

required various outworkings/administrations of covenant (i.e. different

covenants), there is in fact just one enduring covenant of grace through which

God invites man to walk with him - the covenant introduced to/with Adam at

creation.

The earth, then, is the arena for covenant: God in his goodness creates man to

share in his Life and Love; he creates the earth as man's habitat and playground,

and as the place where he, God, can live and fellowship with man in covenant!

The one and only covenant of grace between God and man referred to throughout

the Bible is thus the goal of creation - a goal which most definitely and

wonderfully will be finally and fully realized on the new earth (Revelation 21:3).

4. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CREATION (What?)

a) Finite

Something of who God is (of his power and goodness) is reflected in what he has

made (Romans 1:18-20). This is not to be unexpected: something of the artist is

reflected in any human artwork. But just as the artwork in question does not now

share in the artist's humanity, so too God's creation (nn) does not share his

divinity. Just as the artist remains distinct from his work, God remains distinct

from the universe. The universe (creature) is finite and temporal; God (Creator) is

infinite and eternal.

In this connection we recall the highly significant rejection by the biblical creation

narratives of the birth concept of creation, viz. that the world (or parts of it) were

given birth to by the gods and so share their divinity. Other religions could use

this concept as they made no clear distinction between God and created things, or

between God and man. But the Bible cannot and does not use it because there is a

radical difference (divide) between God and everything he has created, including

man. Nothing is divine but God himself. We (and the world) are made by, not

born from, God.

To summarize: God is reflected in his creation (it is, in a limited sense, a

revelation or image of him) but does not infuse creation (so that the universe

becomes in some way divine. This is Pantheism: literally, God in everything; or,

"All is God".) God remains distinct from his creation (Dualism: two things exist -

God vs creation) and is not to be identified with creation (Monism: "All is One" -

so creation is God). [This difference has already been made clear from the

perspective of the Doctrine of God, when we defined true vs false ideas about

God; here we are making the same point from the perspective of the Doctrine of

Creation, in our description of the nature of what God has created.] The finite

51

nature of creation, of course, was true even before the Fall.

b) Fallen

We must guard against a naive interpretation of nature. There is much to be

enjoyed and appreciated in it. Nature provides us both with the resources and raw

materials we need for living, and with relaxation and renewal - as long as we

remember that renewal comes through communion not with the creation (creation

has no power in itself to renew us) but with the Creator to be seen in it.

[Remember, the progression is from special to general revelation, not vice-versa;

once we have met God in special revelation we can more fully and reliably hear

and interpret his Word to us in general revelation.] There is much goodness in

creation which tells us about the goodness of the Creator.

But there is also much in creation which does not reflect God. If the image of

God in creation was a dim one before the Fall, it is now both dim and distorted.

Creation is not only finite but fallen: it is not what it was before; it is not fully

what God created it to be. This is because, after the Fall, God cursed not only the

serpent, Adam and Eve, but "the ground" too (Genesis 3:17-18). It is legitimate,

therefore, to assume that the destructive elements of the natural world (disease,

decay, death, predators, poison, pestilence, droughts, floods, famine, etc) are

post-Fall phenomena. How can these be a reflection of God? It is "the thief "

who comes to rob, kill and destroy. Nature now is not only a blessing; it is also a

threat. (Even outside of natural disasters we should guard against a naive

interpretation of nature: none of us can survive “in the wild” without the things

we bring with us from the factory, the city and the world of man. Imagine even a

picnic without the car to get there, crockery and cutlery, processed foods, the tin

opener...)

c) Future

The biblical revelation that the world had a definite beginning, brought about by a

deliberate, intentional creative act of God, implies that it has a purpose and is

moving towards a goal, i.e. that it is directed towards a particular and definite

future (end). The world is not timeless but historical; creation is not cyclical (an

aimless and eternal repetition of cycles) but linear (a purposeful moving along a

timebound line from A to Z). That an intelligent, purposeful God has created the

world means that he intends to do something with it, to take it somewhere. We

have already seen what, on the whole, his purpose is. Here we emphasize simply

the historical nature of creation (nn). Creation (vb) means not only that things as

they are now were not always so (there was a time, an event in the past, when

things changed/became [cf. Genesis 2:4-5]), but equally that things as they are

now will not always be so (there will be a time, an event in the future, when

things will again change/become). The origin of the universe as a creation thus

gives purpose and meaning to its past and its present (God is working his

purposes out), and a direction and endpoint to its future (God realizing his

52

purposes).

5. PROVIDENCE

Up until this point we have been considering the beginning of all things - God's act of

creation at the beginning of time and the material world which resulted from this act.

Now we need to look at the continued existence of all things, at God's relationship with

his creation since that beginning. This doctrine, normally called Providence, is

sometimes treated on its own, but the appropriateness of dealing with it as part of the

Doctrine of Creation will be apparent. The belief that God continues to watch over, be

involved with, and care for, his creation refutes Deism, the belief that God created the

universe but then left it to its own devices (like a wound-up clock running down) and is

now remote from and uninvolved with it. Providence is seen in three areas: his

preservation of the natural world; his government of the human world; and his

supernatural intervention into both by way of miracles.

a) Preservation

It must no more be thought that the natural world can continue without God's

intervention and involvement than it should be thought that it could originate

without him. The world began only because of God; it continues only because of

God - because his awesome power and goodness continues to sustain all things

and hold the universe together (sometimes called "continuing creation"). Even

secular science upholds the principle (in the Second Law of Entropy) that any

system left to itself tends to disorder and decay. Such would be the fate of the

universe if left to itself. (Perhaps it is God's withdrawal of his providence which

causes the "collapse" of the universe at the end of time; cf. Isaiah 34:4, Matthew

24:29.) All life/matter exists only because of God's creative act; therefore, all

life/matter does not continue to exist by virtue of any inherent self-existence but is

dependent for continued existence and right operation on God.

Just as Jesus seems to have been the Person of the Godhead particularly

responsible for the creation of the world, so too is he particularly responsible for

its preservation (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17).

b) Government

God controls/governs the affairs of men and human history, upholding his moral

law and providing for and directing individuals and nations (Acts 14:15-17,

17:26, 4:28).

But this government, this control, is not total/absolute. People have often made it

thus - with disastrous, even blasphemous, consequences. If we say that God's

providence means absolute control of human affairs then we have to say that

everything that happens is God's will, ordained/predestined by him before the

53

creation of the world. Human history is in this way reduced to the acting out of a

rigid blueprint laid down by God before time, and its human actors are reduced to

automatons fulfilling God's irresistible will. But to say this - viz. that everything

that happens is God's will - is not only absurd; it is to make God out to be a

monster, a demon, the author of evil. (One has only to imagine any vicious crime,

and God's detailed planning of the gory details, to get the point!) Quite

obviously, not everything that happens is God's will; much of what happens is

man's will (man's fallen will) or Satan's will. This is because, in creating man and

giving him dominion over the earth (a dominion which man subsequently shared

with Satan), God gave to man the power to really affect history, to make decisions

which would affect his circumstances and his future. So history is not simply the

acting out of a blueprint laid down by God before the world began but something

that in a real (although ultimately limited) way man creates as he goes along. God

is not alone the author of history: God, man and Satan together write its pages.

To say, therefore, that everything that happens is God's will is untrue, dishonest,

absurd - and blasphemous: it ascribes to God sinful and evil events and actions

actually authored by man/Satan. The thief comes to rob, kill and destroy - and we

must locate the origin of natural and man-made disasters in the right place.

Therefore, to resort, as we often do when comforting someone who is suffering or

who has been bereaved, to saying "It is God's will", may seem in the short-term to

be comforting (it implies that God is in control, and so seems to give “order” to an

otherwise meaningless event) but is in fact anything but comforting. On

reflection it can only lead to theological confusion ("How can a God of love will

something so cruel?") and a crisis of faith ("How can I trust God any longer that

his will for me is good?"). The real Christian message of hope amidst pain and

suffering , in the seeming chaos and meaninglessness of a sinful world, is not that

everything that happens is God's will but that one day, at the end of time, and on

the new earth, those who have died in Christ will be raised from the dead to enjoy

a blessed, perfect existence where no pain or death intrudes; that one day, those

who have suffered injustice will receive fair trial and full justice from the Judge of

all, and will enjoy a life on the new earth where there is no more injustice, where

evil men no longer prosper at the expense of good men, and wrong no more

triumphs over right (indeed, a world from which evil and evil men are forever

banished). This is the real comfort and hope of the Christian faith, an

eschatological doctrine of providence, one that looks to the future, that locates our

perfect comfort in the end and on the new earth; only there will everything that

happens be God's will. (This is not to deny, of course, that God cannot and does

not give real support and comfort to his people now, but it is always provisional,

looking to the future for its fulfilment.) In this world, sin and Satan continue to

intrude - and sin is irrational, inexplicable, meaningless, disorderly, chaotic and

cruel. We cannot, and should not, try to rationalize or "explain" sin, try to fit

everything that happens in this age into some kind of order or pattern (such as

God's will) and thereby try to give it meaning. The happenings of our world will

always be "chaotic" - because God is not yet "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28).

54

So we have to revise our interpretations of 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Romans 8:28, et

al. We have brought to these texts our presupposition that “everything that

happens to us ins God's will” and consequently have made them say this. But 1

Thessalonians 5:18 does not say that "all [our] circumstances" are "God's will" for

us; it says it is God's will that we "give thanks in all circumstances", good and

bad, godly and ungodly, for this is the attitude of heart and spirit that God desires

from us, because it is the attitude of faith that can open the door for God to work

in those circumstances, no matter how dark they may seem. Similarly, Romans

8:28 does not say that "all things" that happen to "those who love God" are

"good" but that "God works for the good of those who love him" in "all things" ,

i.e. in all circumstances, whether good or bad. God alone doesn't make history,

but even in the bad history we/men sometimes make God can work in, with and

through us: he is not excluded or nullified by our mistakes. (God does not cause

all circumstances, but he certainly can and does use all circumstances and work in

them for his purposes and our good.) Even Matthew 10:29 does not teach

absolute providence. The Greek original does not have "will"; we have inserted it

because the Greek has no definite object following "Father" and an exact

translation would be awkward ("Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart

from your Father"). In the light of the rest of Scripture (not to mention common

sense), we could better translate this text to mean "apart from your Father's

compassion" or concerned knowledge of this event. God does see our suffering

and his compassion is aroused by it (cf. Exodus 3:7) - so much so that he has

already sent his Son to begin the process of conquering and removing Satan, sin,

evil and suffering (and will one day send him again to complete the victory).

This aspect of God's providence, his government of human affairs and history, is

thus not absolute. Nevertheless, it is sure and real, and there is the certainty that in

broad outline (if not in all the details in between) God is moving the world and

history towards his purposed end (his purposes will be realized, his goal will be

reached). In particular, he carefully and caringly directs the Christian and the

Church, protecting, enabling, leading, watching over the spread of the Gospel and

the growth of his Kingdom. Ultimately, God does control history; our destiny is

not in the hands of luck/fate/chance/fortune/gods: spirits/ancestors/demons/etc but

in the hands of "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of

Lords"! (1 Tim 6:15)

c) Miracles

In the wide field of doctrine, miracles are normally included under Providence as

they represent God's special intrusion into the natural world (Preservation) or the

human world (Government) or both, with the aim of bringing faith and salvation

to man. Miracles are instances of God working outside of ordinary providence;

they are to be distinguished from the "ordinary" manifestations of divine power

(e.g. in preservation and government) which, on the whole, operate according to

set patterns and intelligible laws. They normally, but not always, work against

natural laws (some miracles are natural occurrences which become miraculous by

55

their significant timing or the revelation which accompanies them). But it is not

to be thought that God has to "break" eternal natural laws to perform miracles.

These natural laws are not eternal but created by God (he is their Master and not

vice-versa), and he is free to work without/above/against them. Both the created

laws normally in operation and God's occasional overriding of them are

providential (they care for and redeem man) and God is as free to employ one as

the other.

True miracles are never ends in themselves, an exercise of power for their own

sake (cf. trite or demonically-inspired "wonder-works"). They always serve a

significant purpose (cf. the "signs" in John's Gospel), normally to illustrate/prove

the message being spoken or to prove the authority of the messenger. The miracle

is always secondary to the truth - and the focus should thus be on the latter.

Miracles predominate in critical stages of salvation-history, when the survival of

truth or of God's people is in jeopardy, or when some great new revelation or

administration is being introduced by God (e.g. Moses, Elijah-Elisha, Jesus, the

early church). In both cases, the miracles are designed to vindicate the revelation

and salvation of God. They are assertions of God's omnipotence and sovereignty

(truths presently "hidden"); they are signs of God's Kingdom, instances of the

present age being invaded by the future age, when God's Rule will be "all in all".

6. MAN AND NATURE

a) Steward, not Lord

Man was given dominion over the earth, a mandate to multiply and fill it and to

rule over it, bringing God's order and blessing to the earth (Genesis 1:26-28,

2:15). But he does so as steward of, not Lord over, creation (Jesus alone is Lord

of Creation). He is thus accountable to God for how he looks after creation, how

he uses/abuses its flora, fauna and mineral resources, how he fulfils or fails to

fulfil his mandate towards it. Ecology, conservation, pollution, littering, etc are

thus very much "spiritual"/biblical matters, in which Christians should get

involved and not allow "Greens", New Agers, et al to have a self-righteous

monopoly.

In many other religious/cultural worldviews, man is considered part of the same

system/chain/organism as the rest of nature, and this leads to him treating nature

and natural resources with great sensitivity and respect (the recognition that his

welfare is dependent on nature's welfare). The western world, on the other hand,

has greedily devoured and polluted resources and placed man's very survival at

risk in consequence. Some have accused the Christian worldview which

undergirds western civilization of being responsible for this. But, while the

biblical revelation does make a distinction between man and the rest of nature,

placing man over creation as ruler of it, it cannot be blamed for western man's

56

“rape” of the earth. It is because man has distorted this position (made himself

into unaccountable lord rather accountable steward), it is because he has failed to

fulfil his biblical mandate (not because he has fulfilled it), that he has been guilty

of destroying his environment.

Far from being arrogant or irresponsible, the biblical worldview of man's

relationship with nature is by far the most sensible one. It is the only one which

holds in tension the truths of man being part of (and thus dependent on) nature

and separate from (ruler over) nature. The latter without the former leads to

arrogant abuse; the former without the latter leads to all kinds of cranky

"greenisms".

b) Harmony, not Enmity

Before the Fall, man's relationship with nature (including other creatures) was one

of total harmony; within nature there was also total harmony: no one creature

feared another and no creature preyed on another. All the animals came to Adam

and he named them (Genesis 2:19-20).

But, with the entry of sin, man suffered a fourfold alienation. Just his harmonious

relationship with God, himself and his fellow-man was broken, so also the state of

harmony between man and nature (including other creatures) was replaced by one

of enmity (Genesis 3:15). Man no longer lived easily off the land but had to

"sweat" and "toil" to survive (vv 17-19). Later, the fear of man was put into all

other creatures and, for the first time, man killed animals for food (Genesis 9:2-3;

cf. 1:29-30). Animals, conversely, began to prey on man (9:5) and each other,

and man stood in fear of them. These aspects of creation are clearly post-Fall

phenomena.

But, just as things were not always so, they will not always be so. Just as man

and the human world will one day be freed of all traces of sin and evil, and men

given glorious bodies for eternity, so the curse will one day be lifted (Revelation

22:3) and creation itself gloriously purified and renewed. In that day, man and

nature (and all nature within itself) will again dwell together in absolute harmony

(Isaiah 11:6-9, 35:9, 65:25; Ezekiel 34:25-30). We thus look forward not only to

our redemption but to the redemption of the creation (Romans 8:19-22 cf. v23); to

the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah 65:17, Revelation 21:1).

57


TRUTH ERROR

The material universe had a beginning (not

eternal) brought about by God‟s will and

act (not independent); moreover, it did not

begin in time but with time.

ATHEISM: The material universe is

eternal and independent of any

divine/external act/will.

Creation was an entirely new beginning by

God, who created out of nothing.

PLATONISM: God moulded/arranged pre-

existent matter, which was eternal (or from

a “past entity”)

God created in freedom and was not

compelled into creating; evil is not co-

eternal or co-equal with God but

“contained in” God‟s creation (i.e. it is

temporal and inferior”)

DUALISM: The world originated in, and is

the arena for, the cosmic struggle for

mastery between co-eternal and co-equal

Good and Evil (e.g. Parsaism,

Zoroastrianism)

While God is immanent (reflected in his

creation), He is also transcendent (distinct

from it); divine Creator vs. finite creation.

PANTHEISM: God is one with, present in,

and indivisible from, creation; the universe

is the external manifestation of the internal

animating deity (cf. body to soul)

Evolution‟s atheistic base is repudiated by

Scripture but the processes it postulates are

to be repudiated by science not scripture.

EVOLUTIONISM: “Scientific” theories

postulating the natural (vs supernatural)

processes by which life originated and

developed.

58

Chapter 4

THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS

In Lecture 3 (Doctrine of Creation) we looked at God's act of creation and the material

universe which resulted from this act. In Lecture 5 (Doctrine of Man) we will focus on

that creature which represents the crown of this material universe. But Scripture speaks

of two realms of creation, the visible (material, natural) and the invisible (spiritual,

supernatural)(Colossians 1:16; cf. Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 4:9, Ephesians 1:21,

3:10, 6:12). In short, this realm of creation is the world of angels - which of course

includes demons (fallen angels) and, more specifically, Satan (the prince of demons).

While Scripture is not clear on this matter, it would seem that the creation of the invisible

world preceded that of the visible world.

1. ANGELS

a) Existence (Do angels exist?)

The existence of angels can be neither proved nor disproved (empirically

speaking), but Christians accept both the testimony of Scripture and the testimony

of other Christians (who have had angelic visitations) in this regard. They appear,

or are spoken of, in 34 of the Bible's 66 books, from the oldest (whether Genesis

or Job) to the newest (there are 70 references to angels in Revelation). Clearly,

the belief in angels was not limited to a particular "superstitious" period in Israel's

history. Furthermore, Jesus assumed their existence; and he spoke of them on

occasions when he couldn't possibly have been "playing to the grandstand"

(pandering to the myths of the day to win popularity)(Matthew 18:10, 26:53).

b) Person (What are angels like?)

(i) Angels are created beings, the creatures that "inhabit" the invisible world.

Thus they are not divine (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). They were created by God to

serve him and his purposes (see below).

(ii) Angels are personal beings. They possess intelligence (1 Peter 1:12), emotion

(Luke 2:13, 15:10) and will (Jude 6).

(iii) Angels are spirit beings, both similar to and yet different from the way in

which "God is Spirit". They are spatially limited by having some sort of angelic

body yet not as limited as man is. They have voices and a language (1

Corinthians 13:1); and feet, faces and wings (Isaiah 6:2, Acts 6:15). They are

apparently sexless (their designation without exception as masculine [e.g. Genesis

18:1-2] is probably a literary convention: the alternative - "it" - would deny their

59

personhood). Certainly, they do not reproduce (baby angels are never born) and

they do not marry (Mark 12:25). Lastly, although angels are "spirits" (Hebrews

1:14), this does not mean that they are unable to assume a visible form. Indeed,

they have often appeared as, and have been mistaken for, men (Jude 13:16,

Hebrews 13:2).

(iv) Angels do not die (Luke 20:36). This of course does not mean that they are

eternal as God is eternal (possessing eternity in themselves). Theirs is a received

eternity, given to them by God. On the other hand, it is not the same kind of

received eternity that man in his original and glorified states receives from God.

For man, when he sins, forfeits his eternal destiny and dies completely; but

angels, when they sin, continue to live. They are eternally alive, whether under

blessing or under judgement. They do not have to be "raised from the dead " to

be judged and sent to hell.

(v) Angels are perfect (unfallen angels, that is). Because they are sinless, they

live in the presence of God. Thus they are habitually associated with heaven

(Psalm 78:25, Matthew 18:10, Galatians 1:8). It is because of this perfect state

and heavenly habitat that angels apparently possess a radiance (they reflect God's

glory)(Acts 6:15, 2 Corinthians 11:14).

(vi) For both of these reasons - viz. they are "eternal" and perfect - angels

represent a higher order of creation to man (Psalm 8:3-8, 1 Timothy 5:1). But, of

course, they are below Jesus (Hebrews 1, Ephesians 1:20-21, 1 Peter 3:22) -

except during the Incarnation, when Jesus became man (Heb 2:5-9).

(vii) Angels are innumerable (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11). While the Bible

does not say so explicitly, and while God is both free and able to

continuously/recurringly create angels throughout time, it seems that all the

angels who exist were created together at the beginning of time (and that all those

who will fall did so some time afterwards).

(viii) Angels are organized and ranked (Matthew 26:53, Eph 1:20-21, 3:10, 6:12,

1 Peter 3:22). Michael is the only angel designated an archangel (Jude 9) but there

may be others as he is called "one of the chief princes" in Daniel 10:13. This is as

far as revelation goes concerning angelic organization and ranking. Any attempt

to go beyond this (and there have been many), to establish detailed hierarchies

with names for each rank and of specific angels in each rank, is both unbiblical

and unnecessary.

c) Work (What do angels do?)

Angels are ministers/servants/messengers (the Hebrew for "angel" means

messenger). They minister to-

(i) God. They serve God and his purposes on the earth (Psalm 103:20-21, 104:5

60

[cf. Hebrews 1:7]). They are members of the heavenly council who stand in the

presence of God (Job 1:16). In particular, the seraphim (seemingly a certain class

of angels) surround God's throne, worshipping him continuously (Isaiah 6:1-3; cf.

Revelation 4:6-9, 5:11-12). The cherubim (another class) guard God's holiness

(Genesis 3:24), and are sensitive to right worship (1 Corinthians 11:10) and living

(1 Timothy 5:21). It must be remembered that God was not forced to create/use

angels: he chose to do so. (He created them in his free love as he did man.)

(ii) Christ. There was an extra measure of angelic activity during Jesus' life.

Angels predicted his birth (Luke 1:26-33); they announced his birth (Luke 2:9-

14); they protected him as a baby (Matthew 2:13); they strengthened him after his

temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:11); they were available to defend him at

his arrest (Matthew 26:53); they strengthened him in Gethsemane (Luke 22:43);

they rolled the stone away from his tomb and announced his resurrection

(Matthew 28:2&6). In short, they were agents/mediators of revelation, protection

(defence), provision (sustenance) and direction (guidance).

(iii) Israel. Angels were also prominent in Israel. They were involved in the

central events of her history: the deliverance from Egypt and the journey through

the wilderness to the Promised Land (Exodus 14:19, 23:20, Judges 2:1); the

receiving of the Law at Mt. Sinai (Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalm 68:17, Acts

7:38&53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2). The archangel Michael is called the

protector of Israel (Daniel 12:1). Most of the notable individuals in Israel had

angelic experiences, including: Abraham (Genesis 22:11); Hagar (Genesis 16:7);

Balaam (Numbers 22:23); Gideon (Judges 6:11); Samson (Judges 13:3); David (2

Samuel 24:16); Elijah (1 Kings 19:5); Elisha (2 Kings 6:15-17); Hezekiah (2

Kings 19:35). The same four functions as towards Christ can be observed

(revelation, protection, provision, direction); to these we can add a fifth:

judgement.

(iv) Church. Angels continue to minister to believers today in these same areas

(Hebrews 1:14, Psalm 34:7, 91:11-12 [cf. Matthew 4:6, Luke 4:10]). In the New

Testament they are seen to be involved in: answering prayer and delivering

believers (Acts 12:7); encouraging and directing believers in times of danger

(Acts 27:23-24); caring for believers at death (Luke 16:22, Jude 9); mediating

revelation (Revelation 1:1). That each individual believer has a personal

"guardian angel" is possible (from Matthew 18:10, Acts 12:15, Hebrews 1:14) but

not conclusive; similarly, the question of whether each church has a "guardian

angel" (Revelation 1:20).

(v) World. Angels bring death/judgement on unbelievers (Acts 12:23, 2

Thessalonians 1:7), execute God's judgements on mankind (Revelation 8,9,16),

separate the righteous from the wicked at the end of the age and throw the wicked

into hell (Matthew 13:39-42&49-50).

61

d) Conclusions (Men & Angels)

(i) Men and angels are totally distinct beings belonging to different realms of

creation. Thus, contrary to popular impression or the belief of certain cults, men

neither were nor will become angels.

(ii) Men currently represent a lower order of creation (Psalm 8:5) but will one day

represent a higher order (e.g. Paul speaks of us judging [evil] angels [1

Corinthians 6:3]). Man is the crown of all God's creative acts; man alone is made

in the image of God.

(iii) Our proper attitude towards angels is respect (and thanksgiving to God for

creating them to minister to us) not worship. Sectarian beliefs have always landed

up either worshipping angels (e.g. the Colossian heresy [Colossians 2:18]) or

unduly exalting them (e.g. first-century Judaism, and thus perhaps the early

Jewish believers addressed in Hebrews 1:4 & 2:5).

(iv) Angels inhabit a different realm of creation, one in which we do not live and

which ordinarily we do not see. Of course, this realm does occasionally break

into ours (angelic visitations) but only when God sovereignly decides and

graciously grants it. There is no hint in Scripture that we can manipulate such

visitations, or even that we should seek them, or that in any way angels should be

a focus of our attention, or that we can talk to angels (outside of sovereignly

granted visitations), or that we should pray to them, or that we can command them

(although we can ask God to command angels to come to our aid [cf. Psalm

91:11]). Angels are mediators of revelation, not of prayer (angels may carry the

prayers of the saints to God but they do not plead them on our behalf [Revelation

8:4]), nor of worship (the Colossian heresy, for example, thought that God was so

superior to and thus removed from man that man could only worship him through

the angels that 'emanated' from him).

(v) We are told a fair bit about angels (certainly everything we need to know) but

certainly not everything (relative to other topics, very little space is given to them

in Scripture). We need to accept the limits of revelation here (Deuteronomy

29:29) and not strive for further insight into "hidden things" - e.g. by establishing

the elaborate hierarchies mentioned earlier. A common feature of many cults is

an overemphasis on, or claimed "new revelation" about, angels (e.g. an angelic

hierarchy figured prominently in the Colossian heresy [Colossians 1:16]).

2. SATAN

a) Existence

Like that of angels, Satan's existence, empirically speaking, can be neither proved

nor disproved. The Bible and Jesus, however, testify unequivocally to his

62

existence, as do the individual and collective testimonies of mankind. Satan has

real existence, but we must avoid the equal yet opposite errors of dismissal and

obsession (Satan is as happy with Hume as with Faust, with a liberal theologian as

with a witch).

b) Person

Satan is an angel, belonging to that order and realm of creation. As such, he is -

A created being (Ezekiel 28:13&15). He is not divine, and does not possess

omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. And God can (and does) place

additional limitations on him (Job 1:12). As an angel he represents a higher order

of creation to man, and thus is more powerful than man - but we should no more

exaggerate than downplay his power. It is not: God vs Satan; but simply: GOD!

(and good angels vs half as many evil angels).

A personal being. Satan possesses intelligence (2 Corinthians 11:3), emotions

(Revelation 12:17) and will (2 Timothy 2:26). God regards him as morally

responsible (Matthew 25:41).

A spirit being. Yet, like good angels, he both has an angelic body and is able to

assume other (deceptive) forms (Genesis 3:1).

He was perhaps a senior or powerful angel (e.g. an archangel) but this is not

definite.

In particular, he belonged to that class of angels known as cherubim (Ezekiel

28:14& 16). He was anointed and ordained to guard God's throne and minister to

him as a priestly angel (v13). As such he possessed great beauty/splendour and

wisdom (vv12&17) and occupied a prominent and privileged position (vv14&16).

c) Fall

But, of course, Satan is also a fallen (evil) angel. How did this happen?

Satan's sin, the cause of his downfall, was proud ambition: not content to be a

creature he wanted to be divine; not content with his already exalted place he

wanted to be equal to, and even higher than, God (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:12-

17, 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan sinned of his own volition (in freedom) and with full

knowledge, and is thus fully responsible for his act.

This proud ambition (to be God) leads automatically to a rebellious independence

from and against God. It is the root (first) sin, that which led to the fall of all

fallen angels and of all men (notice how man fell to the same temptation as Satan:

Genesis 3:5).

63

This is all that the Bible says about the origin of evil, but it is enough to refute the

two explanations of evil found in the religions/philosophies of the world, Monism

(good and evil are contained in : caused by the same one God) and Dualism (good

and evil are the forces/emanations of two co-equal and co-eternal Gods struggling

for mastery). Against these, the Biblical revelation is that evil is "contained in"

God's creation (although not contained in God himself, or created by God). Thus

evil is not co-eternal or co-equal with God: it is temporal and inferior; and it is

this truth which gives us the certainty that it can and will be conquered and

eradicated.

From this origin in the invisible realm of creation (heaven), evil was brought to

the visible realm (earth) by Satan - but through the cooperation of man (man

shared the dominion over the earth he had received from God with Satan).

Ultimately, then, Satan is the author of all evil, responsible for all sin and its

effects on the earth (both natural and human disasters: Job 1 & 2), but this does

not absolve man of his responsibility.

d) Nature

Through his sin, Satan irrevocably lost his exalted position. Especially galling as

this loss and humiliation is to one so proud and ambitious, his nature has become

angry, hateful, resentful, bitter, vengeful, violent, corrupt, devious, deceitful,

treacherous. Scripture describes him as "the thief [who] comes only to steal and

kill and destroy" (John 10:10); as the one who "has been sinning from the

beginning" (1 John 3:8) and who "was a murderer from the beginning "; the one

in whom "there is no truth" and who is "a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

In short, Satan is absolutely and irredeemably evil.

Satan's names, like God's, reveal much about his character. "Satan" means

accuser in Hebrew. "Devil" means slanderer. He is called the "tempter" (1

Thessalonians 3:5), the "evil one" (John 17:15, 1 John 5:19), the "prince of

demons" (Matthew 12:24), the "great dragon" and the "ancient serpent"

(Revelation 12:9). "Lucifer" is the Latin translation of the Hebrew phrase

translated "morning star" (Isaiah 14:12). "Beelzebub" is the English translation

("Beelzeboul" the Greek) of the Hebrew "Baal-Zebub", meaning "Lord of Flies",

which was a mocking parody of Yahweh's rival, "Baal-Zebul" ("Exalted Baal"),

and which came to be used of Satan (Matthew 12:26 cf. v27).

e) Goal

(i) To gain revenge on God by attacking/corrupting/destroying all God's works of

creation (the universe, especially man) and redemption (Israel, Christ, the

Church/Christians) so that God's purposes are not achieved and God receives no

glory through them. Thus he attempts to destroy the Christian's faith, or at least to

render it ineffective - not because the Christian is important to him but because

he/she represents a means of taking revenge on God.

64

(ii) To promote an alternative world system in opposition to God and his

Kingdom, of which he, Satan, is the head. To do this he counterfeits God's

programme and Kingdom, attempting to build the same thing but illegally and

with shortcuts (Luke 4:5-7).

(iii) Through both of the above, to gain glory and worship for himself (to be

hailed as God). He is still obsessed with and driven by the same proud ambition

that led to his fall (Luke 4:7).

f) Strategies

Though impassioned and enraged, Satan employs various cunning schemes to

achieve his objectives (Genesis 3:1, 2 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 6:11). On the

whole there are two approaches.

(i) He gets unbelievers and believers to destroy themselves (the former by missing

their possible salvation, the latter by hamstringing their realized salvation),

through: disguise and deception (Genesis 3:4, Matthew 13:38-39, John 8:43, 2

Corinthians 4:4, 11:14, Ephesians 2:2); doubt (Genesis 3:1, Mark 4:15);

temptation (Genesis 3:6, Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5); or open defiance/rebellion

(Genesis 3:5). Once successful in these, he further undermines faith through

accusation/slander (Revelation 12:11) and condemnation.

(ii) He directly attacks believers and unbelievers, destroying them himself,

through: hindering (1 Thessalonians 2:18); persecuting (Revelation 2:10); and

devouring (Job 1 & 2, Luke 13:6, 1 Peter 5:8). Once successful here he further

undermines faith through doubt, discouragement and unbelief.

g) Status

The accounts of Satan's sin and downfall show him being thrown from heaven to

earth (Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:17). He was barred from his original privileged

position in heaven but he still had access to heaven (Job 1:6 & 2:1).

By subsequently succeeding in getting man to give to him the dominion over the

earth he (man) had received from God (Genesis 1:28), Satan became "the prince

of this world" (Luke 4:5-8, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians

2:2, 6:12, 1 John 5:19). But, from the very moment of his successful engineering

of the Fall of man, his eventual defeat (at the hands of a man) is prophesied

(Genesis 3:15).

The prophecy, of course, referred to Jesus' first coming, as the "offspring" of a

"woman" (cf. Galatians 4:4), and it was through the Incarnation (especially the

Crucifixion) that Jesus won the decisive victory over Satan and evil. The days of

his ministry saw a decisive change in the status and power of Satan and his

demons: they were "cast out", "bound", "disarmed" and defeated (Matthew 12:28-

65

29, Luke 10:17-19, John 12:31, Colossians 2:15, Revelation 12:13, 20:1-3&7-9).

[The last two texts are sometimes said to refer to different, later judgements on

Satan - at the beginnings of the Tribulation and Millennium respectively. But

such an interpretation is forced on the text by a presupposed approach to the book

of Revelation (futurist) and an assumed eschatological position (dispensational

premillenialism). Outside of these schemes there is no need to interpret them in

this way; and, indeed, to interpret them as referring to the Incarnation and the

process begun with Christ's first coming is hermeneutically better.]

Consequently, throughout the church age, the period between Christ's comings,

the church is involved in "mopping-up" operations, putting into effect the victory

over evil won by Christ on Calvary, robbing the now bound strong man of his

possessions; and through this, Christ is in the process of putting all things under

his feet (Matthew 16:18, Mark 16:7, Luke 9:1, Romans 16:20, 1 Corinthians

15:24-28, Ephesians 1:20-22, Hebrews 2:5-9, 1 John 3:8, Revelation 11:15).

At the end of the age, when Christ comes a second time, he will fully and finally

execute the judgement he delivered (and he, with the church, began the process of

executing) at his first coming. Satan's final destiny is definite, absolute defeat and

eternal punishment (Revelation 20:10). With his defeat and overthrow, all sin and

evil (which originated with him) is conquered and eradicated (Revelation

21:4&8&27, 22:3).

3. DEMONS

a) Existence

Again, the existence of demons can be neither proved nor disproved, but Jesus

and the Bible speak of their existence, as do the testimonies of many individuals

who either were/are demonized or were/are involved in delivering the demonized.

b) Person

Biblically (cf. Islam, and various other beliefs), demons belong to the same order

of creation as angels. They are simply, like Satan, fallen/evil angels (Matthew

25:41, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, Revelation 12:7&9).

Thus they are created beings and are not divine, omnipresent, etc. Their great

number is what makes Satan seem omnipresent, but demons are not actually

everywhere at once. They are personal beings. Their intelligence, for example, is

shown in their knowledge of Jesus' true identity (Mark 1:24), their knowledge of

salvation (James 2:19), their knowledge of their destiny (Matthew 8:29, Luke

8:31), and in their having their own system of (perverted) doctrine (1 Timothy

4:1-3). They are spirit beings. Indeed, they are often referred to as evil or

unclean spirits (Matthew 17:18 cf. Mark 9:25).

66

These angels fell with Satan. They may have been coerced/deceived, but they are

fully responsible for their decision. Possibly one third of all angels fell

(Revelation 12:4).

As they were before their fall, demons are organized and ranked (Ephesians 6:12).

Some possess a certain freedom to oppose God; others are confined (2 Peter 2:4,

Jude 6). Even amongst the former group there are some whose freedom is

restricted to certain periods of history and certain functions (Revelation 9:14,

16:14).

c) Work

Demons aid Satan in his goals of opposing God and God's people (by attacking:

corrupting/destroying God's works of creation and redemption) and deceiving the

world into an opposing world system with Satan as its head. In pursuing these

goals they employ any or all of the Satanic strategies listed above. But it must not

be thought that the same order, obedience, submission and harmony that

characterize God's angelic army are to be found in the demonic counterpart: there

the irredeemably corrupt nature of fallen angels finds expression in chaos,

disobedience, ambition and division, and any "cooperation" achieved is done so

purely through intimidation and manipulation.

In particular, demons are seen to inflict diseases (Matthew 9:32-33, 10:8, 17:15,

Mark 6:13, Luke 13:11&16), possess men (Luke 8:27&30, 11:24-26) and animals

(Mark 5:13, Luke 8:32), and promote false religion/doctrine (Deuteronomy 32:17,

1 Timothy 4:1).

But they operate always under God's absolute authority and power. Indeed, God

can control and use them for his own purposes (1 Samuel 16:14, 2 Corinthians

12:7).

ALL

ANGELS

DEMONS

(fallen)

ANGELS

(unfallen) ACTIVE

DEMONS

CONFINED

DEMONS

TEMPORARILY

RESTRICTED

DEMONS

LOOSE

DEMONS

67

Scripture hints of: (i) demons operating not only on individuals but on nations, of

demon powers over nations (demons rulers working behind and through human

rulers) controlling/deceiving them (Isaiah 14:4-20, 24:21, Ezekiel 28:1-19, Daniel

10:13&20, Revelation 16:13-14); and (ii) of angelic warfare in heaven which

effects events on earth (Revelation 12:7).

d) Status

Demons lost their heavenly position and privileges at their own fall; they received

dominion on the earth at the Fall of man; but they suffered the same change in

status as Satan (loss of power and authority) at Christ's first coming.

Nevertheless, loose demons continue to work anywhere in the world where they

are given a foothold. But the church, because it operates in the Name of Jesus,

who has bound Satan (Matthew 12:28-29) and disarmed his troops (Colossians

2:15), has the same authority as Jesus had (Matthew 28:18) to cast out demons

and bind their operation wherever in the advance of God's Kingdom they

encounter them (Mark 16:17-18, Luke 9:1-2, 10:17-19, 1 John 4:4).

Some demons, as we have seen, have already been confined since the Fall and

others quite possibly have been confined since the Incarnation (Mw 8:29, Lk

8:31); yet others are presently confined but will be temporarily released for

specific work. But the final destiny of all demons, to be executed at Jesus' return,

is total defeat, absolute judgement and eternal punishment with Satan in hell (Mw

25:41).

e) Conclusions

(i) As with angels, we need to accept the limits of revelation regarding demons.

We know what we need to know about them but this is still relatively little.

Scripture gives no hierarchy of demons, with the names of the different ranks and

of individual demons occupying each rank; it gives no definitive grouping of

demons into different classes or "sin-types"; and, again, any attempt to construct

either of these is both unbiblical and unnecessary. Our authority over demons is

not dependent on us knowing these things. As before, we must avoid the cultic

tendency to overemphasis or "new revelation".

(ii) It is the task of doctrinal studies to deal with the doctrinal content of Christian

belief rather than the practical outworking of these truths in the life and ministry

of the Christian and the church. Nevertheless, on this occasion I would like to

include the following guidelines for the Christian's/church's spiritual warfare as

important consequences of the doctrine of angels and demons formally set out in

the preceding pages.

1. We should never get so consumed with spiritual warfare that we focus

68

more on Satan and his work than we need to and/or ascribe all sorts of

things to his handiwork when they are nothing of the sort. Both of these

only result in giving him attention and glory - the very thing he so

maniacally desires and pursues.

2. We should never get so distracted by spiritual warfare "in the

heavenlies" that we neglect our mandate down on the earth - to witness,

heal the sick, feed the poor, etc - the simple but concrete acts commanded

in Scripture that extend the kingdom of God on the ground. (Let me use a

military analogy: you have not really conquered an enemy and taken his

territory until you stand victorious on the land. Aerial warfare is helpful,

indeed necessary, both to protect your own forces on the ground and to

soften-up his in preparation for a land invasion, but you have not won the

war when you've merely won control of the skies; only when you've done

it on the ground, when you've changed ownership there, is the job truly

done.)

3. Indeed, we need to be careful not to define "spiritual warfare" too

narrowly - i.e. as something done only in prayer. Every concrete act for

God is part of our spiritual warfare because it reverses sin and its effects

(what Satan comes to promote) and thereby opposes Satan and pushes

back his dominion: witnessing undoes his ignorance/deception; conversion

undoes his unbelief/death; healing the sick undoes his disease; feeding the

poor and other social action undoes his poverty; standing for justice

undoes his oppression; etc.

4. Of course, the prayer component of spiritual warfare is legitimate and

important. It is simply another form of intercession: moving God to move

demons cf. moving God to move men.

5. However, if we ever have cause to address demons, we must not do so

slanderously and arrogantly (2 Peter 2:10-11, Jude 8-10).

6. Nevertheless, whatever the form of spiritual warfare we are involved in

(prayer, deliverance or any other), we are never to fear Satan or his

demons, for in Jesus we have total authority (Luke 10:19) and certain

victory!

69

Chapter 5

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN

Chapter Outline: A : MAN IN THE CREATED STATE

A Creature...

1. Created by God

2. Of Several Parts

3. In the Image of God

4. For Covenant Relationship

5. Destined for Immortality

B : MAN IN THE FALLEN STATE

(including: The Doctrine of Sin)

6. The Entry of Sin

7. Why did God allow Sin?

8. The Nature of Sin

9. The Effects of Sin

10. The Extent of Sin

INTRODUCTION

a) Biblical vs Humanist Anthropology

"What is man?" is one of the most basic and repeated questions asked by man (cf.

Psalm 8:4). But the truth about man doesn't come from man himself but from

God. (There is a world of difference between biblical and humanist

anthropology!) Surely a creature can only be truly defined by a Being higher than

itself; surely a fallen creature, whose deepest instinct is to pride (and vanity and

self-deception) cannot be relied upon to give a true definition of himself. Here we

must recall what was said in Chapter 1.3:

Not only does revelation lead to true God (vs. the false gods of our invention) but

also to true man. Revelation means that theology and theologizing do not start

with man but with God. In all other realms of knowledge, man is the subject (he

who initiates and conducts the study) and the field in question is the object (that

which is studied). In theology, however, man is only truly known and defined by

God (his own understanding of himself is always distorted by his sinful nature).

If man wants to know not only who God really is but who he really is, he must

submit to what God says about him - that is, he must submit to revelation. In

theology, then, God is the subject and man the object - and man can only study

God once he has learnt and accepted God's study of him. Put differently: in all

other disciplines, man is above the object of knowledge; here man is below that

which he desires to know.

70

We go to revelation (Scripture), therefore, for the truth about man.

b) The Four States of Man

The biblical revelation about man shows man in four states: the created state

(Creation - Fall); the fallen state (Fall - Christ's Return); the redeemed state

(Incarnation - Christ's Return); the glorified state (Christ's Return - Eternity). The

condition of man in the last two states will be dealt with in Chapter 8 (Doctrine of

Salvation) and Chapter 10 (Doctrine of Last Things) respectively; here we deal

only with man in the created and fallen states.

A : MAN IN THE CREATED STATE

1. CREATED BY GOD

a) A finite creature

Man was created by God (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). He is thus a finite creature. He has

never been, is not, and will never be, divine ("little gods"). The fact that man was

created in the image of God, and that, in the redeemed state, he can "participate in

the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), does not assert divinity. (What it does mean we

shall see shortly.) Here we recall the rejection of the birth concept in the biblical

creation narratives (Chapter 3.2): man/nature were not born from God (making

them divine) but created by God (there is a radical difference/divide between God

and all of his creation, including man). Similarly, while the genealogies of the

ancestors of the human race in other religions go back to God (or the gods), those

in the Bible do not; they begin with the first man (e.g. Genesis 5:1-3. The single

exception, Luke 3:38, must be interpreted in this light.) In this doctrine (man's

finiteness as a creature) lies a major difference between Christianity and many

(perhaps most) religions and cults.

b) An accountable creature

That man was created by God leads automatically to the truth that there is

Someone outside of man to whom he owes his existence (and hence his loyalty

and service) and to whom, therefore, he is answerable/accountable for his life.

Man is not his own master, answerable only to himself. (This truth also sets

Christianity radically apart from humanism, et al.) It means that man is neither

the master of his own fate nor is he at the mercy of "fate" (but his welfare and

future lie in the hands of God).

c) A communal creature

The human race is one (the communality of all mankind), derived from a single

origin (Acts 17:26). Man was made for relationship not only with God but with

71

each other; without these he is not fully man. We are our "brother's keeper"

(Genesis 4:9). We share responsibility for the actions of the human race; we

share in the effects, good or bad, of these actions.

2. OF SEVERAL PARTS?

a) Two, three, four or more parts?

For centuries a furious debate has raged within theology about whether man is

two, three, four or even more parts! Certainly, we seem to experience different

(even antagonistic) parts within ourselves (Romans 7:14-25). And Scripture

seems to identify different parts: flesh (basar [Hebrew]:sarx [Greek]); soul

(nephesh/psyche); heart (leb/kardia); spirit (ruarch/pneuma); etc. But does

Scripture give a definitive division of man into parts?

Some assert the bipartite (two-part) nature of man - material (body/flesh) and

immaterial (all the rest) - and point to certain texts to prove their position (e.g.

Genesis 2:7, Ecclesiastes 3:20-21, Matthew 10:28, 26:41). But which are the two

parts? Three of these texts speak of body (or flesh) and spirit, but the other

speaks of body and soul. Are spirit and soul then the same. But then what about

Hebrews 4:12, that says that spirit and soul can be divided (i.e. distinguished)?

Others assert the tripartite (three-part) nature of man, quoting i.a. 1 Thessalonians

5:23, Hebrews 4:12, Luke 1:46-47. But if man is three parts, which three is he?

These texts delineate body, soul and spirit. Deuteronomy 6:5 also implies three

parts but delineates them as heart, soul and strength. And Jesus, quoting this text,

changes it to heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37)! Already we can see that

terms are used interchangeably and without precisely defined or mutually

exclusive reference (some of them have the same, or at least overlapping,

meanings). Indeed, the parallelism (the convention of saying the same thing in

two different ways) of Luke 1:46-47, for example, indicates that "soul" and

"spirit" are being used interchangeably here, with the same or at least similar

meaning(s).

Yet others argue for a quadpartite (four-part) nature. Luke 2:52 implies four parts

to man's existence (in categories rather different to the above). In Mark 12:30

Jesus "expands" Deuteronomy 6:5 from three into four parts, and delineates them

as heart, soul, mind and strength. His questioner immediately gives this back to

him as heart, understanding and strength (three parts) without correction from

Jesus, Mark or the Holy Spirit! What is quite clear is that Moses, Jesus, Paul and

others, on numerous occasions, sought to communicate that the whole of man is

involved in something (e.g. in loving God, or being protected by him) and that, to

make the point, they listed various (altogether nine!) "parts" of man to emphasize

this wholeness of involvement; but it is obvious that on no one occasion did any

of them mean to offer a definitive and precise division of man into parts (it is his

72

unity or wholeness being emphasized, not his division or parts). No one

"division" can be taken as authoritive; if we do, it becomes contradicted by all the

other "divisions".

We can add yet other information to demonstrate how difficult, if not impossible,

it is to divide man up into distinct parts. The heart, for example, is said variously

to be the seat of man's intellect (Matthew 15:19-20), emotion (Psalm 37:4,

Romans 9:2), volition (Exodus 7:23, Hebrews 4:7) and spirit (Romans 10:9-10,

Ephesians 3:17), and is thus clearly not a distinct "part" within man. Soul and

spirit are used interchangeably (Matthew 10:28 cf. Luke 23:46) and given similar

properties: both can magnify God (Matthew 22:37 cf. Luke 1:46-47); both can be

corrupted (1 Peter 2:11 cf. 2 Corinthians 7:1). And the distinction between soul

and spirit, where it is made, refers not to different parts within man but the

difference between saved (spiritual) and unsaved (soulish) man (1 Corinthians

2:14-15; cf. Jude 19).

The answer, then, to our question, "Does Scripture give a definitive division of

man into parts?" is no. However, this does not mean that we cannot carry one or

more of these schemes around with us as helpful to understanding our nature and

behaviour or our relationship with God and our walk with him in this world. But

such schemes are experiential/devotional rather than strictly doctrinal/biblical,

and they are never absolute (there is more than one legitimate way of defining

man).

b) A Unity

If there is one way in which the Bible views man more than any other it is to

regard him as a unity, an integrated whole rather than a fragmented composite.

The body, soul, etc are not distinct components of man but different aspects of the

whole man's life and activity in the world (man as worshipper of God, member of

society, etc). As we have already seen, the whole man, as a unity, is to love God,

etc.

Moreover, the whole man is created by God (Genesis 2:7) and is creaturely/finite.

There is no part of man (e.g. the soul) that is inherently eternal, that possesses life

in itself, and so existed before birth (e.g. Mormonism) or continues to exist after

death ("the immortality of the soul" is a Greek idea, not a biblical one). The

whole man begins at his conception - not just the body, into which God "inserts"

the soul at some point. (The exact timing of this insertion has been the subject of

lengthy debate amongst theologians!) Man the unity creates man the unity.

Human procreation is brought about through human decision/will (cf. Jesus'

conception: John 1:13) - an illustration of the real privilege of man to create and

the real power of man to affect history: human conception, like other events in

man's world, is not just the acting out of God's blueprint. We create people, not

God (or how would we account for children of rape, etc?) Conversely, the whole

man dies at death - and would remain dead were it not for God's sovereign and

73

gracious decision to grant life after death, first in the intermediate state (an

immaterial existence with Christ after death) and then in the final state (the

resurrection of the body on the new earth at the end of time). Unbelievers,

similarly, die in completion and then are raised to an eternal existence by God's

decision. (N.B. It should be clear that I am not advocating annihilation [see

Chapter 10]. There is life after death for both the righteous and unrighteous. I am

only asserting that any such life is purely the result of God's intervention, because

man in himself, or any part of him, is not inherently immortal.)

A further consequence of man being a unity is that the whole of man, as created

by God, including his body, is good. The Bible rejects the dualistic idea prevalent

in so many philosophies/religions (e.g. Platonism, Hinduism) that the body

(matter) is evil (inferior) and the soul (spirit) is good (superior); that the body is at

best a temporary abode for the soul, at worst an impediment to it; and that

salvation thus entails denying/subduing the body, or freeing the soul from the

body so that it can ascend to (unite with) God. This lie has even held sway in

much Christian thinking over the centuries - but, as we have noted, its root lies

not in the Bible but in Greek philosophy. Man is essentially body as much as he is

soul/spirit. The body was created by God for man's blessing; God incarnated

himself in a human body (John 1:14), and his broken body and the resurrection of

his body bought our salvation (Matthew 26:26); the body is the temple of the

Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). How can the body be evil? True, it is fallen, but

this does not mean that it needs to be destroyed, only that it needs to be purified,

renewed and glorified. Thus the Hebraic conception of the afterlife is very

physical; the biblical hope is the resurrection of the body. In the meantime, we

offer our bodies not to sin but to God (Romans 6:13, 12:1); we look after our

bodies (Ephesians 5:29); we glorify God in our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:20); we

long for the redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:23). God created man as a

unity, a whole, and the whole of man for eternity, including his body; and while

sin has meant that our bodies are fallen and need to be renewed (which "part" of

us does not?), God has not deviated from his original plan.

3. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Genesis 1 makes it clear that man was the result of a special, unique

creative act by God: he was the subject of deliberation within the Godhead prior to his

creation (Genesis 1:26); and he was made in the image/likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-30,

5:1, 1 Corinthians 11:7, James 3:9).

Clearly, this does not mean that man has God's physical form (for God has no form:

Deuteronomy 4:15-19); nor that man is an incarnation of God, a "little god" (see above);

nor that man possesses inherent goodness/perfection apart from God. Man was righteous

in the unfallen state but this was not inherent: he required tuition in righteousness (God

had to teach him his will) and his remaining righteous depended on his relationship with

God (his upholding of God's will). He failed to do this and so lost his righteousness.

74

As to what is the content of the image of God in man, theologians have wrestled for

centuries. Some have suggested it is substantial: some "part" of man not shared by

animals (e.g. his spirit, or soul, or intelligence, or will, etc) constitutes the image of God

in man. Others say it refers to man as a personal being: like God, but unlike the animals,

he possesses self-consciousness, the power of abstract thought, etc. Some say it is

relational: man's ability to be in relationship with God and his fellow men. Others

contend that it refers to man's moral awareness and nature (man possesses a moral, not

physical, likeness of God); or to his privileged ability to create "out of nothing"

(artworks, implements, buildings, etc)(cf. the mere reproductive ability of animals); or to

his rulership ability and function, his having dominion over all living things and over

history.

It is quite permissible to accept all of these views as expressing facets of what it means to

have been made in the image of God. But the best understanding of the image, at once

the most simple and the most comprehensive, comes when we remember that an image of

something is a reflection or likeness of that thing. To be created in the image of God

means, therefore, that we can (and should) reflect God, that we should be like him. We

are to reflect and thus represent God on the earth, bringing his nature and ways into our

dominion over it. Thus every single thing of which it is said in the Bible, "Be _____ for

God is _____", or "Put off _____ and put on _____", constitutes the image of God in man

(once lost, but now being restored). All of the multitude of admonitions in the Bible

about how we should think, speak and act, taken together, make up our imaging (or

reflecting) of God (Leviticus 19:2, Micah 6:8, Matthew 5:48, Ephesians 4:22- 5:10,

Colossians 3:1-16). The Bible makes these exhortations, and God can have these

expectation of us, precisely because we are created in his image and so are able to be/live

like this.

The consequences of man being created in God's image (vs animals) are that man is

unique, is set apart from nature while being part of it, and belongs to a higher order of

creation than anything else in the material universe. His life thus has a higher value and

dignity than the existence of other creatures (Genesis 9:1-6).

4. FOR COVENANT RELATIONSHIP

Man was not created simply to exist, or only to enjoy creation and rule over it, but to

walk in and enjoy relationship with God: God created him, out of sheer goodness, to

share in his eternal and blessed fellowship of love and joy of life. The nature of this

relationship is, always has been and always will be, that of covenant. That God walked

in covenant with man from the first (i.e. with the first man) is clearly implied in Genesis

2 and 3. This same covenant of grace God pursues throughout the Bible and throughout

history until it is finally and fully fulfilled on the new earth (Revelation 21:3). In fact, as

we have seen (Chapter 3.3), the fulfilment of the covenant can be seen as the purpose and

goal of the whole creation: eternally, the earth (and the new earth) are the arena for

covenant, the place where God can live with man and be their God and they his people.

75

The covenant can thus also be said to be the purpose and goal of man: the responsible yet

privileged, blessed and eternal fellowship between God and man, his creative

masterpiece, the glory and crown of his creation, for whom everything else was made.

5. DESTINED FOR IMMORTALITY

The nature of man's creation - as a creature in God's image, created to share in God's

eternal love and life, and to walk in covenant with him - make it impossible to believe

that man was not destined for immortality. This is not to say that man is eternal (he is

clearly finite, not having existed from all time but having been created in time: see 1

above). Nor does it mean that, once having been created, some part of man (e.g. his soul)

possessed eternity (the whole man is creaturely and thus finite, and the whole man

consequently dies at death: see 2 above). It means simply that man (unlike other

creatures) was created with a capacity/potential, and thus a yearning, to live eternally

(Ecclesiastes 3:11) - but this eternity would always be a derived/received one, a gift of

God's grace (Romans 6:23). Man is not immortal; but he was created/destined to share in

God's immortality.

We cannot say what would have happened if Adam had never sinned (this surely is the

most academic of questions!) but the Bible makes it clear that he would not have died if

he had not sinned (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21). His perfect life would either have

continued indefinitely or, after a probationary period, would have been translated to an

unchangeable state (from "able not to sin" to "not able to sin"). In either case, his life,

already eternal in quality (cf. John 17:3), would have become eternal in quantity.

Genesis 2 and 3 make it clear that death is not natural to man (in the created state); it is

the negation of everything he was created for (i.e. eternal fellowship with God).

Man's potential for immortality is illustrated by the tree of life (be it symbol or actual).

Man had access to it in the created state as eating of its fruit would rightfully and

properly give him life, would perpetually sustain his existence in that state (Genesis

2:9&16). But God graciously forbids man access to the tree in the fallen state as eating

of its fruit now would mean man would have to live forever in that state and so eternally

be condemned to die (Genesis 3:22-24). Even in the redeemed state man cannot eat of

this fruit, as he still lives under the power of sin and has still to die. But in the glorified

state man is again allowed access to the tree, for in this state to live eternally is pure

blessedness and the realization of his destiny (Revelation 22:2, cf. 2 Timothy 1:10).

76

B : MAN IN THE FALLEN STATE

(including: The Doctrine of Sin)

6. THE ENTRY OF SIN

Sin and evil originated, as we have seen (Chapter 4.2), in the invisible/angelic realm of

creation with Satan. We further noted that this biblical revelation concerning the origin

of evil: (i) refuted monism, dualism and other theories of evil found in the philosophies

and religions of man; (ii) emphasized that God was in no way the author of, or

responsible for, evil, either in himself or in his creation; (iii) made it clear that evil was

neither co-equal nor co-eternal with God but temporary and inferior.

Here we are concerned with the entry of sin and evil into the visible realm of creation. In

this realm man had been given dominion by God (Genesis 1:28). This meant that his

decision held sway over the whole of the material creation. As long as he upheld the will

of God he maintained his righteousness and prevented evil from gaining any foothold or

maintaining any presence in the material universe (because everything that God created

was good: v 31).

But Satan, taking the form of a serpent (Genesis 33:1 cf. Revelation 12:9), and using

treacherous deceit and cunning, successfully tempted man (should we say woman!) to eat

the forbidden fruit. The Bible clearly implies that the persons involved in this event were

historical (Matthew 19:3-6, Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians

15:21-22, Jude 14). The test God had put before Adam and Eve was both minor (a

seemingly trivial restriction) and major (man's principal means of showing obedience or

disobedience to God).

Satan's tempting progressed from sowing doubt ("Did God really say?": v1) to using

deception ("You will not surely die": v4) to encouraging outright defiance ("You will be

like God": v5); and appealed to the lust of the flesh ("When the woman saw that the fruit

of the tree was good for food..."), the lust of the eyes ("... and pleasing to the eye...") and

the pride of life ("...and also desirable for gaining wisdom")(v 6; cf. Luke 4:3-11, 1 John

2:16). Satan's perverted logic argued that God is not good if he withholds anything from

you: restrictions are not good + God's plan is restrictive = God's plan is not good. (But,

of course, God's "restrictions" on man, in this case as in all others, are for man's

good/blessing.) Adam and Eve began the habit (evidenced by all mankind ever after) to

put rationalization (justification of one's actions) over revelation (submission to God's

will).

The eating of the fruit was in itself a trivial offence, but it was the attitude of heart, mind

and will that it conveyed that really mattered: it was an act of disobedience and defiance

against God. Adam and Eve not only entertained the thought of evil but chose it and

allowed it to be expressed through them; they chose their own way rather than God's; in

effect, they acted as if they were gods themselves.

77

Through this first sin (of attitude and action) man: (i) lost his state of righteousness

(right-standing before God) and thus also the perfection of his relationship with God.

Whereas before his nature (his deepest spiritual instinct) was to draw close to God to love

and obey him, now it was to run from God in condemnation-rebellion (Genesis 3:8-10)

and thus to sin yet more. (ii) Man lost his sole dominion over the earth. By heeding and

giving allegiance to Satan rather than God, he effectively handed his dominion to Satan

(he would now normally do what Satan wanted him to do) and gave evil a "rightful"

abode and stronghold in the material creation. Thereby Satan became "the prince of this

world", "the god of this age", etc (John 12:31, 2 Cor 4:4) and man became Satan's and

sin's slave. Because of these two huge losses, and the change in his status these losses

brought about, this event is known as The Fall of Man.

7. WHY DID GOD ALLOW SIN?

Man sinned and fell, and God's plan was temporarily frustrated. But why did God allow

sin? The answer normally given concerns man's supposed free will: to make man in his

image, God has to give man freedom (a free will), and this freedom must necessarily (if

unfortunately) include the free choice to obey or disobey God (i.e. man's freedom

contains the possibility of sin); further, for man to truly love God he has to love

voluntarily (of his choosing) - and this freedom includes the possibility that he might

choose the opposite (a possibility that was realized).

But we have to revise our understanding of human freedom. God did not create man with

the freedom (a choice) to sin. In the second creation narrative (Genesis 2) precisely this

one idea is excluded: that man could or would turn against God. The narrative describes

in detail and with warmth everything that God had done for man: given him life, a

garden, food, meaningful work, a helpmate - in short, God had done everything possible

for man. Only one possibility emerges from this account: that man has nothing to gain

and everything to lose by disobeying God; that in loving gratitude he would continue for

always to obey and serve his covenant partner.

Against this background, Genesis 3 comes as a shock. What man does there is

unexpected, unthinkable, and inexplicable. And we cannot (and should not try to)

explain it as a result of man's freedom of choice. God had in fact removed man's freedom

of choice ("You are free to eat...You must not eat": Gen 2:16-17). God had created man

with innate or material freedom (freedom from sin to obey God) rather than formal

freedom of choice (freedom between obedience and disobedience) - just as we are now,

through Calvary, again freed by God from the power of sin to live a new life (vs freedom

to choose between cereals at breakfast). [God had shown Adam not a Y-junction sign but

One Way and No Entry signs. Or, to use another illustration: would a loving father send

his young child to play in a garden with a deep hole in one part of it, and do nothing to

remove the possibility of his child falling in the hole on the basis that the child must be

free to choose whether to play in the garden or fall into the pit?]. If God had left man

with the option of sinning, this would have made man's sin less culpable ("Why didn't

you make me better?"), God's judgement less just and his subsequent redemption less

merciful (as if he was obliged to do something to get man out of the mess for which he

78

was partly responsible). But it is precisely because God did not leave open this

possibility that man's sin was both so inexplicable and so blameworthy, that God's

subsequent judgement was so just and deserved, and that his still later redemption was so

merciful and undeserved. Every attempt to explain sin, to show that it was inevitable,

even necessary, lessens man's responsibility for his shocking act (putting the blame at

least in part on God and/or Satan). But Adam's sin, Israel's sin, the Christian's sin (in

each case against the background of what God has done to prevent it) is shocking and

culpable. Sin cannot be explained; it has no meaning or purpose; it is inexplicable,

meaningless, senseless, shocking, chaotic.

The answer to the question, "Why does God allow sin?", is thus simply: he does not. He

did not allow Adam's sin (he judged it severely); he does not allow ours (the recurring

judgement on certain sinful persons and acts throughout Scripture, and the judgement on

"outstanding" sin prophesied for the end of time, are equally severe). Above all, the

terrible price God paid on Calvary to judge and conquer sin shows unequivocally his

attitude to it.

The question may then be rephrased: Why did God not anticipate sin? Again the answer

is simple: he did. In his omniscience, which includes perfect foreknowledge, God knew

that man would sin/fall and that a costly plan of redemption would be needed to save

him. God was thus not "taken by surprise"; redemption was not a plan which he

suddenly - and perhaps unwillingly - found was his only way out.

The question may then be rephrased one more time: if God knew that this would happen

to his creation, and was not happy with it (would not allow it), why did he carry out his

plan of creating; or, once he had created and it had fallen, why did he not judge and end it

all there and then? Of course, God could quite justly have destroyed all creation after the

Fall. But this would have meant the end of God's plan to create a covenant partner who

could eternally share in his fellowship of love and joy of life (evil would have been

defeated - but so also God's plan). By rather putting into operation a plan of redemption,

which would ultimately destroy evil yet allow God to fulfil his creative purpose (with a

"great multitude" of men who would respond to this redemption), God would both defeat

evil and realize his plan. So just as God created the world out of sheer goodness, he

continues with it out of sheer goodness; just as God created man in his free love, he

redeems man in his free love. Should we, then, to whom this goodness and love is

extended in grace and mercy, complain that by creating despite foreknowledge of the

Fall, or by continuing with creation even after the Fall, God is allowing sin!

Of course, by continuing with, and finally realizing, his creative purposes even after the

Fall, God does demonstrate his power over evil, contrast his goodness and righteousness

with it, and by both gain glory for himself. But it is not as if God needs evil to prove his

power/goodness and gain glory - and that for this reason he authors and/or allows it. Such

an idea is warped - and blasphemous. God triumphs in spite of evil; he triumphs even

"on the back of it", as it were (far from robbing God of glory, Satan, by all his actions,

will only add to God's glory); but God is never "party to" evil, tolerating or allowing it.

He hates it - and is destroying it.

79

8. THE NATURE OF SIN

Sin is pride: thinking of ourselves more than we are; aspiring to be more than we are;

aspiring to be God/like God. This proud ambition was the root of Satan and man's fall

(Isaiah 14:13-14 cf. Gen 3:5).

Sin is rebellion: the throwing-off of God's commands/ways/sovereignty and asserting our

own (Isaiah 53:6). It is self-will; the wilful disobedience of divine will and law; the

refusal of man's will to yield obedience to the divine requirements.

Sin is lawlessness: deviation from, active opposition to, or neglect of, God's law (Ezekiel

48:11, 1 John 3:4).

Sin is failure to attain God's prescribed standard; anything that does not glorify God

(Romans 3:23, 1 Corinthians 10:31).

Sin is thus both good omitted (negatively, not hitting the mark) and wrong committed

(positively, when we miss the mark we hit something else below it).

Sin stains/corrupts/defiles (1 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:15), separates (Genesis 3:8-10,

Ephesians 4:18) and enslaves/ensnares (John 8:34, Galatians 6:1, Titus 3:3). In each

case, sin leads to sin; and the more one sins the less one is aware of it and the less

desirous and able one is to stop it.

9. THE EFFECT OF SIN

As a result of sin, man suffered a fourfold alienation. Enmity replaced harmony between

man and: (i) God (Genesis 3:8-10, Romans 5:10); (ii) himself (Romans 7:7-24, Galatians

5:13-24); (iii) his fellow-man (Genesis 3 and 4 together tell of man's fall: the vertical

break of the former is followed immediately and inevitably by the horizontal break of the

latter; see also Tit 3:3); and (iv) creation (Gen 3:15, 9:2-5).

Sickness, suffering, decay, death and all other destructive elements in the natural and

human worlds entered the visible realm of creation as a result of Adam's sin (Genesis

3:16-19, Romans 5:12-21, 8:19-22, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

By failing to fulfil his responsibilities of covenant (e.g. loyalty to God), Adam lost the

privileges of covenant (e.g. free access to God, tenancy of the garden) and incurred the

curses for breaking covenant (Hosea 6:7).

Ultimately, the result/effect/wage of sin is death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23): spiritual

death immediately (Eph 2:1&5, John 3:5-6); physical death eventually (Genesis 3:19,

Romans 5:12, 1 Cor 15:21-22); the second death ultimately (Revelation 20:6 cf. vv14-

15). Death can be seen both "positively" (the judgement God delivers and the sentence

he executes on man because of his sin) and negatively (simply the inevitable consequence

80

of man cutting himself off from God, who alone gives him life).

But in the middle of God's very first pronouncement of judgement on man because of sin

comes the first promise of merciful redemption...

10. THE EXTENT OF SIN

a) Total Depravity

This phrase was coined by Calvin but the doctrine it describes is biblical and thus

much older. It does not mean that every person is as bad as he/she could possibly

be, nor that everyone will indulge in every form of sin, nor that every trace of

morality has been lost in the Fall and that, consequently, man cannot appreciate or

do that which is good.

While the image of God in man has been distorted, it has not been entirely lost

(the mirror has been cracked but not shattered). The biblical exhortations to be

like God in character and behaviour are only possible because enough of God's

image survives to be reconstructable under the Spirit's power (1 Corinthians 11:7,

James 3:9, et al). Even among the unsaved the image of God can still be observed

in the exercise of conscience (Romans 2:15), will (Acts 27:43) and spirit (man's

religions).

The doctrine means, rather, that:

(i) All men are sinful/have sinned (Rom 3:9-20, Genesis 6:12).

(ii) Every "part" of man has been affected/corrupted by sin: his intellect (Romans

1:28, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 4:17-18, Titus 1:15); his conscience (1Timothy

4:2); his will (Romans 1:21); his heart (Romans 1:21, Ephesians 4:18); in short,

his whole being (Romans 1:18 - 3:20). The totality of man's depravity applies to

the field of operation of sin within man, not to the degree of evil in each

individual. There is nothing (no part) within the natural man that gives him merit

in God's sight.

(iii) Apart from divine intervention, man's condition is irreversible. Man is

powerless to do anything about his fallen/sinful and judged state (Romans 5:6).

b) Original Sin: The Sinful Nature

Not only do all men commit sins (they think/feel/speak/act sinfully) but they are

born with a sinful/fallen/Adamic nature inherited from Adam (called original sin

by theologians). In fact, it is this sinful nature, this capacity for and tendency to

sin, that leads to sinful acts (original sin is the root of actual sin): Genesis 6:5,

8:21, Job 14:1&4, 15:14, 25:4, Psalm 51:5, Matthew 15:18, Ephesians 2:3.

81

Revelation here explains man's universal experience. Man is thus under

judgement for both original and actual sin.

The importance of Jesus' virgin birth becomes apparent in the light of this

doctrine. If Jesus had been born normally (descended from Adam's flesh) he

theoretically would have been free of actual sin but not of original sin

(theoretically, because original sin must express itself in actual sin). As such he

would have been under judgement himself and not able to save man (he could not

have offered himself as a sinless offering in our place). But, because of the virgin

birth, Jesus' did not inherit the Adamic nature, was thus free from the law of sin

operating in his body (cf. Romans 8:2) and was able in turn to live a perfect life.

This doctrine refutes humanism and other philosophies/religions which deny that

man is inherently sinful (that he has a sinful nature) and asserts that he is

essentially good. It also refutes Pelagianism (a fourth-century A.D. heresy named

after its founder, Pelagius): Adam's sin affected no one; there is no such thing as

original sin; we are born into the same possibilities that Adam was. That is, we

are completely free to choose good or evil and are thus able to live free from sin

(as some have indeed done). It also refutes the semi-Pelagianism of Roman

Catholicism: the consequence of original sin (viz. loss of original righteousness)

is removed by water baptism - although not the existence of the "evil principle"

within man (the desire to sin remains but this is not sinful in itself). In short,

Pelagianism says we do not have a sinful nature at all (like Adam, we are free and

able not to sin); semi-Pelagianism says that the penalty for being born with a

sinful nature is removed at baptism but we still have the sinful nature itself (the

inclination to sin).

c) The Transmission/Imputation of Sin

The concept of original sin, of a sinful nature inherited from Adam which causes

us to sin, creates a problem. While most of us will not deny the reality of a "bent"

towards sin within ourselves, and thus that we are born with a sinful nature, we do

wrestle to understand: (i) quite how we can be affected by Adam's act; and (ii) the

fairness of being condemned to a life of sin, and hence to God's judgement, by

someone else's action (i.e. God's justice in judging us for something we could not

help).

The answer to the first question (how we can be affected by Adam's act) lies in

Adam's headship/representativeness over the whole human race. This is, firstly, a

biological headship: all men descend from Adam (Acts 17:26) and so are

affected/infected with his nature by fact of sheer physical lineage. Adam would

either have passed on a live spirit (unfallen nature) or a dead spirit (fallen nature);

because of the Fall, it was the latter. Secondly, it is a covenant headship: all one's

unborn descendants are included in the terms of covenant, and so all mankind

(contained in Adam's loins: cf. Hebrews 7:9-10) were cursed when Adam broke

covenant. If being imputed with Adam's sin/death in this way seems unfair, we

82

must remember that the righteousness/life of the Second Adam is imputed to all

those of whom he is head/representative by the same rule of covenant (Romans

5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:21).

The answer to the second question (how it can be fair to be condemned to sin and

hence to judgement by a nature brought about by someone else's action) is that the

Bible makes it quite clear that: (i) we are each judged for our own sin, not Adam's

(Ezekiel 18:4&20 - although we die because of both Adam's and our sin); (ii) that

we would each make the same choice as Adam under the same circumstances;

(iii) that we are all therefore fully responsible for our sin and justly under God's

judgement.

83

Chapter 6

THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST

Chapter Outline: A: HIS PERSON

1. The Deity of Christ

2. The Humanity of Christ

3. The Hypostatic Union

4. The Kenosis of Christ

5. The Impeccability of Christ

6. Heresies

B: HIS WORK

7. Pre-Incarnation

8. Incarnation (including: The Doctrine of the Atonement)

9. Post-Incarnation

10. The Offices of Christ

11. Heresies

Jesus Christ is the centre of all things, of the entire created orders, both visible and

invisible (Colossians 1:16-17). He is the centre of both secular and sacred history. He is

the centre of God's two great works: creation and redemption. He is the centre of the

doctrine and life of God's people. He is the centre of Christianity - that which really

makes it unique.

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ, the biblical teaching about who he is (his Person) and what

he did (his Work), is thus the central doctrine in Christian theology. Even within this

centrality, two supremely decisive sub-doctrines can be identified (the first concerning

his Person, the second concerning his Work): the hypostatic union (resulting from the

belief that Jesus is both human and divine), and the atonement brought about through his

death on the cross, are the quintessential assertions of the Christian faith and those that

set it apart from all other religions and cults.

A : THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST

1. THE DEITY OF CHRIST

a) His pre-existence

Micah 5:2 (the word translated "from of old" is used in Habakkuk 1:12 of God's

eternal nature); Isaiah 9:6; John 8:58, 17:5; Colossians 1:16 (he could only have

84

accomplished works like creation if he had existed before time); 1 Peter 1:20;

Revelation 13:8. While Christ's pre-existence doesn't in itself prove his deity (cf.

Arianism), it is necessary for his deity.

b) His claims

Matthew 26:63-64 (in Jewish usage, "Son of" did not imply inferiority but

equality and identity of nature), 28:19; John 5:18, 10:30&36, 14:6; the seven "I

am‟s (cf. Exodus 3:14-15): John 6:35, 8:12, 8:58, 10:7, 10:11, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1.

c) Others' claims

Matthew 14:33; John 1:1&34&49, 6:69, 11:27, 20:28&31; Romans 9:5; 2

Corinthians 13:14; Philippians 2:6&10; Colossians 1:19, 2:2-3&9; Titus 2:13;

Hebrews 1:3&6.

d) His Names

"God" (El/Theos)(Hebrews 1:8); "Lord" (Adonai/Kurios)(Matthew 22:43-45 cf.

Psalm 110:1; Luke 1:76 cf. Malachi 3:1); "LORD" (Yahweh)(Romans 10:13 cf.

Joel 2:32; Revelation 1:8 & 22:13 cf. Exodus 3:14-15); "King of Kings and Lord

of Lords" (Revelation 19:16 cf. 1 Timothy 6:15).

e) His attributes

Jesus possesses attributes which only God has: omnipotence (Matthew 28:18;

Revelation 1:8); omniscience (Mark 2:8, John 1:48); omnipresence (Matthew

18:20, 28:20, Ephesians 1:23); et al.

f) His acts

Jesus performs deeds which only God can do: he creates all things (John 1:3,

Colossians 1:16); he sustains all things (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17); he

forgives sins (Mark 2:1-12); he receives worship (John 20:28); he sends the Holy

Spirit (John 15:26); he raises the dead (John 5:25); he judges all things (John

5:27, Acts 17:31).

2. THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST

a) Human body

Jesus experienced a normal human birth (Matthew 1:18, Galatians 4:4) and

development (Luke 2:52). He referred to himself as a man (John 8:40) and was

recognized by others as such.

85

b) Human soul/spirit

Jesus humanity did not only extend to ("provide") the body (with his deity

"providing" the soul/spirit): Jesus' humanity was complete, including (extending

to) both material (body: see [a] above) and immaterial aspects (soul: Matthew

26:38; spirit: Luke 23:46).

c) Human experience

Jesus shared in normal human experiences: hunger (Matthew 4:2); thirst (John

19:28); tiredness (John 4:6); compassion (Matthew 9:36); compassion with

weeping (John 11:33-36); temptation (Luke 4:1-13, Hebrews 4:15). Note: Jesus'

experiences and temptations involved both his body and his soul/spirit.

d) Human names

"Son of Man" (i.e. the representative man, denoting equality and identity of nature

with man: Luke 19:10); "Son of David" (Mark 10:47); "Jesus" (Matthew 1:21);

"the man Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5).

3. THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

The centre and uniqueness of Christianity is the person Jesus Christ; and the centre and

uniqueness of Christ is that he is a divine-human being, the God-Man. In the same

way that the doctrine of the Trinity results from holding in tension the testimony of

revelation that God is both three and one, the doctrine of the hypostatic union results

from having to marry the evidence of Scripture that Jesus is both divine and human. (As

to why Jesus needed to be both divine and human we shall see shortly when discussing

the atonement.)

The hypostatic union is the supernatural and suprarational union of two hypostases

(natures); the union of undiminished deity and perfect humanity in one person, so that

that person is fully God and fully man. These two natures are united in one person

without forming (i) a third nature or (ii) two separate persons. Furthermore, (iii) it is not

that one part of the person is human and the other divine (the whole person is human and

the whole person divine); nor (iv) that merely some qualities of divinity are combined

with some parts of humanity (the person is fully God and fully man). These four errors

result from the inability or unwillingness of some to accept the supernatural and thus

suprarational nature of the union (it can be defended but not defined); as such it always

remains in part a mystery.

Jesus' humanity was full but not fallen: through the virgin birth he was free from original

sin (he had a human, but not a fallen, nature: Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35); he was also free

of actual sin (he led a sinless life: Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22).

86

4. THE KENOSIS OF CHRIST

This doctrine derives its name from the Greek word (kenoo) used in Philippians 2:7

(translated "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself") and deals with how the pre-

incarnate Second Person of the Trinity "changed" with the Incarnation. The question is

whether Christ "emptied himself" of all, some or none of his deity when he became man;

whether Jesus, while in the flesh, was just a man or still divine as well?

The participle huparchon (v6) transliterates to "He continued to subsist in the form of

God" and implies that this state (Christ's deity) continued even during the Incarnation.

Indeed, verse 7 describes the kenoo as an addition (of humanity) rather than as a

subtraction (of deity): Jesus "made himself nothing " [by] "taking [on] the very nature of

a servant, being made in human likeness". Obviously, this taking on of humanity, with

its consequent limitations, was a humbling of himself (v8).

If Christ had surrendered some/all of his divine attributes at the Incarnation: (i)his

character/nature would have changed (but this contradicts the doctrine of the constancy of

God); (ii) it contradicts the evidence ([1] above) that he possessed these during his earthly

life; (iii) Jesus would not have been able to save man ([8b] below). The Second Person

of the Trinity must have been somewhere during the Incarnation (or the Trinity became a

Duality, which is impossible): either He is not to be identified with Jesus (in which case

Jesus is not who he said he was) or He is (in which case Jesus is fully him, fully God, for

a person cannot divide himself). How can a divine Person surrender his divinity: this is

both nonsensical (there would be nothing left) and an impossibility for God.

The kenosis of Christ thus involved: the veiling of Christ's pre-incarnate glory (John

17:5); the condescension of taking on himself the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3);

the voluntary non-use (not subtraction or "emptying") of some of his divine attributes

during his earthly life (Matthew 24:36, 26:53).

5. THE IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST

That Christ was both tempted yet sinless is agreed on (Hebrews 4:15). But was he "able

not to sin" or "not able to sin"?

We may choose the former position (and often do) because: (i) in asserting that Jesus was

a man like us and so able to identify with us, we subconsciously (but wrongly) assume

that he had a fallen nature like ours; (ii) we assume that temptation cannot be real (really

felt) if there is not the possibility of sin (of succumbing to it).

But the latter position is the correct one. Jesus had a human (but not fallen) nature and a

divine nature: it is impossible for God (the divine nature) to sin, to change (it is

everlastingly and constantly perfect, holy, just, etc.). Having no sin nature, Jesus could

not have been tested from that avenue as we are: he was not tempted with a view to

87

succumbing to sin (to see if he could sin) but with a view to proving he was sinless (to

show that he could not). Nevertheless, the temptations were real (they did not run like

water off Jesus' back), for the reality of a test does not lie either in the moral nature of the

one being tested or in his ability to yield to it. (In fact, temptation was worse for Jesus

because he could never give in to it; we end temptation by giving in to it.) Thus, because

he suffered when he was tempted, Jesus is able to help us in our temptation (Hebrews

2:18); moreover, he was tempted in every area that we are tempted in (Hebrews 4:15,

Luke 4:1-13 cf. 1 John 22:16).

6. HERESIES

Listed below are some of the heretical beliefs that have arisen in the course of church

history regarding the person of Christ. (Heresies regarding the work of Christ will be

mentioned in Section 11 of this chapter.)

a) Deity denied

(i) Barthians: Jesus was a normal human person with a normal sinful nature. God

worked through this man to reveal himself, especially at the cross.

(ii) Unitarians/Ebionites: Jesus was a normal person who was elected as the Son

of God (adopted as divine) at his baptism. The former hold that at this point the

human Jesus was united with the eternal (but not divine) Christ (who was also

manifest in Adam and others). Other cults (e.g. Cerinthians) agree with the

Ebionites on this but add that the divine Christ left the human Jesus on the cross,

so that only the man Jesus died.

(iii) Arians/Jehovah Witnesses: Jesus is an exalted yet finite being (not divine),

created by God the Father at the beginning of time as the mediator of creation and

redemption.

b) Humanity denied

Docetists: Jesus was not an actual flesh-and-blood person; he was a phantom-like

appearance of God. He only seemed to have a body (dokeo is Greek for "to

seem").

c) Partial deity and humanity

Apollinarians: Jesus Christ's body was human; his spirit was that of the eternal

Logos.

d) Two separate persons

Nestorians: Overemphasizing the distinctness of the two natures of Christ, they

88

landed up with two separate persons (as if a divine and a human person both lived

in the same body).

e) Third nature

Eutychians: Countering Nestorians, they so emphasized the single nature of Christ

that they landed up with a third nature (unique to Christ, neither human nor

divine).

B : THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST

7. PRE-INCARNATION

As the eternal, divine Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, Jesus Christ has been

part of all divine action and utterance for all time.

For example, we have seen that He is the one through whom the Godhead creates all

things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) and sustains all things (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17).

More specifically, Jesus was involved already with the history and redemption of God's

Old Covenant people (albeit in a way vastly more limited and veiled than his role in the

New Covenant). This is evidenced by his seeming appearance on a few occasions to key

individuals in Israel, bringing revelation (of God and his purposes) and redemption:

Abraham (Genesis 18); Jacob (Genesis 32); Joshua (Joshua 5); Shadrach, Meshach and

Abednego (Daniel 3); et al.

8. INCARNATION

a) Life

The Incarnation (from the Latin for "in flesh") refers to the event whereby "God

[who] is Spirit" (specifically, the Second Person of the Godhead) took on human

existence. (This included, but was not limited to, the taking on of a human body.)

In short, it refers to Jesus' life here on earth, from his birth to his ascension.

Jesus' work during his life and ministry before the cross was twofold.

(i) Revelation. Jesus was, is and always will be the final and supreme Revelation

of God to man (John 1:18, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). Every element of Jesus'

life and ministry - his character (who he was), his lifestyle (how he lived), his

teaching (what he said), and his miracles (what he did) - was a revelation from

God to man, firstly of God himself (who he was, what he was like) and secondly

of God's salvation (what man needed to do to be saved and to walk in fellowship

with God). As such, Jesus' life and ministry were also an example to us of how

89

we should live (1 Peter 2:21-22, 1 John 2:6, 3:6, 3:16).

(ii) Redemption. Similarly, the effect of every element of Jesus' pre-crucifixion

life and ministry (his character, lifestyle, teaching and miracles) was to save man.

Wherever Jesus went he set free, bound up, healed, delivered, encouraged,

rebuked, etc; in short, he brought salvation to people (this was in itself a

revelation of God). He was ushering in the kingdom or reign of God, a new era in

salvation-history, a new and better administration of the covenant of grace. In his

ministry the future (God's Kingdom/Reign) was invading the present; his ministry

was a signpost to the kingdom - an assurance of its coming and giving directions

on how to get there.

In addition, the effect of Jesus' perfect character, his sinless life, his matchless

teachings (the most sublime truths ever heard by man), and his miracles (the most

extraordinary demonstrations of power ever seen), was to vindicate Jesus' claims

about himself. They proved his identity and hence his authority.

Of course, neither of these works were limited to Jesus' ministry before his

crucifixion. His death, resurrection and ascension completed both his work of

revealing who God was and his work of saving man (as well as further proving

his identity/authority). In fact, his pre-crucifixion ministry can be seen as merely

a preparation for the real work of salvation wrought through his death and

resurrection: the three years of ministry pointed lost man to these events and they

proved the worthiness of Jesus to be mankind's Saviour; conversely, Jesus was

only able to "save" people, to usher in the Kingdom of God, during these years

because of the climactic events that were to take place at their end. Nevertheless,

an important and necessary part of Jesus' incarnational work of revelation and

redemption was performed during his three years of ministry.

b) Death

It was Jesus' death, more than any other single event, that really bought salvation

for man. The saving work of Christ through his death on the cross is a huge

subject of inexhaustible depth and wonder. I have tried to make it accessible in a

way that is simple yet comprehensive by delineating three main aspects of Christ's

work on the cross.

90

(i) A legal transaction

This is the aspect of Christ's work on the cross known as..

THE ATONEMENT

X : Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice for sin

The judgement/wage/penalty for sin is death (Genesis 2:17, 3:19, Romans 5:12,

6:23, Ephesians 2:1). Since the Fall, man has been under the sentence of death -

and, indeed, each man dies (he loses the right or the ability to live because of his

sin). In this way, the Bible represents our lives as the debt we owe to God

because of our sin; to satisfy divine legal justice we have to pay this debt by

giving-up our lives (by dying). Each of us is sinful and so has to pay with our

lives; we are thus powerless to help either ourselves or anyone else (Romans 5:6).

But Jesus, by living a sinless life, has no sin (debt) of his own which he has to pay

for by dying. He is thus free to give his life for another, to pay another man's debt

by taking on his sin and dying in his place. Jesus had to be human and live a

sinless human life in order to qualify for this: just as a man had sinned and

brought death to mankind, a man had to undo the damage by living a sinless life

and bringing life to mankind (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). But if

Jesus was only a man, he would only have been able to pay for the sin-debt of one

other man, to give his life as a substitute for one other person's life. (This is just:

man for man.) But because Jesus was also divine, and a divine life is worth an

infinite number of human lives (just as a human life is worth an infinite number of

animal lives), Jesus is able to give his life (die as a substitute) in payment for the

sin-debt of all men (John 1:29, 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 John 2:2). Thus, at the

moment of his death, he cried out Tetelestai!, a Greek word common to the

commercial world of the time meaning "The debt is paid in full" (John 19:30).

(We can now appreciate the need for Jesus to be both human and divine to effect

our salvation.)

Y : Jesus' death a fulfilment of Old Testament sacrifice

Jesus' death was thus a fulfilment of Old Testament sacrifices, which were also

offered as an atonement for sin. Each Israelite (like us) should have died in

payment for his own sin. But God graciously allowed the death of an animal (a

substitute) in place of the man so that the man could carry on living. Because the

life of a creature is in its blood (Leviticus 17:11), its blood had to be shed to prove

that its life had been taken and sin had been paid for (Hebrews 9:22). That is why

we are saved through Jesus' blood: his shed blood was a sign to God that his

divine-human life had been given in substitute payment for the sin-debt of the

world (Romans 3:25, Ephesians 5:2). But, of course, the life/blood of animals

91

could not really pay for sin and remove the death penalty from man (for an

animal's life is an inadequate substitute for human life). The sacrificial system

was simply given by God to Israel to effect a stay of execution until such time as

the Sacrifice which really could pay for sin and remove the death penalty had

been offered, and on the basis of which God could forgive the Old Testament

sinner. The cross thus works retrospectively as well as chronologically; its two

arms extend into the past and future; Old and New Covenant saints are saved

through Jesus' blood. God forgave the Israelite who offered his sacrifice with true

repentance and faith of his sin - but only on the basis of the forgiveness that

would one day be made available through Jesus' sacrifice. Only then was justice

satisfied; only then could God forgive man (i.e. not hold his sin against him but

let him live). In this way Jesus' sacrifice was a far better one than the Old

Covenant sacrifices and superseded them entirely (Hebrews 9:11 - 10:18). Jesus

fulfilled/superseded all the regular Temple sacrifices (burnt, sin, guilt/trespass and

peace/fellowship offerings [Leviticus 1-5]) and also the special festival offerings,

for example: the lamb of the Passover (God's judgement passes over us when we

are under the blood of the Lamb [Exodus 12; cf. John 1:29&36, 1 Peter 1:19]);

and the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement (the sins of the whole world were laid

on the Scapegoat who was driven out to die outside the camp [Leviticus 16; cf.

Isaiah 53:6]).

Z : Terms used to describe the Atonement

The Atonement is so rich and multifaceted that theologians have had to use many

different words in their attempt to describe its full significance, inter alia:

Atonement. The overarching word used to describe the effect of the whole, viz.

to "make-up" for sin, to repair the damage, to restore the relationship between

man and God ("at-one-ment")(Leviticus 17:11, Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2).

Substitution. The nature of Christ's death as a substitutionary death (he died in

our place) has already been made clear in the above. The idea of substitution

comes from one of two Greek phrases: anti, meaning "in place of" (Matthew

20:28, Luke 11:11); or huper, meaning "in place of" and "for the benefit of" (2

Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:18, Philemon 13). The substitutionary atonement (i.e.

the belief that in his death Jesus took God's wrath, intended for us, on himself so

that we can have peace with God) is the heart of the Christian doctrine of

salvation, and Jesus' death must never be watered down into something less than

this (e.g. that it was merely an example to us of sacrificial love).

Redemption. This concept is built on three similar New Testament words. The

first word means "to buy", "to purchase", "to pay the price for" something.

Because of sin, man could be said to "belong" to death (we all have to die). To

buy us back for his possession, God had to pay the price for sin that his justice

demanded, i.e. death (Matthew 13:44, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 2 Peter 2:1,

Revelation 5:9). The second word (merely on intensification of the first through

92

the addition of a prepositional prefix) means "to purchase out of". Jesus' death

not only pays the penalty for sin we incurred through sinning but removes us from

our bondage to the law which put these penalties on us in the first place (Galatians

4:5). The third word means "to loose", "to ransom". The sinner is not only

bought and bought out of but released/set free (1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14,

Hebrews 9:12).

Propitiation. Jesus' death propitiated or appeased God; it absorbed the wrath of

God aroused by man's sin. By taking our sin on himself Jesus turned aside God's

wrath from us and took the full wrath of God on himself (Matthew 27:4; cf.

Genesis 32:13-20).

Satisfaction. The cross satisfies the justice of God, which demands that sin be

paid for by death (the taking of life, the shedding of blood).

Imputation. Jesus' death not only removes the negative (sin and its

penalty/debt/wage: death) but adds the positive. There is an exchange involved:

Jesus takes on our sin and gives us his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter

1:24). Those of his family are imputed with his righteousness (that is, it is a gift

of God's goodness and not earned) just as those of Adam's family were imputed

with Adam's guilt (they received his sinful nature).

Justification. Because Jesus has removed our sin from us and given us his

righteousness, God can justify us: i.e. he can declare us innocent of all charges

brought against us (past, present and future sins) and righteous/holy/pure in his

sight. (The term is borrowed from legal practice in New Testament times: when a

judge, having heard all the evidence, found the accused not guilty, he closed the

case by saying "I justify you", i.e. "I declare you innocent of all charges against

you and of right-standing in the sight of the law.") It is for this reason that the

justified can once again know God, walk with him, come into his presence, etc -

because they are sinless in his sight. Man's original righteousness, his right-

standing with God, has at last been restored (Romans 3:21-26).

Reconciliation. Man, once alienated/separated from God and at enmity with him,

is thereby reconciled with God, brought near to and given peace with him

(Romans 5:1&10-11, 2 Corinthians 55:19, Ephesians 2:11-13).

(ii) A military operation

The first result of the Fall was the penalty man incurred for sin. The other result

of Adam's sin was effectively to hand over to Satan the dominion over the earth

that he, Adam, had received from God. (With a now sinful nature, and in

rebellious flight from God, man was henceforth far more likely to listen to

93

Satan/sin than to God.) Satan thus became "the prince of this world" and man

became the powerless slave of sin/Satan (Chapter 5.6). Just as the cross as a legal

transaction reversed the first effect of the Fall, the cross as a military operation

reversed the second effect.

The Incarnation represented an invasion by God of enemy territory, a conquest of

the enemy and a rescue of his captive. Jesus lived the perfect life in total

submission to the will of God that God had initially intended for man (he gave

Satan no access to, or authority in, his life). He thereby gained the right

(authority) to take back from Satan dominion over the earth. Legally (in terms of

what God had instituted in Genesis 1), only a man could achieve this. (Again we

see the necessity for Jesus being a man.) Through his ministry, but especially

through his crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus, the Second Man/Adam (Romans

5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22), the Son of Man (i.e. the representative man),

took dominion back for man on behalf of man from Satan (Genesis 3:15, John

12:31). He bound up the enemy (Matthew 12:28-29); he disarmed his forces

(Colossians 2:15); he began the process of destroying his works (1 John 3:8), a

process now continued by his people (Matthew 16:18-19). In particular, Jesus

invaded, conquered, and rescued man from, Death ([c] below). He rescued and

liberated Satan's captive (man) not only from the penalty of sin (i) but from the

power of sin (ii), and now shares with redeemed man the restored dominion:

God's people have a measure of dominion even now (Matthew 28:18, Mark

16:15-18, Luke 10:17-19) and will one day rule with him over the new heaven

and the new earth.

(iii) A covenant cutting

The third great work of the cross, of course, was that it introduced the New, final

and perfect Covenant. It was a covenant-cutting ceremony, a contract entered into

between two parties, God and Man (the Second Representative Head of the

human race was, like the first, acting on behalf of all men who would belong to

his family). But, just as God had had to put Abraham to sleep in the cutting

ceremony of the Old Covenant and act out both parts himself (because

Abraham/Israel would have repeatedly nullified the covenant by their inability to

keep it)(Genesis 15), so here too God (Father and Son) performs both sides: Jesus

is not only Son of Man but Son of God! So, because it is Jesus who has to keep

the covenant and not us, and because he does this perfectly, the covenant (which

is the nature of, and the permission for, our relationship with God) can never be

broken! This is why the New is a better covenant (Hebrews 8; cf. Jeremiah

31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:25-28); it is perfect and eternal. It is on the basis of this

covenant that the eternal covenant of grace, God's purpose with man since

creation, will finally be fulfilled (Revelation 21:3).

This covenant ceremony, like its predecessors, came complete with terms

(privileges and responsibilities, both for Jesus and us, and blessings and curses for

keeping/breaking covenant), a sign (for Jesus, the nail marks in his hands [Isaiah

94

49:16, John 20:20]; for us, baptism [Colossians 2:11-12]), a seal (the Holy Spirit

[Ephesians 1:13]) and a meal (as of old, of bread and wine [Luke 22:19-20, 1

Corinthians 11:23-25]).

Clearly, with the coming of a new covenant, the old was superseded (rendered

obsolete/redundant)(Hebrews 8). Its code of laws thus ceased to be binding also

(Acts 13:39, Romans 3:21-31, 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, Colossians 2:14).

However, this does not exclude the possibility that some of the laws from the old

code may have found their way into the new code, i.e. the law of Christ (Galatians

6:2) or the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2&4).

c) Resurrection

(i)The Historicity and Nature of the Resurrection

That the resurrection actually happened is a truth crucial to Christianity and our

faith. If Jesus was not raised from the dead: he was not who he said he was; death

has not been defeated; we are not saved; and we are the most miserable of

creatures to be living under this delusion (1 Corinthians 15:14-19&30-32). But

Christ has been raised: the resurrection is one of the best proved events in history.

(As before, these proofs belong to Apologetics rather than Doctrine.)

Important too is the physical nature of the resurrection (for death would still not

be truly defeated otherwise). Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were not those

of a spirit but in a body clearly identified with that of his life and crucifixion

(John 20:20&27). Of course, it was a different kind of physical existence, one

which did not obey normal laws (vv19&26) and which perhaps offers a hint of

our future resurrection bodies (see Chapter 10).

(ii) The Significance of the Resurrection

The resurrection proves the validity of Christ's claims about himself (Matthew

16:21, 20:19, 28:6, Acts 2:30-31).

The resurrection demonstrates the Father's acceptance of the Son's sacrifice and

salvation (Acts 2:32, Ephesians 1:20, Psalm 16:9-10).

The resurrection thus assures us of the forgiveness of our sin (1 Cor 15:17).

The resurrection evidences Christ's defeat of death. The judgement for sin is

death. Consequently, ever since the Fall, man has been under the sentence of

death: spiritual death throughout his life; physical death at its end; the "second

death" (eternal punishment) at the end of time. Because of this, death came to be

personified in the Bible as a power (Death) who held man in his vice-like grip.

Satan, as the architect of all evil, in turn held death in his power. But in invading

enemy territory and casting out the Enemy (taking dominion over the territory

95

back from him), Jesus disarmed all Satan's forces, including Death (Hebrews

2:14). His resurrection is a sign of the future invading the present; of his defeat

of, and consequent power over, death (Acts 2:24, Romans 6:9, Revelation 1:18).

The resurrection is thus a guarantee of our own future resurrection (1 Corinthians

15:20-23), and not only ours but the resurrection (John 5:28-29) and judgement

(Acts 17:31) of all men. In this age we still have to die, but death is no longer a

power who will keep us forever in his grip but the doorway which allows us to

pass from this good but imperfect existence into one perfect and eternal. By

raising all men at the end of time Jesus will overcome the last enemy, Death (1

Corinthians 15:24-26), and execute the judgement he delivered at his first coming

(Revelation 20:14). Death will be defeated (1 Corinthians 15:51-55); it will be no

more (Revelation 21:4, 22:3).

Finally, therefore, the resurrection frees us from the fear of death (Hebrews 2:15).

d) Ascension

(i) The Historicity and Nature of the Ascension

Like the resurrection, the ascension was both a historical (actual) and physical

event.

(ii) The Significance of the Ascension

The ascension further proves the validity of Jesus' claims about himself (John

6:62, 17:1).

The ascension further demonstrates the Father's acceptance of the Son's sacrifice

and salvation (Act 2:33, Ephesians 1:20).

The ascension marked the end of the Son's kenosis and the beginning of his

exaltation at the right hand of the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-26, Ephesians 1:21-

22, Philippians 2:9-11).

The ascension further assures us of our salvation (Hebrews 6:19-20).

The ascension allows Jesus' present ministry ([9a] below) and is especially related

to the giving of gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:8).

9. POST-INCARNATION

a) Church Age

As High Priest over the new Israel, Jesus prays for his people, protecting them

96

from sin in their lives (John 17:15), pleading for them when they do so sin (1 John

2:1) and securing their salvation (Hebrews 7:25). Because he has himself

suffered and been tempted, he is a sympathetic High Priest (Hebrews 2:5-18, 4:14

- 5:10).

As Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 2:1) he builds it (Matthew

16:18), gives gifts to it (Ephesians 4:8&11), nurtures and matures it (Ephesians

4:16, 5:29, Colossians 2:19), and unifies and directs it (Ephesians 2:20-21).

Jesus answers the prayers of his people (John 14:13-14), brings fruitfulness in

their lives (John 15:1-17) and prepares a place for their everlasting habitation

(John 14:3).

b) End Times

Jesus pours out his wrath on the earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 6).

He returns in power and glory (Revelation 19) to: (i) defeat and destroy all human

and angelic evil (Revelation 19:11-21; cf. Hebrews 2:8, 1 Corinthians 15:23-28);

(ii) raise and judge all men (John 5:28-29, Acts 17:31, 1 Corinthians 15:23,

Revelation 20:11-15); (iii) glorify and marry his bride (Revelation 19:7-9); (iv)

renew (recreate) that which he created at the beginning: heaven and earth.

c) New Heaven and New Earth

Absolute, everlasting and blessed reign on and over the new heaven and new

earth. (See Chapter 9 for [a]; Chapter 10 for [b] and [c].)

10. THE OFFICES OF CHRIST

In God's Old Covenant relationship with Israel there were three mediating offices: priest

(Exodus 28 & 29), prophet (Deuteronomy 18:14-22) and king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

In the Old Testament we see notable men filling one and sometimes two of these

positions but never all three.

The incarnational and post-incarnational work of Christ discussed above shows that Jesus

held/holds all three offices in the New Covenant. And, whereas others executed their

offices imperfectly and partially, Jesus does so perfectly and fully (he fulfils them).

a) Prophet

Jesus represents God before man: he reveals God to man in his character,

lifestyle, teaching and actions. He communicates God's Word (his instructions:

requirements) to man; indeed he is God's Word (John 1:1). He interprets the past

97

and the present, and he predicts the future. Jesus fulfilled the prophetic office (he

was the perfect Prophet) during the Incarnation (Deuteronomy 18:14, Matthew

13:57); but to a measure he continues to fill the office during the Church Age (by

his Spirit and various means of revelation/guidance).

b) Priest

Already during the Incarnation Jesus acted as a priest, representing man before

God: he interceded for men; he offered up a sacrifice for their sin (himself). But

it is chiefly during the Church Age that Jesus fulfils this office: as the perfect

Priest, bringing the blood of his own perfect sacrifice to the Father in heaven, he

lives forever to make perfect and perpetual intercession for his people, so saving

them completely (Hebrews 2:5-18, 4:14 - 5:10, 7:11-28).

c) King

In the present age Jesus already reigns (i.e. is King) in the lives of his people, the

church (the Kingdom has come); but in the age to come Jesus will be the perfect

King, reigning absolutely (the Kingdom is still to come)(Isaiah 9:6-7, Luke 1:31-

33). (See Chapter 10.)

11. HERESIES

The work of Christ centres on the cross. It is not surprising, therefore, that heresies

concerning the work of Christ centre on the Atonement. Satan spares no effort in

perverting or watering-down this essential doctrine of the Christian faith, especially the

belief which lies at its heart, viz. that Jesus' death was a substitutionary sacrifice for the

payment of sin, a payment which God's holiness and wrath demanded.

(i) Jesus' death was intended as a moral influence: in expressing the love of God

so radically, it hoped to soften our hearts and lead us to repentance. It was not a

payment for sin; indeed, there was no legal necessity for such a payment.

(ii) Jesus' death was merely an ethical example to us of the way of

love/obedience. It hopes to inspire us to lead a similar life. (Again, it neither

atoned for sin or moved God to pardon sin.)

(iii) Jesus' death demonstrated how God/the Law regarded sin but it did not pay

for sin: Jesus died, an innocent victim, to satisfy the government of God, since

"public justice" must be upheld and the government of God vindicated.

(iv) Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan. (This is surely the most perverted

heresy in Christendom! Satan has no legal claim on God.)

98

Chapter 7

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Chapter Outline: A : THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. The Holy Spirit is a Person

2. The Holy Spirit is Divine

3. The Names of the Holy Spirit

4. The Symbols of the Holy Spirit

5. The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

B : THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

6. Creation

7. Revelation

8. Israel

9. Christ

10. The Believer

11. The Church

12. The Future

C : COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT

13. Baptism in the Spirit: Evangelicals vs

Charismatic?

14. Who do we pray to: Father, Son or Holy Spirit?

15. What is "the Blasphemy against the Holy

Spirit"?

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Triune Godhead. He appears throughout

Scripture, from the Bible's very second verse (Gen 1:2) to it's fifth-last (Revelation

22:17). He is mentioned in 22 of the 39 Old Testament books, and in 24 of the 27 New

Testament books (the exceptions are Philemon, 2 and 3 John). Altogether there are 88

references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and 261 in the New.

These statistics clearly show that revelation about, and the operation of, the Holy Spirit

increased in the New Testament period. The Holy Spirit has a particularly important role

in this age generally, and in the conversion, life and ministry of the believer specifically.

In the light of this, the restoration of the Holy Spirit to his rightful prominence in the life

and doctrine of the Church in the twentieth century after centuries of neglect, a

restoration brought about particularly through the Pentecostal and Charismatic

movements, is greatly to be welcomed. (The restoration has not been without its excesses,

however; the correction of errors in church history has always led in part to the opposite

error.)

99

A : THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON

The Holy Spirit has often been misunderstood/misrepresented as an impersonal

power/force or commodity, the exercise of God's "influence" in the world to do his work

and realize his purposes, the virtue or energy flowing from God to man (e.g.

Modalism/Sabellianism, Socinianism, Liberal Theology). Nothing could be further from

the truth and more grievous to the Holy Spirit himself. Understanding that the Holy

Spirit is a person is fundamental to understanding his work in the world and his

relationship with God and with man.

The biblical evidence for the Holy Spirit being a person is overwhelming.

a) He possesses the characteristics of a person

Intelligence/thought (Acts 15:28, Romans 8:27, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11);

speech/language (Acts 1:16, 8:29, 10:9, 13:2, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Timothy 4:1);

will (1 Corinthians 12:11); emotion/feelings (Romans 15:30, Galatians 4:6,

Ephesians 4:30, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, James 4:5).

b) He performs the actions of a person

Leads/guides (Acts 8:39, 13:2&4, 16:7, Romans 8:14); works/gives (Acts 8:39, 1

Corinthians 12:11); fellowships (2 Corinthians 13:14); convicts (John 16:8);

teaches (John 14:26); comforts/counsels (John 14:16, 16:8); prays (Romans 8:26).

c) He is susceptible to personal treatment

He can be: lied to (Acts 5:3); tested (5:9); resisted (7:51); insulted (Hebrews

10:29); and blasphemed/sinned against (Matthew 12:31).

d) He is referred to by personal pronouns

Not it/its/itself, but he/him/himself (12x in John 16; Romans 8:16&26); not which

but who (Ephesians 1:14).

e) He is associated with other personal beings

With the Father and Son (Matthew 12:32, 28:19, John 14:16, 2 Corinthians 3:17,

13:14) and with man (Acts 10:19, 15:28).

Clearly, then, the Holy Spirit is a person. When we think of the Holy Spirit as a

person rather than as an impersonal force or commodity: (i) we realize that we are

either indwelt by the Holy Spirit or not (one can't have half or a quarter of a

person); (ii) we will not ask "How much of the Holy Spirit do I have?" but "How

100

much does the Holy Spirit have of me?"

2. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DIVINE

The other common misconception about the person of the Holy Spirit is that he is

God's force/influence but somehow less than (inferior to) God himself. (This error is

often linked to the first: when the Spirit is not seen as a person it is difficult to see him as

being fully God.) Again, this error is serious: it denies the Doctrine of the Trinity and

insults the Holy Spirit.

The biblical evidence for the Holy Spirit being divine is similarly overwhelming. (While

the Holy Spirit can be a person without being divine, the reverse is not true. So if it is

proved that he is divine, he must also be a person, for God is a personal being.)

a) He is explicitly and implicitly called God

Acts 5:3 cf. v4; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:17, 13:14;

Isaiah 6:8-10 cf. Acts 28:25-27; Exodus 17:7 cf. Hebrews 3:7-9; Jeremiah 31:33

cf. Hebrews 10:15-16.

b) He possesses the attributes of God

Omnipotence (Romans 15:19, Luke 1:35); omniscience (John 14:26, 1

Corinthians 2:10-11); omnipresence (Psalm 139:7); immortality (Hebrews 9:14).

c) He performs or shares in the works of God

Creation (Genesis 1:2, 2:7, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30); Jesus' birth (Luke 1:35) and

baptism (Luke 3:21-22); Atonement (Hebrews 9:14); Conviction (John 16:8);

Regeneration (John 3:5-6, 2 Corinthians 3:6); Sanctification (1 Peter 1:2);

Exorcism (Matthew 12:28); Election (Acts 13:2); Resurrection (Romans 8:11).

The Holy Spirit is thus not only a person but divine (he has deity and personality).

He possesses all the attributes of God (Chapter 2.3) for the fullness of the

Godhead resides in each of the Persons (Chapter 2.5). Thus he is, for example,

sovereign: he cannot be manipulated or dictated to by our every whim and fancy.

And he is holy: he cannot dwell with unholiness and will not enter an unclean

vessel (1 Corinthians 6:18-19, 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1). The Holy Spirit comes

on his terms - and our motives must be pure and our lives in order.

101

3. THE NAMES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Like all biblical names (including those of God and Jesus), the names of the Holy Spirit

tell us something about his person and work.

a) Spirit of Holiness (Holy Spirit, Holy One)(Luke 11:13, Romans 1:4, John 2:20)

b) Spirit of God (Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Lord)(Romans 8:14)

c) Spirit of Christ (Spirit of Jesus, Spirit of the Son)(Acts 16:7, Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6,

Phlp 1:19)

d) Spirit of Grace (Hebrews 10:29)

e) Spirit of Glory (1 Peter 4:14)

f) Spirit of Truth (John 16:13)

g) Spirit of Life (Romans 8:2)

h) Spirit of Judgement (Isaiah 4:4, Matthew 3:11)

i) Spirit of Sonship (Romans 8:15)

j) Spirit of Promise (Luke 24:49, Galatians 3:14)

k) Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation (Ephesians 1:17)

l) Spirit of Prophecy (Revelation 19:10 cf. 2 Peter 1:21)

4. THE SYMBOLS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Various elements are used in Scripture as symbols/metaphors/analogies of the Holy

Spirit, and so these further describe for us his person and work.

a) Wind: powerful and sovereign (John 3:8, Acts 2:2)

b) Fire: refining and destroying (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:3)

c) Water: cleaning and sustaining (Isaiah 44:3, John 7:37-39)

d) Oil: anointing and healing (1 Samuel 16:13, Hebrews 1:9, James 5:14-15)

e) Dove: peace and gentleness (Matthew 3:16)

Wine (Matthew 9:17) and clothing (Luke 24:49) have also been suggested. Both the

Hebrew word (ruarch) and the Greek word (pneuma) for Spirit mean "breath". They are

also used of God's breath and man's breath (Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, 2 Timothy 3:16),

testifying to the role of the Spirit as the Giver of Life.

5. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY

Procession is the term which has been used by theologians to try and describe the

relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other Persons of the Trinity. It is derived

from John 15:26: "the Spirit of truth who goes out [proceeds] from the Father."

The doctrine was first formally stated by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) in

response to current heresies denying the full deity of the Spirit: "We believe in the Holy

Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is to be glorified with

102

the Father and the Son..." The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) endorsed this statement

and firmly established the doctrine of the deity of the Spirit.

However, the Synod of Toledo (A.D.589), attempting to further probe the question of the

Spirit's relation to the other Persons of the Trinity,

felt that Contantinople's statement that the Spirit proceeded from the Father might seem

to be a denial of the oneness of the Son with the Father. They thus added the famous

(infamous!) filioque clause: "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son". Western

churches accepted this formulation and incorporated it into their creeds. Eastern

churches, however, rejected it on the grounds that it implied the Spirit was not fully

divine. The difference of opinion led ultimately to the Great Schism of A.D. 1071, the

permanent separation of the Western and Eastern churches.

But is the difference really that great and was such a split necessary? The testimony of

relevant texts (e.g. John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7), taken together, is that both points of

view are correct. In the strict sense of ontological origin, the Spirit comes/proceeds from

and is given by the Father (the Eastern churches are right). But in the experiential sense

of how we receive him, the Spirit comes/proceeds from both: Jesus asks the Father for the

Spirit on our behalf and sends him to us (the Western churches are right)(cf. Luke 1:16,

24:49, Acts 1:4-5). In either case, procession does not imply inequality or createdness but

a perpetual subordination of relationship.

B : THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

6. CREATION

Both because all the Persons of the Godhead are necessarily involved in any and every

work of God (for God is one), and because of scriptural explicit statement, we know that

the Holy Spirit was involved in creating the universe.

The Spirit's particular role seemed to have been to give the creation: life (Job 33:4); order

(Genesis 1:2); and adornment for God's glory (Job 26:13, Psalm 33:6).

Not only was the Spirit involved in the origin of all things but he is involved in the

continuation of all things and in all three aspects of Providence (cf. Chapter 3.5):

preservation:renewal of the natural world (Psalm 104:29-30, Isaiah 32:15); government

of the human world (e.g. in the restraining of sin: Genesis 6:3); and miracles (Acts

10:38).

7. REVELATION

The Holy Spirit is the agent or mediator of revelation, the one through whom God reveals

himself to man, be it in the spoken Word (2 Samuel 23:2, Micah 3:8, 2 Peter 1:21), the

written Word (Matthew 22:43, Acts 1:16, 4:25, John 14:26, 2 Timothy 3:16) or the

103

Living Word (Luke 3:22, Acts 10:38).

8. ISRAEL

We have already noted that both revelation about, and the operation of, the Holy Spirit

was limited in the Old Testament period compared to the New. Indeed, any doctrine of

the person and work of the Spirit in the Old Testament is developed retrospectively from

the greater revelation of and about him in the New. (For example, what was to become

his dominant title, viz. the Holy Spirit, appears only three times in the Old Testament:

Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 63:10&11.)

The dominant function of the Holy Spirit in Israel seems to have been to come upon, fill

or indwell certain people (most often those who held the office of prophet [cf. 1 Peter

1:11], priest or king) to anoint: empower/equip them for the task God had given them.

Examples include: Bezalel, for decorating the Tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-5, 35:30-33);

Samson, for his feats of strength (Judges 14:6, 15:14); Saul, for being King over Israel (1

Samuel 19:6&10, 11:6); and David, for being King (1 Samuel 16:13). Pharaoh and

Nebuchadnezzar would not have known of the Holy Spirit but may have recognised his

presence in Joseph and Daniel respectively (Genesis 41:38, Daniel 4:8).

There are notable differences, however, between this indwelling: empowering and that of

the New Covenant: it was only for selected persons; it was not necessarily permanent

(disobedience, or the completion of the tasks, could bring it to an end: Judges 16:20, 1

Samuel 16:14, Psalm 51:11 ); it was sovereignly granted by God and not to be sought by

man. By contrast, in the New Testament: the Holy Spirit indwells all believers (Romans

8:9); this indwelling is permanent (Ephesians 1:13-14); his empowering is to be sought

by God's people (Luke 11:13). The Spirit's operation is no longer restricted to specific

works of God through selected individuals but is the fulfilment of a promise to be

claimed by all believers. (The difference may be compared to a father lending his watch

to his son to enable him to complete certain delegated tasks and later giving his son a

watch of his own when he reaches responsible age.) The situation of Old Covenant

believers in this regard highlights the immense privileges we enjoy under the New

Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:25-27).

Nevertheless, while the work of the Spirit in individual lives in the Old Testament period

seems to have been largely limited to the above, it must not be thought that his work in

and presence with Israel was erratic and that there was not a more general, ongoing

ministry to God's Old Covenant people (Nehemiah 9:20; cf. John 14:17).

9. CHRIST

The Holy Spirit was integrally involved in Jesus' conception (Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:20),

baptism (on which occasion the Spirit anointed him, i.e. filled and empowered him for his

work)(Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32, Acts 10:38), temptation (Luke 4:1), teaching and miracle

ministry (Luke 4:18-19, Matthew 12:28, John 3:34, Acts 10:38; cf. Isaiah 42:1, 61:1),

104

crucifixion (Hebrews 9:14) and resurrection (Romans 1:4, 1 Peter 3:18). The fact that

Christ depended on the power of the Spirit illuminates the degree of condescension

involved in his kenosis. It points also to our dependency on the power of the Holy Spirit:

if Jesus needed him, how much more we!

10. THE BELIEVER

Undoubtedly, a major part of the Spirit's work today is connected with the believer's

salvation (a) and life (b). The Holy Spirit bears primary responsibility for the elected

individual, from the beginning of his/her conviction to his/her final presentation in

heaven.

a) Salvation

(i) Convicts

Even our sense of sinfulness and our searching for God is a gracious gift or act of

God: we would not look for God without his first convicting and drawing us. This

is the work of the Spirit (John 16:8-11, 6:44).

(ii) Regenerates

The Holy Spirit is the one who supernaturally makes alive (regenerates) our dead

spirits and who thereby imparts to us eternal life and causes us to be "born again"

(John 3:5-8, Ephesians 2:1-5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:3, 2:23). This act is

instantaneous. It imparts a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17), a new capacity to

serve righteousness and grow into the image of God (although the old nature and

its fruits are not yet eradicated).

(iii) Indwells

Obviously, from the moment the Spirit regenerates us (entering us and touching

our spirits to impart and sustain Life), he indwells us. All believers are thus

indwelt by (have) the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians

6:19, Galatians 4:6).

(iv) Seals

The indwelling Spirit acts as a seal of our salvation. A seal is a mark of

ownership/possession and therefore also of security. The presence of the Holy

Spirit in us guarantees our full and final salvation: our justification will be

followed in time by sanctification and glorification. The indwelling Spirit is like

a deposit or first instalment, assuring us of full blessedness in the future

(Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Corinthians 1:22).

105

b) Life

(i) Baptizes/Fills

Are baptism in, and fullness of, the Spirit different things or the same thing? Both.

On the one hand, those who have a baptism in the Spirit experience in Scripture

are often said to be filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:4, 4:31), and certainly the aim in

being baptized in the Spirit is to be filled with the Spirit. But Scripture also talks

about other kinds of fullness/being filled, e.g. the ongoing, imperceptible filling of

Ephesians 5:18. The effect of all kinds of filling/fullness is to

enable/equip/empower the Christian both to live a godly life and to perform God's

works (Acts 1:8). Christians should thus seek to be filled in every way.

(ii) Gives gifts

As part of empowering the believer to fulfil his ministry, the Holy Spirit gives

gifts to him, supernatural operations of revelation and power which further enable

him to do God's work (1 Corinthians 12:7&11).

(iii) Assures

The witness of the indwelling Spirit assures us of our salvation and thus our

sonship (Romans 8:15-16, Galatians 4:6-7).

(iv) Sanctifies

The Holy Spirit is the one who, with our cooperation, gradually but suredly

sanctifies us and transforms our lives and character into the image of God/Christ

(Philippians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2). The nurturing of the fruits

of the Spirit is part of this ministry as the fruit are nothing else but the

character/likeness of Christ (Galatians 5:22).

(v) Fellowships

Jesus identified the coming Spirit as the Comforter/Counsellor/Advocate (Gr.

Paraclete), the one who would constantly walk alongside us, comforting/helping:

defending us (John 14:16-17&26, 15:26, 16:7). We thus can and should have

constant fellowship with the Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1).

(vi) Leads/Guides

The Holy Spirit leads and guides us in Christian living and service and in making

decisions (Acts 8:29, 10:19-20, 13:2-4, 15:28, 16:6-7, 20:22-23). We must live in

the Spirit, be controlled and led by him, and walk in step with him, if we are to

maximize his work in and through us (Romans 8:4-14, Galatians 5:16-25).

106

(vii) Teaches

The Holy Spirit reveals and illuminates the truths of God to us (John 14:26,

16:12-15, 1 John 2:20&27).

(viii) Inspires

The Holy Spirit inspires (i.e. both motivates and enables) our worship (John 4:23-

24, 16:14, Ephesians 5:18-20, Philippians 3:3) and our prayer (Romans 8:26-27,

Ephesians 6:18).

11. THE CHURCH

Just as the Spirit works in and through the believer to realize God's potential and purpose

for that person, so too he works in the church so that it is maximally useful to the Head of

the Church for his purposes on the earth. The Spirit indwells the church (1 Corinthians

3:16-17, Ephesians 2:21-22), bringing unity to it (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:3-4).

He gives gifts to its members so that the church may be edified (while gifts are exercised

by individuals they are given: exercised for the benefit of the whole body: 1 Corinthians

12:7). He ordains and enables church leaders (Acts 20:28) and stirs the church to mission

(Acts 13:2&4).

12. THE FUTURE

The Holy Spirit will obviously continue with his work in the believer and the church right

to the end, but Joel 2:28-32 seems to indicate a special outpouring of the Spirit on the

church near the close of the age (cf. Matthew 24:29-30), perhaps to counter the rise of

evil in the last days. (Acts 2:17-21 was only an early, partial fulfilment of Joel's

prophecy; in keeping with the nature of biblical prophecy, we look for a final, full

fulfilment. See also: Zechariah 12:10; Revelation 11:3-4 cf. Zechariah 4:3-6.)

His precise ministry on the new earth is not clear, but it will certainly include the

unchecked anointing and glorification of the King and the everlasting preservation of,

and benign brooding over, the whole new creation (Isaiah 11:1-9).

C : COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT

13. BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT: Evangelicals vs Pentecostals/Charismatics

a) The Evangelical position

Evangelicals assert that this baptism refers to regeneration-indwelling, the

107

Holy Spirit coming to take up residence in every Christian at rebirth. This

baptism is clearly promised/intended for all Christians (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:38)

and, indeed (according to this understanding), every Christian receives it. There

is thus no subsequent normative experience of the Spirit, no need to seek anything

beyond this.

There is, of course (admit evangelicals), a difference between baptism and

fullness. While we are baptized once when we become Christians, we need

continually to be filled with the Holy Spirit if we are to live the life and fulfil the

ministry God desires for us. Hence the Greek tense of Ephesians 5:18: "keep on

being filled with the Spirit". Thus all Christians are baptized in the Spirit but not

all Christians are filled with the Spirit; baptism is automatic, fullness is to be

sought.

But, maintain evangelicals, this filling is not what Pentecostals/charismatics

understand by the experience of being filled. It is an imperceptible and gradual

daily filling as we spend time in prayer, offer our lives to God, walk in step with

the Spirit, etc. The tangible and dramatic experience of filling on the day of

Pentecost was a unique, once-off event as it was the first time the spirit was given

and men received it "externally". Now that the Spirit has come (is available), men

receive it "internally" at rebirth.

b) The extreme Pentecostal position

At the other end of the spectrum is the extreme Pentecostal position, which is

vulnerable to the piercing biblical critique of evangelicals. It asserts, inter alia:

(i) You must be baptized in the Spirit (Pentecost-style, of course) to be a

Christian. This is extreme exclusivism and arrogance: no one else is considered

saved except those who share the same theology/experience.

(ii) A slightly watered-down assertion is: you must be baptized in the Spirit to be

a spiritual or Spirit-filled Christian. But this implies, firstly, that there are two

classes of Christians (ordinary/inferior and Spirit-filled/superior), an elitism not

found in Scripture and abhorrent to God. Secondly, it implies that other (non-

charismatic) Christians do not have the Holy Spirit. (This assumption is

evidenced by charismatic Christians saying to new converts: "Now you need to

receive the Holy Spirit".) But Scripture is quite clear that all Christians are

indwelt by the Holy Spirit, an indwelling automatically consequent on the Spirit's

regeneration of that person ([10a] above).

(iii) Admitting the above, charismatics may back down still further from the

extreme and say: you must have a Pentecost-type experience to be baptized/filled

with the Holy Spirit. The implication here is that other Christians are indwelt by

the Spirit but not filled with the Spirit. But, firstly, Scripture never makes a

Pentecost-type experience normative/obligatory for Christians. Secondly,

108

Scripture speaks of other kinds of filling than the Pentecost experience. (The

fullness we are exhorted to in Ephesians 5:18, for example, clearly differs in

reception from that of Acts 2.) Thirdly, we are still left with a form of ungodly

elitism and exclusivism. And, fourthly, we all know of (or have read of) great

men and women of God who have not had a charismatic baptism experience but

who have undeniably been filled with the Spirit, often exceeding in Christlike

character, effective service and even works of power, those who have had a

Pentecost-type experience. Clearly, God does not make the experience into the

qualification that we sometimes do!

(iv) You must speak in tongues to be Spirit-filled (even, to be a Christian). This

implies that tongue-speaking is the (only/chief) sign/result of being baptized/filled

with the Spirit. But this position is also elitist; it flagrantly ignores the clear

statement of Scripture that not every Christian will speak in tongues (have the

same gift) or have all the gifts; it implies that every account in the New Testament

of someone being baptized in the Holy Spirit mentions tongues as a result - which

is not true; it implies that Scripture identifies tongues as the sign/result of being

filled with the Spirit - which it does not (if Scripture does identify any sign as

characteristic of being baptized with the Spirit in a Pentecost-type way it is the

power to witness boldly: Acts 1:8, 2:14, 4:31, 7:55-56); and it forgets that many

great men and women of God who were filled with the Spirit (according to

charismatic or evangelical understanding) never spoke in tongues. [N.B. I am not

denying that every believer can be gifted with the private use of tongues. I am

only asserting, against the extreme Pentecostal position, that one does not have to

speak in tongues, publicly or even privately, in order to be a Christian or even to

be Spirit-filled.]

(v) Evangelicals have charged, often with good reason, that Pentecostals have

reduced baptism in the Holy Spirit to a selfish, indulgent, emotional experience (a

matter of "goose bumps"). Biblically, the baptism is never an end in itself but

merely a means; it is not given primarily for the believer's sake (blessing) but for

others' sake (so he/she can fulfil God's ministry through him/her to the world). It

is an equipping/empowering for service; God's calling and equipping throughout

the Bible are never for indulgence but service.

c) An acceptable Charismatic position

The evangelical position reduces the baptism in the Holy Spirit to the automatic

and unfelt indwelling of the Spirit at the moment of conversion. On the other

hand, we have had to take several steps back from the extreme Pentecostal

position which makes too many unbiblical, absolutist and simplistic claims about

baptism as the subsequent experience of receiving and being filled with the Spirit.

Is there then no grounds for believing in and teaching an experience of being

filled with the Spirit distinct from (although possibly coincident with) conversion

and thus often subsequent to it?

109

We believe there is, and that the charismatic understanding of the baptism in the

Holy Spirit as a distinct (from conversion/indwelling) and tangible experience is

biblical as long as it is properly defined/limited and the above extremes are

avoided.

Acts 4:31 is a corrective to evangelicals who maintain that the tangible and

momentary (vs imperceptible and ongoing) filling of Acts 2:2-4 was a unique,

once-off event because it was the first time the Spirit was given. The believers

(many of whom must have been in the Upper Room on the day of Pentecost) here

experienced the same kind of filling again. Moreover, the 120 had already

received (been indwelt by) the Spirit at Pentecost; Acts 4 thus represented a

different purpose of reception: infilling - the Spirit coming upon them in power to

equip them for the task at hand. In retrospect, Acts 2 was clearly an empowering

of this sort too, as well as being the occasion on which they first received (were

indwelt by) the Spirit. Acts 8 (v12 cf. v16) confirms the emerging picture that

there are (or can be) experiences, subsequent to conversion (at which time one is

indwelt by the Spirit), in which the Holy Spirit comes powerfully upon one,

anointing/equipping/empowering one for God's service (in a similar way to that in

which he came upon selected Old Testament persons). Other texts also show such

a visitation, either at (Acts 10:44-46) or subsequent to (Acts 9:17) conversion, but

in each case certainly different to both the imperceptible indwelling of the Spirit

that happens to every Christian at conversion and the imperceptible, ongoing

filling that occurs throughout the Christian life.

Defined thus, as a distinct and tangible experience of being filled with and

overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit, and thereby anointed to be and do what God

desires, there is room for the charismatic understanding of Spirit baptism.

("Distinct": distinct from regeneration-indwelling but either coincidental with, or

subsequent to, it; "tangible": felt, experienced.) While we do not build doctrine

on experience, our unmistakable experience of such a baptism (and that of

millions of others) causes us to look for it in Scripture; having found room for it

in Scripture, our experience can then add weight to the doctrine.

Must/do all men experience such a baptism? We will have to say no. But we

believe the offer is there for all believers; and with this offer, as with all others,

our response should not be "Must I experience it?" but "If God's got something

for me I want it". We could certainly go so far as to say "All men can experience

it", and perhaps even so far as "All men should experience it". (The evangelicals

are right: the baptism in the Holy Spirit is promised to : intended for all believers.)

But we cannot say "All men must experience it" (certainly, we cannot say that

they are not Christians, or first-class Christians, if they don't) and it is obvious

that not all men do experience it. God in his grace (often because the church was

not teaching this truth at the time) has obviously many times given his people the

equivalent empowering through imperceptible, ongoing filling that they would

have had through tangible, momentary filling(s) if they had been taught about and

so had prayed for and received the latter. This does not render the latter kind of

110

filling redundant, however, or reduce it to an optional extra; it is God's desire,

plan and offer for empowering the believer at any and every stage (including the

young convert) for service.

Acts 4:31 is also a corrective to Pentecostals. The latter have insisted that a

baptism experience only occurs once. But here many of the 120 of Acts 2 are

baptized all over again. The Spirit is sovereign, and how can we prescribe to or

limit him? (Why should we want to!) He clearly not only repeatedly fills us in an

ongoing, imperceptible way but can and does also repeatedly fill us in

momentary, tangible experiences. Unlike its literal use in connection with water

baptism (a once-off, initial/initiating experience), "baptizo" (immersion) is used

figuratively with respect to the Spirit, who can immerse and empower us as many

times as he wills, as he deems it necessary.

To be continuously filled with the Spirit we need to be repeatedly refilled, and we

must be open to the Spirit doing this in any manner he desires at any point. We

need refilling because: sin grieves the Spirit and quenches his operation in our

lives (his lost control has to be regained); when God wants to refine new/deeper

areas in one's life these have to be filled with the Spirit (brought under his

control); as we live and minister we expend or impart power and our strength

needs to be renewed; new situations may demand new wisdom/boldness/power

and hence require greater filling (Acts 4).

14. WHO DO WE PRAY TO: FATHER, SON OR HOLY SPIRIT?

The strictly correct doctrinal answer to this question is: we pray to the Father (the Fount

of all being and blessing, the Author of the decrees of God, the Giver of every good

gift)(Psalm 2:7, Acts 17:24-28, 1 Timothy 6:17, James 1:17); through the Son (the

Mediator of salvation and blessing, our High Priest in heaven, the One who makes our

prayers possible and efficacious)(John 14:13, 15:7&16, 16:23-24&26, Hebrews 4:14 -

5:10, 6:19-20, 7:11 - 10:22); by the Holy Spirit (the One who motivates and enables both

the what and the how of our prayer)(Romans 8:26-27, Ephesians 6:18).

But this does not mean that we do not/cannot talk to and fellowship with the Son and the

Spirit. Jesus is the one who reveals God to us, who saves us, who prays for us, who is the

head of the church, whom we love and adore (John 14:13 cf. v14). And the Spirit is our

Counsellor, our constant companion, who walks with us from convicted sinner to

presented saint (John 14:16-18, 2 Corinthians 13:14)(see [10b]).

In particular, because he is the "contact person" of the Trinity in this age, it is not only

permissible but necessary to pray to/fellowship with the Spirit so that we can understand

and honour his sovereign will and moving in and through us (individually and

corporately). This focus on the Spirit is, as said, acceptable as long as:

a) There is no hint of a different personality (as if we have to get to know the

111

personality of the Spirit because it differs from the Father's and/or the Son's) and

hence of three totally distinct and different beings/persons, of three Gods

(tritheism). This implication is unbiblical because God is one, and the three

Persons of the Godhead thus possess exactly the same substance/nature/character:

personality: attributes. Jesus is exactly like the Father (John 1:18, 8:19, 14:7-11,

Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3); to know Jesus is to know the Father. Similarly, the

Spirit is exactly like Jesus: when Jesus promised that "another Counsellor" (John

14:16) would come in his place and be to the disciples what he had been (v18), he

significantly did not use heteros (another of a similar kind) but allos (another of

exactly the same kind). Thus to know Jesus is to know the Spirit (and vice-versa).

Scripture calls us to "Know your God", but never "Know the Father/Son/Holy

Spirit", as if these were three different knowledges. Similarly, it speaks our (one)

relationship with the (one) God, never of three relationships needing separate

communication/cultivation.

b) There is no hint of worshipping or glorifying the Spirit at the expense of, or

without reference to, the Father and the Son. The Son came to show men the

Father and not to promote himself; to glorify the Father and not himself (John

8:50, 12:27-28, 14:13, 15:8, 17:1&4); to speak not of his own but only what the

Father told him (John 8:28, 14:31). In just the same way the Spirit comes to point

men to Jesus and not to promote himself, to glorify the Father and the Son and not

himself, to speak not of his own but of things Jesus said (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:8-

10&13-15). To make focus on the Spirit an end in itself rather than merely a

means to the end of focusing on the Father and the Son is, therefore, to do what

the Spirit himself does not do and thus to do that which grieves him. (Note, for

example, his "absence" in Revelation 5:13.)(An example of this error was to be

found in many motivations for the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in

the early days of the charismatic movement which never mentioned Jesus once.)

We pray to and fellowship with the Spirit as the One who enables us to better

know, love, obey and serve the Father and the Son, but he himself is the self-

effacing, retiring, "invisible" member of the Trinity, who never draws attention to

himself.

Summarizing thus far: strictly speaking, we pray to the Father, through the Son, by the

Spirit; but this does not mean that we do not or cannot pray to, and fellowship with, the

Son and/or the Spirit. Indeed, focus on the Spirit in this age is not only permissible but

necessary, as long as we avoid the dangers of tritheism and Spirit-worship.

Ultimately, however, it does not really matter who we pray to. Because God is one

Being, prayer directed to any particular member of the Trinity is automatically indirectly

addressed to all three Persons. (To pray to one is to pray to all.) Further, because God is

one, and all three Persons are thus necessarily involved in any and every act of God, we

don't have to locate the "right" Person in any particular matter in order for our prayer to

be heard (in the way that we have to locate the right government department for our

complaint to be redressed). Prayer to any Person is responded to as all three Persons are

involved in every divine work and are acting in perfect unity with regard to that work.

112

The very fact that we have problems with who we should pray to, and the consequent

need for this section, is evidence of how our understanding of the Trinity has drifted

towards tritheism. The remembrance that God is one and the implications of this truth for

this question are a welcome relief and corrective. Thankfully, God is not nearly so fussed

over the issue of who we should pray to as we are!

15. WHAT IS "THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE SPIRIT"?

Jesus speaks of this sin as being unforgivable, "an eternal sin" (Matthew 12:31-32, Mark

3:28-29); John, almost certainly speaking of the same thing, calls it "a sin that leads to

death" (1 John 5:16-17). Many Christians are worried that they have committed, or may

commit, this sin. What is this sin?

We can blaspheme against the Son (mock and reject his person and work) without really

knowing his identity and authority or understanding his salvation (having only an

intellectual knowledge of him, not a spiritual knowledge). Later, when God draws us to

himself, grants us spiritual insight into the Son's identity and convicts us of his salvation,

we may repent and be forgiven of all our sin - including that earlier blasphemy against

the Son.

But the Spirit is the One who draws, illuminates and convicts in this process; he is the

One who gives us a "taste" of (spiritual insight into) God and his salvation; he is God

himself meeting and confronting us with the gospel, presenting to us the choice between

life and death. If we reject this overture from God, this work of the Spirit in our lives, we

mock and reject the Spirit's person and work (i.e. we blaspheme against him) and God

has no other way of reaching and hence of saving us. We are thus condemning ourselves

to judgement: we can no longer be forgiven because no forgiveness remains for one who

"ignores such a great salvation" (Hebrews 2:1-3, 10:26-31, 12:25).

The "unforgivable sin" is thus as much a sin of omission as a sin of commission; it is as

much a condition as an act. Further, it is not a sin committed by the Christian, who has

accepted the overture and then does something awful to thereby "lose" his salvation, but

the sin committed by the non-Christian who is shown everything God can possibly show

him and who is on the brink of salvation but who turns away and rejects it. These are

they whom Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22 seem to refer to when they talk of those

who have "tasted" salvation but have turned from it. This sin is unforgivable because it is

"impossible" for these to return to repentance.

Jesus' statement about the blasphemy against the Spirit can be read in two ways, but

either way the context seems to confirm the above explanation of the sin. (1) The

Pharisees were blaspheming the Son, rejecting his demonstration of power and hence the

proof of his identity. Even for this serious sin they could be forgiven, but Jesus warns

them that for similarly rejecting the Spirit's work in their midst they could not be forgiven

(for the reasons outlined above). (2) Jesus was driving out demons by the Spirit of God.

113

It was the fullest proof of Jesus' identity, authority and salvation the Pharisees

would/could ever have (one given by the Spirit). By rejecting this overture from God

they were rejecting salvation and so bringing damnation on themselves ("committing" a

sin for which they could not be forgiven).

The same damning choice can be illustrated from another angle. We are all included in

the Adamic Covenant (descended from Adam, represented by Adam) and reap the curses

for breaking it. Jesus is the Second Adam, the Second Representative Head of the human

race. He represented every man on the cross and his death is "the atoning sacrifice...for

the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2; cf. Chapter 6.8b). All men are thus also

included in this covenant. If we accept Jesus' sacrifice we keep the covenant and reap its

blessings. If we reject Jesus' sacrifice we break the covenant and reap its curse: eternal

death. This is the unforgivable sin because, as we have seen, if we reject Jesus' sacrifice,

"no sacrifice for sins is left" (Hebrews 10:26).

Christians thus have absolutely no need to worry about committing the unforgivable sin:

by accepting Jesus they have already avoided it and made it impossible in their case; they

have not blasphemed the Spirit but responded to his person and work in their lives.

Anyway, the very fact that they are concerned that they have committed it is proof that

they haven‟t: the unforgivable sin would always have to be the act/condition where one

was so far from God, so hardened against him, that one couldn't be convicted of one's sin

and led to repentance - because God will always forgive the repentant sinner. The very

fact that the Christian is concerned that he has sinned against God shows that he is not in

this unreachable and thus unforgivable state but that he is (capable of) being convicted

and that he desires to repent and be forgiven.).

114

Chapter 8

THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

Chapter Outline: 1. The Extent of Salvation

2. The Order of Salvation

a) Election

b) Calling

c) Justification

d) Sanctification

e) Perseverance

f) Glorification

3. The Terms of Salvation

4. The Nature of Salvation

5. Man in the Redeemed State

In the previous two lectures we have looked at salvation from God's point of view: the

salvation provided by God for man through the person and work of Jesus Christ,

particularly his atoning sacrifice on the cross; and God's implementation of this salvation

in man through the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the One who takes the individual

from convicted sinner to presented saint. In this lecture we look at salvation from man's

point of view: how man appropriates and experiences God's salvation.

1. THE EXTENT OF SALVATION

What is the extent of God's salvation: does it extend to all or only some men? In other

words, are all men saved or only some?

Scripture declares that God wants all men to be saved (Ezekiel 18:23&32, 33:11, Romans

11:32, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). It is not surprising, therefore, that Scripture also

declares that Christ died for the whole world, that his sacrifice was for the sins of all men

(John 1:1&29, 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 5:14&19, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:2).

Quite obviously, then, God's salvation potentially extends to all men; it is possible for all

men to be saved.

But Scripture also declares that this potential salvation needs to be personally

appropriated to be realised and that many do not appropriate it (John 1:10-12, 3:14-21, et

al). From this fact, as well as the numerous references to eternal punishment (Matthew

25:46, John 5:28-29), it is obvious that not all men are saved (Matthew 7:13-14). In an

actual (vs potential) sense, therefore, Christ died for (and is the Saviour of) only some

men, i.e. believers (Matthew 20:28, John 10:15, Ephesians 5:25).

115

The answer to our original question (does God's salvation extend to all or only some

men) is thus both: potentially, God is the Saviour of all men; actually, God is the Saviour

of those who believe (cf. 1 Timothy 4:10). Put another way, we could say that the

atonement is unlimited but that salvation is limited.

This conclusion refutes, on the one hand, extreme Calvinist doctrines of election which

state that Christ only died for those whom God wants/chooses to save (limited

atonement); and, on the other hand, the "all men are saved" of universalism (unlimited

salvation). It also refutes syncretism ("all roads lead to God"), because Scripture asserts

that salvation is to be found only in Jesus and his sacrifice (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1

Timothy 2:5).

2. THE ORDER OF SALVATION

Salvation is not an instantaneous experience or once-off event (of the past) but a process

embracing past (Ephesians 1:13, 2:8), present (Philippians 2:12) and future (Ephesians

1:14, 1 Peter 1:5). It is a series of events, which together represent a certain "order of

salvation" (ordo salutis)(Rom 8:29-30)

At each stage of salvation the difficult question of the relationship between divine

sovereignty and human freedom surfaces. Some (after Calvin) emphasize the role of

God's sovereign will at each point in the process of salvation; others (after Arminius)

emphasize the role of man's free will and choice at each point. It thus makes sense to

look at the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom at each point in the

order of salvation (i.e. in each section below) rather than to examine the Calvin-Arminius

debate separately.

a) Election (Predestination)

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of

his Son..."

Limited

Atonement

CALVINISM

(God only wants

some men to be

saved)

Unlimited Atonement

Limited Salvation

Unlimited

Salvation

SCRIPTURE

(God wants all men to be

saved but only some are)

UNIVERSALISM

(All men are saved)

SYNCRETISM

(All roads lead to God)

116

Scripture clearly states that believers are elected/predestined/chosen by God

before their conversion - indeed, before the creation of the world (Romans

8:29&33, Ephesians 1:4-5&11, Revelation 17:8 cf. 20:15). What does this mean?

In particular, does it mean that we have no say in the matter, that God one-sidedly

chooses before time who will be saved and who will not?

First of all, we must distinguish between election to salvation and election to

service. Many times when Scripture speaks of someone being called or chosen it

refers to the latter kind of election: person A (by implication: rather than person

B) being appointed to a particular task, to fulfil a certain function. Cyrus (Isaiah

45:1-4) and even Christ (Isaiah 42:1) are amongst those who are said to be elected

in this way. With this kind of election we should have no problem: God is

sovereign and thus totally within his rights to appoint the man or woman of his

choosing; moreover, his choosing is never arbitrary but based on his perfect

knowledge (including foreknowledge) of the candidates' character and obedience.

Thus, even before their birth (Genesis 25:23, Romans 9:11-12), God chose Jacob

over Esau for the task of inheriting and passing on the covenant promises because

he foreknew the younger's greater godliness (Genesis 25:34 cf. Hebrews 12:16-

17). This rejection of Esau for a particular task did not mean that he was totally

rejected by God. Indeed, God so blessed him that later on he did not want to

receive Jacob's gifts at first because he had so much of his own (Genesis 33:9).

God's preference for Jacob was thus a relative one - although the use of hyperbole

in Romans 9:13 makes it seem absolute (cf. Matthew 10:37, Luke 14:26). Failure

to be elected for a task does not mean, therefore, that we are not or cannot be

elected for salvation. John 15:16 and Galatians 1:15 also refer to this kind of

election: the apostles were chosen by Jesus to perform a particular task (the

choice did not originate with them).

This distinction between election to salvation and election to service helps to

explain many of the difficult texts referring to election. Nevertheless, texts

speaking of election to salvation remain (e.g. those cited at the beginning of this

section). How are we elected/predestined to salvation?

The extreme view of predestination states that before all time, God sovereignly

and one-sidedly predestined some to be saved and the rest to be damned, and that

this will is absolute and irresistible (it makes no difference what we do or don't

do). This view has to be rejected as unbiblical for several reasons. First, it makes

God to be an unjust and unfeeling monster. Any understanding of election must

be consistent with the whole character of God. God is sovereign, but he is also

just and loving, and "God can do nothing apart from the exercise of all his

attributes acting harmoniously together" (Chapter 2.3b). Indeed, God predestined

us "in love" (Ephesians 1:4-5), and the doctrine of election should glorify and not

blaspheme him (vv6&12). Second, it contradicts the clear statement of Scripture

that God wants all men to be saved and that he therefore sent his Son to die for the

117

sins of the whole world ([1] above). Third, it obliterates human responsibility. If

we cannot help but act out what God has already decreed, then we are not really

culpable and God is unjust to punish us. But God holds man responsible for his

actions and God is just. Thus man must have a part (choice) in determining how

he lives. And since how we live determines our destiny (God in his moral

perfection and constancy always rewards good and punishes evil), we have a part

(choice) in determining our destiny. Man's destiny cannot therefore be summarily

determined by God without reference to human responsibility. Whatever election

may mean, it cannot violate the spiritual and moral laws according to which God

relates to man. Fourth, it contradicts the findings of the doctrine of providence

(Chapter 3.5b), namely, that not everything that happens is God's will, that God,

man and Satan together write the pages of history. If this is true of secular

history, why not also of salvation history? If God's government of mankind as a

whole is not absolute in this age, why should his government of the individual

(including the individual's salvation or lack thereof) be absolute? Redeemed and

unredeemed man is able to do things contrary to God's will; man must, therefore,

possess the power of decision about salvation as well.

In opposition to this extreme view of election we suggest the following as a more

biblical and sensible position: God elects/predestines to salvation all those who

respond to the preaching of the gospel, who accept his invitation. This is the

import of Jesus' parable of the wedding banquet: God calls/invites all men

because he wants all to be saved ("many are called"); but only those who accept

the invitation are chosen, are allowed to the banquet ("few are chosen")(cf. again

Matthew 7:13-14). It is as if the inscription on the outside of the door reads

"Follow Me"; when we pass through we see that on the inside it reads "You are

chosen". Seen in this light, election texts are no longer problematic: those who

believe are the "elect" (Matthew 24:22&24&31, Titus 1:1) or "chosen" (2 John

13); God elects precisely those whom he foreknows will respond to his invitation

(note the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination in Romans 8:29

and the fact that foreknowledge comes first); and it is because of his

foreknowledge that he is able to do this before the foundation of the world

(Ephesians 1:4-5&11-12, Revelation 17:8). Thus we both become the elect and

yet have always been the elect! The Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch were "appointed

for eternal life" because, in his foreknowledge of their "honouring the word of the

Lord", God predestined them to salvation; when Paul preached the gospel to them

they duly believed and were saved (Acts 13:48). But it is not election that leads

to belief but belief that leads to election (albeit in a backwards kind of way!)

Conversely, it is not condemnation that leads to unbelief but unbelief that leads to

condemnation: "those who do not believe" are not "destined" to "disobey the

message" but are destined to "stumble" for not obeying the message (1 Peter 2:7-

8). Unbelief is destined to result in destruction as much as belief is destined to

result in salvation.

118

Two further considerations will help to make the concept of election even more

understandable. First, election in Scripture has much more to do with the election

of a group/people than with the election of individuals (Hebraic communalism vs

Greek individualism). In the Old Testament it is Israel who is the elect, God's

people/nation chosen by him to perform his work in the world (Deuteronomy

4:37, 1 Chronicles 16:13). An individual was not elected; he became part of the

elect by joining Israel. Similarly, in the New Testament, it is the church who is

elect, God's nation/people elected by him before all time to perform his work on

the earth in this age (Colossians 3:12, 1 Peter 2:9-10. Even Ephesians 1:5-6&11-

12 can - and perhaps should - be read as referring to corporate election). Election

is thus not a matter of the supposed predestination of individuals to heaven or hell

but one of God's chosen instrument in various ages; in this age we become part of

the elect by joining the church, i.e. by believing.

Second, Scripture doesn't, in a strict sense, speak (as we have been doing) of

being elected to be saved but of being elected "to eternal life" (Acts 13:48), "to be

conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29), "to be holy and blameless

in his sight" (Ephesians 1:4), "to be adopted as his sons" (v5), "in order that

we...might be for the praise of his glory " (v12) and "may declare the praises of

him" (1 Peter 2:9), etc. Again it becomes clear that election has little if anything

to do with the salvation or damnation of individuals and everything to do with

what God purposes with, and promises to, those who are saved (who believe):

namely, that they will become like him, do his work, glorify him, be numbered

among his children, receive eternal life, etc. In this regard it has been well said

ELECTION

ELECTION

to a task

ELECTION

to salvation?

BIBLICAL POSITION

All who believe are elected

EXTREME POSITION

God predestines some to belief/salvation

and some to unbelief/damnation

GOD ELECTS A PEOPLE (Israel, the Church to perform his

purposes on the earth: All who

believe become part of the select

PREDESTINED FOR A PURPOSE God has a destiny for those who

believe – to be conformed to the image

of his Son, etc.

119

that election should lead to sanctification and service, not speculation; that the

Bible is little concerned with telling us how God elects us and much more

concerned with why God elects us (Ephesians 2:10, Colossians 3:12). [We have

come full circle, for it will be seen from these last two points that the second kind

of election ("election to salvation" or, more properly, the election of a people to

show forth, serve and glorify God) is not that far removed after all from the first

kind (the election of individuals to perform certain tasks).]

b) Calling

"And those he predestined, he also called..."

The total depravity of man in the fallen state (Chapter 5.10a) means that all men

are sinful, corrupted in every area of their being and powerless to do anything

about their condition (Romans 5:6). The original sin of man (Chapter 5.10b)

means that every inclination of his heart is away from God and towards evil

(Genesis 6:5). Man is thus totally dependent on God's grace not only for salvation

but even for being inclined towards God and his salvation in the first place.

If God did not make the first move we would never make any. But he does: the

Father draws us to Jesus and his salvation (John 6:44) through the convicting

work of the Spirit (John 16:8). Theologians call this prevenient

(anticipating/predisposing) grace: the grace which precedes and prepares any

Godward inclination in man. Before there is any human will to do good, the Holy

Spirit creates in a man the desire to be reconciled to God and to do his will (cf.

Philippians 2:13). In short, God calls us.

It is the experience of many that they respond to the preaching of the gospel

having rejected it on many previous occasions. Is this change to be ascribed

purely to human decision (Arminius) or is it the result of God's special (and

perhaps irresistible) calling at that time (Calvin)? We can accept that there is a

difference between God's common call on all occasions when the gospel is

preached and God's effectual call (a special, efficacious influence) on the occasion

of faith (although whether this occasion constitutes an appointed time is

debatable). However, we cannot accept the hyper-Calvinist assertion that only

those whom God has elected to salvation experience such a calling, for God wants

all men to be saved and thus surely calls all as effectively as possible. Neither can

we accept their assertion that this call is irresistible: this would remove human

responsibility; and Hebrews 6 talks of those who have experienced this call (have

"tasted" salvation) but have rejected it.

God's prevenient grace in our lives, his calling/drawing/convicting us, means that

salvation from beginning to end is the work of God: in all things he takes the

initiative in approaching man. Yet human co-operation is demanded at each

phase of the preparation.

120

c) Justification

"Those he called, he also justified..."

At the moment of heeding God's call and accepting his invitation, of receiving

Christ and his salvation by believing in him and his atoning sacrifice (John 1:12),

God performs two miraculous and momentous things simultaneously and

instantaneously within/towards us.

First, by his Spirit, God regenerates us. That is, he renews or makes alive that

which was dead in us - our spirits - so that we are again able to fellowship with

God and incline towards him. Because this "resurrection of spirit" is like

something new being born in us, and marks the beginning of a whole new

existence, the Bible describes this change as being "born of the Spirit", "born

again" or "reborn" (John 3:3-8, Ephesians 2:1&5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:23). To be

regenerated is to be given a new nature: with a spirit now able to know God, and

moreover with the Holy Spirit now indwelling us, we have a new

inclination/capacity/ability to serve God rather than Satan/sin. This does not

mean, however, that the old nature has yet been eradicated.

Second, God justifies us. In biblical times, a judge who found the accused

innocent of all charges against him and thus free (right-standing) in the sight of

the law, closed the case by saying "I justify you". Because we have accepted

Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf, God is able to apply the fruits of the atonement to

us: negatively, he forgives our sin (he removes it from us, placing it on Jesus);

positively, he declares us righteous (he takes Jesus' righteousness and places it on

us)(2 Cor 5:21). And so God is able to justify us, declare us innocent of all

charges brought against us and righteous in his sight, without compromising his

holiness or justice (Rom 3:21-26, 1 Cor 6:11). Of course, our new-found

righteousness does not refer to our state on earth (we possess still the

Adamic/sinful nature and still sin) but to our status in heaven. Because we are

now "in Christ" (i.e. under the atonement, in the covenant) and consequently

justified, God no longer sees us but Christ, no longer our fallenness but Christ's

perfection. It is because we are in this way seen as perfect that we can come into

God's presence without being struck down for our sin (Heb 10:19-22 cf. Ex

33:20), that we can be seated in the heavenly realms (Eph 1:3, 2:6), that the

church can be said to be holy and radiant and blameless, without stain or wrinkle

or any other blemish (Eph 5:26-27). Our right-standing with God and hence our

right-of-access to him, lost in Adam, has at last been restored.

Justification includes forgiveness but is much more than that. Forgiveness is an

act of God followed by a succession of such acts; justification is an act of God

followed by a constant and unceasing changed attitude towards the sinner.

Forgiveness is repeated throughout life; justification is once-for-all and never

repeated. Forgiveness is negative only, removing condemnation; justification is

both this and positive, the bestowal of a proper standing before God. Forgiveness

121

does not of itself alter our formal status; justification gives us a new status (it is a

reinstatement).

The consequences of regeneration are a new birth and a new nature; the

consequences of justification are similarly enormous. Some of them have already

been mentioned: forgiveness of sin/guilt and removal of

judgement/condemnation; restoration of original righteousness and right-standing;

heavenly position and access. There are many others. We are no longer enemies

of God but are reconciled to and at peace with him (Romans 5:1&10-11, 2

Corinthians 5:19). We are no longer far away from God and strangers to his

house but have been brought near to him and made members of his family

(Ephesians 2:11-22, 1 Peter 2:4-10). We are his children (John 1:12, 1 John 3:1).

Indeed, we are his sons, adopted into a new family with the full rights and

privileges of a son; we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:14-

17). We have eternal life, citizenship in heaven and a place in the Father's house.

We are complete in Christ, possessing his authority and every spiritual blessing.

The effect of the Fall was to place us under both a penalty for sin and the power

RELATIONSHIP WITH

GOD RESTORED

CONVERSION

JUSTIFICATION REGENERATION

NEW NATURE

(Spirit made alive)

(Indwelt by Spirit)

NEW STATUS

Original righteousness restored)

(Heavenly position and access)

X X X

RELATIONSHIP WITH

GOD DESTROYED

POWER OF SIN PENALTY OF SIN

FALL

122

of sin. Justification (new status) removes the penalty for sin; regeneration (new

nature) removes the power of sin - potentially, for this has to be worked out in the

process of sanctification, the next phase of salvation ([d] below). [While we

normally contrast "justification" (past event, status in heaven) with

"sanctification" (present process, state on earth), the Bible sometimes uses

"sanctification" (being made holy) of both and makes the contrast to be between

"positional sanctification" (justification)(1 Corinthians 6:11) and "progressive

sanctification".] At the moment of regeneration-justification, therefore, one

aspect of our membership of the old creation is terminated; henceforth we belong

also to the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). While we still live in this age, we are

already members of the future age, examples of the presence of the future in the

present, of God's (future) Kingdom and New Creation invading the present.

As with each stage of salvation, justification is God's act: he takes the initiative

and does everything. But, as always, it requires our co-operation: here, faith (see

[3] below).

d) Sanctification

"Sanctification" comes from the same root as "saint" and "holy", and means to be

set apart or made holy. It is the gradual process after conversion by which we

"become what we are", i.e. by which our state of imperfection on earth

approaches the status of perfection in heaven which our justification has given us

(1 Corinthians 6:11 cf. 1 Peter 1:15).

In justification, "we have been made holy" (positional sanctification:

holiness)(Hebrews 10:10); in sanctification, those who have already been "made

perfect forever...are being made holy" (progressive/practical sanctification:

holiness)(Hebrews 10:14). Justification concerns the position of the Christian;

sanctification his condition. Justification has to do with our relationship to God;

sanctification with our fellowship with God. Justification is "Christ for us", the

foundation of peace and assurance; sanctification is "Christ in us", the foundation

of practical righteousness. Justification has no degrees (it is perfect and

complete); sanctification has degrees. Justification is eternal; sanctification is

temporal.

For two reasons, sanctification is omitted from the order of salvation of Romans

8:30. (1) The completion of our salvation (glorification) is not dependent on our

sanctification but only on our justification. People who convert to Christ shortly

before their death (or Christ's return) have little or no time to be sanctified but,

because of God's justice, this does not disqualify them from salvation (e.g. the

thief on the cross). All those who received Christ will be saved: "those he

justified, he also glorified". However, this gracious allowance does not remove

the responsibility of and requirement on all Christians to pursue holiness and

sanctification wherever possible. Indeed, the genuineness of conversion

(regeneration-justification) is proved by subsequent sanctification (1 John 3:9-10),

123

just as repentance is proved by its fruit (Matthew 3:8) and faith by works (James

2:14-26).

(2) Sanctification, more than the other phases of salvation, is a process for which

we are co-responsible. Every stage demands human cooperation: we have to

accept or respond to God's initiative of calling and justifying, for example. But in

these cases (as also in electing and glorifying), the work itself is performed

wholly by God, who therefore does it perfectly. But in sanctification we co-

operate with God much more substantially in doing the work itself. The work

may, therefore, not be done properly; and if sanctification were a part of the order

of salvation we would then nullify our justification and disqualify ourselves from

glorification. In his mercy, therefore, because sanctification is not his sole

responsibility (a matter of his unilateral decree) and hence can be frustrated, God

does not include it in the sure, inevitable progress of a person's salvation.

However, just as before, this gracious omission does not in anyway detract from

God's command to us to pursue sanctification. While access to heaven may be a

matter of justification (and thus guaranteed irrespective of sanctification),

crowns/rewards in heaven are a matter of sanctification (are not guaranteed) - and

those who neglect it will feel decidedly bareheaded in eternity!

Having defined sanctification, contrasted it with justification, and examined its

place in the order of salvation, we must now ask: what does the process of

sanctification actually involve?

Regeneration, as we have seen, by rebirthing our spirits and making us alive to

God, gives us a new nature, a new inclination to serve God and a new capacity to

say no to sin. In addition, the now indwelling Spirit both motivates and enables

this new nature to work out (live out) its salvation (Philippians 2:12-13).

But the old (sinful/Adamic) nature remains. We were born with it and, until we

die, still possess it. Also, we still live in the fallen world, one in which Satan is

still active. Sin thus remains a reality for the Christian (1 John 1:8-10) - and in

this life/world always will.

The Christian thus has within himself two opposed natures (inclinations,

capacities) which war against each other (Romans 6 & 7, Galatians 5), and the

believer, through the exercise of his will, decides which nature is allowed to reign

(express itself) at any particular point. (This war is not between body and

soul/spirit: both natures can express themselves through our whole being.)

Sanctification is the lifelong process by which, little by little, with the Spirit's

motivation and assistance, we more and more say "no" to sin and "yes" to God,

we subdue the sinful nature and give reign to the new nature.

This process in the individual is analogous to the process of the judgement of

Satan, and the converse process of the coming of Christ's kingdom, in the world.

124

Satan and his works were judged and disarmed on the cross (1 John 3:8,

Colossians 2:15); but the execution of that judgement is partially and

progressively administered by Christ through his church throughout this age, and

fully administered by Christ at his second coming. Conversely, Jesus became

king (inaugurated his kingdom) in "secrecy" at his first coming (John 12:31); his

kingship is extended partially and progressively through the church throughout

the period between his comings, and it will be established throughout the earth at

his return (Revelation 11:15).

In the same way, our sinful nature was judged when we identified with Jesus in

his death and burial (the judgement on all sin on the cross) and we were given a

new nature when we identified with Christ in his resurrection (his rising out of the

grave to a new life). [Spiritually, we died and rose at the moment of conversion;

subsequently, we acted it out physically in baptism: Rom 6:3-4.] But (as with the

judgement on Satan and his works) the execution of this judgement on the old

nature is a process: we administer it progressively but partially in this age in co-

operation with God (we remove the old nature from its reign in various areas:

sanctification); God administers it fully at the end of the age (he removes the old

nature from us entirely: glorification). The same is true of the converse: the new

nature is established at rebirth; it progressively (but partially) extends its reign

OLD NATURE NEW NATURE

Regeneration

Christian’s

Sanctification

Resurrection

Conversion

(Disarmed)

Christian’s

Sanctification

Glorification

(Destroyed)

- Whole Life -

PRINCEDOM

OF DARKNESS

KINGDOM

OF LIGHT

- Whole World -

Cross

(Disarmed)

Church’s

Mission

Conquest

(Destroyed

)

Incarnation

Church’s

Mission

Return

PARALLELS

- Partial & Progressive -

- Full & Final -

- Partial & Progressive -

- Full & Final -

125

during our life in God on this earth; it will reign fully in us on the new earth.

Satan was not destroyed on the cross but he was rendered powerless (Matthew

12:28-29, Colossians 2:15). Similarly, the old nature was not destroyed in our

identification with Christ on the cross but it was rendered powerless. That is why

we are able progressively to execute judgement on it in our lives; why

regeneration potentially frees us from the power of sin (we have to realise this

potential by our choices and co-operation with God) just as justification removes

the penalty of sin. We no longer have to live under the power of sin, enslaved to it

(John 8:31-36).

Does this mean that we are able to attain sinlessness and should lead sinless lives?

The New Testament maintains a tension on this matter. On the one hand, it

implies that we can and should be victorious over sin (Romans 6:1 - 8:14, 2 Peter

1:3-4). On the other hand, it implies that we will always continue to wrestle with

sin in this life (1 John 1:8 - 2:1). The former means that we can never excuse or

become comfortable with sin but have always to strive for sinlessness as a goal.

The latter means we are not to feel disqualified or condemned by the ongoing

presence of sin in our lives.

The latter truth also refutes any Pelagian-type heresies which teach that we can

and should attain sinlessness in this life (and that some have indeed done so).

Neither the Christian nor, therefore, the church is free of original or actual sin in

this age. Ephesians 5:26-27 thus does not and cannot refer to the church's

sanctification (her present - or even future - condition on earth) but to her

justification (her present status in heaven) and her glorification (her future state

and status on the new heaven and new earth).

Where sin does occur in the Christian it results in a loss of fellowship with God

and not of relationship to God, and sometimes in discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4-5,

Hebrews 12:6) and even death (Acts 5:1-11, 1 Corinthians 11:30). The remedy is

vertical and (where necessary) horizontal reconciliation through confession (1

John 1:9 & 2:1) and restitution.

As sanctification gains ground in us, the image of God in man, distorted (but not

destroyed) in the Fall, is increasingly restored. For example, our conscience is

purified (Romans 13:5, 1 Corinthians 8:7&10&12) and our mind renewed

(Matthew 22:37, Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 14:15, Ephesians 5:17); the

corruption of every area of our being resulting from the Fall (Rom 1 & 2) begins

to be reversed. We have seen (Chapter 5.3) that the creation of man in the image

of God means that he is designed to be like God, an image or reflection, and thus

a representation, of him on the earth. Thus, as we are sanctified, we become more

and more like God, revealing him to the world around us.

126

e) Perseverance

The elected individual has been called, justified and now is being sanctified. The

next question that arises in the process of salvation is whether those that have

come this far will always continue in the way of salvation until its consummation

in glorification or whether some will cease to be part of the process and so not be

saved. Theologically, this issue is known as the perseverance of the saints or the

security of the believer. Commonly, it is known as the question of "Once saved,

always saved?" or "Can you lose your salvation?" (through perpetual sin,

hardening of the heart, or deliberate rejection of Christ).

The greater emphasis placed by anyone on divine sovereignty or human freedom

in the process of salvation will be more apparent here than at any other stage.

Those who have emphasised God's part in salvation will say that, just as God has

brought the individual to salvation, God will keep the individual in salvation.

Those who have emphasized man's part in salvation will say that, just as man has

had to decide to respond to God at every step to be saved, so he has to keep on

saying "yes" to God in order to remain saved. As difficult as it may be, we have

to avoid extremes and in this "phase" as in the others keep divine sovereignty and

human responsibility in tension.

The greatest minds have not resolved this issue in two thousand years so we shall

not try to, let alone pretend to, do so here. We simply summarize some of the

common arguments on both sides, arguments from Scripture, theology and

experience.

Can you lose your salvation?...

NO YES Proof-texts: John 6:39-40; Romans 8:28-30 &

35-39; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30; Philippians 1:6, 2:13, 2 Timothy 1:12,

2:13; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9, 5:18; Jude 24

Counter Proof-texts: Matthew 13:5-7 & 20-22,

24:10-13; John 15:2&6&10; 1 Corinthians 9:27 – 10:12; Philippians 2:12; Colossians 1:23; 1

Timothy 1:18-20, 6:10; Hebrews 2:1-3, 3:6 –

4:11, 6:4-8, 10:26-31&35-36, 12:25; 2 Peter

2:20-22; Jude 5-6

Salvation the work of God not man:

God saves completely and perfectly.

Salvation requires humans co-operation at

every point: man may cease to co-operate

(reject what was previously chosen)

Justification irreversible – and always leads to glorification (Romans 8:30)

Romans 8:30 only speaking of those who persevere.

Adoption as children irreversible: fathering of a

child can never be reversed

In extreme cases, children can be disowned

As a mark of ownership, God has placed His Spirit in us, a seal or deposit guaranteeing the

fullness of salvation

In extreme cases, the mark can be removed (various Old Testament parallels)

Old Covenant between God & Israel could be broken by Israel‟s sin and Israel rejected. We

sin but Jesus cuts/keeps New Covenant on our

behalf – perfectly!

We can opt out of the covenant just as we opted into it

127

Man one-sidedly predestined to be saved by

God, whose grace irresistible; man had no freedom to choose God then similarly none to

reject Him now

Man was free to obey or disobey God both

before conversion and at conversion (God‟s salvation required our response). Why should

man now lose this freedom to accept or reject

God/salvation?

Creation: man free from sin to serve God Fall: slave to sin; not free to choose God

Prevenient grace enables us to choose God

Now free again from sin to serve God

Man has freedom after conversion but this freedom means he always chooses God

Adam had this freedom yet rebelled against God

Can be explained by –

1.Not really saved in the first place: justification proved by perseverance, or

2. Temporary backsliding, or

3.Carnal Christians (themselves saved by

works judged)

Our experience: people do fall away from faith,

But: 1. tautologous argument

2. some backslide permanently (until they die)

3. Real justification always results in

sanctification (1 John 3:9-10)

f) Glorification

"Those he justified, he also glorified."

Chapter 10 will deal in detail with man in the glorified state. Here it suffices to

note that glorification is the last and most glorious "phase" of the order of

salvation, that event which completes our salvation and at which we receive our

full inheritance. It involves: the removal from us of the sin nature (original sin)

and all sin (actual sin); the perfection and glorification of every part of our being

into Christlikeness (1 John 3:2), including the resurrection/transformation of our

bodies like unto Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21); and the translation of

our existence into a perfect, unchangeable and eternal state. All this on the new

heaven and new earth, where we will live and reign with Christ forever.

The relationship between the past, present and future components of our salvation

can be depicted (albeit somewhat simplistically) as below.

128

3. THE TERMS OF SALVATION

The terms of salvation refer to what man has to do to be saved. Every covenant involved

terms: things each party had to fulfil to enter into and remain in covenant. What does man

need to do to enter into covenant with God; or, more accurately, to be included in the

New Covenant which Jesus cut with the Father on our behalf?

a) Saved by grace through faith, not by works

It is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture that man cannot be saved either by

any merit within himself or by any good works (sacrificial acts, liturgical

observances, penances, indulgences, ascetic pursuits, fulfilment of the Law, etc)

which he performs. If he could, salvation would be earned - but this it can never

be: it is the free, gracious gift of God. Man would have to be perfect to be

acceptable to God - but this he is not; he would have to fulfil the Law in every

detail - but this he cannot. Man is thus totally dependent on God for salvation.

God makes salvation available to man in his grace; man appropriates this

salvation through faith. We are thus saved "by grace...through faith" and "not of

ourselves ...not by works" (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:20-30, 6:23, 7:18, Galatians

2:16, 3, 5:2-4, Ephesians 2:4-5&8-9; Titus 3:4-7).

This doctrine sets Christianity apart from every religion and cult on the face of the

earth, and even from various creeds within the church, which either declare that

man is already saved by some inherent merit (e.g. he is divine) or that he is saved

100%

HOLINESS

0%

J

S

G

Birth Conversion Death

LIFETIME ETERNITY

JUSTIFICATION

(Positional Sanctification)

Past salvation

(“You have been saved”)

Position/Status in heaven

Removes penalty of sin

SANCTIFICATION

(Progressive/Practical Sanc.)

Present salvation

(“You have being saved”)

Condition/State on earth

Removes power of sin

GLORIFICATION

(Perfect Sanctification)

Future salvation

(“You will been saved”)

Position/Status = State/Condition on New H&E

Removes presence of sin

129

by good works (or a combination of faith and works).

b) Saved through faith alone

Other actions or attitudes are sometimes linked with faith in Scripture as

seemingly obligatory for salvation: "Repent and believe" (Mark 1:5); "Repent and

be baptized" (Acts 2:38); "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved" (Mark

16:16); "If you confess with your mouth...and believe in your heart...you will be

saved" (Romans 10:9). Repentance, confession and baptism are thus sometimes

added to faith as terms of salvation, even by those who eschew the more obvious

heresy above.

These few phrases, however, need to be interpreted in the light of the rest of

Scripture. The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that faith and

faith alone is the prerequisite of salvation: belief in/on Jesus and the salvation he

provided on the cross. This is asserted over 200 times (e.g. John 1:12, 3:16&18,

5:24, 6:35&47, 11:25-16; Acts 16:31; Romans 5:1, 10:4; Ephesians 1:13; and the

texts cited in [a] above).

On examination, it will be seen that two of the three "additional" terms of

salvation (repentance and confession) are included in (are part of) the act of faith.

Faith in Christ, the expression of a desire to be saved by him, to put one's trust in

him, necessarily includes the recognition of one's need for salvation, of one's sin

and the desire to be free of it: this is repentance. And, as the context of Romans

10:9 (viz. vv 1-15) makes clear, confessing Jesus with you mouth is the inevitable

reverse side of the coin to believing on him in your heart: the Word is preached to

us and, at the moment of believing it (him!) to be the source of our salvation, we

call on him and are saved (vv 13-14).

The last of the three "additional" terms, baptism, is not obligatory for salvation

(cf. the thief on the cross). Such a cult belief can arise only from reading these

one or two phrases simplistically and in isolation from the rest of Scripture. If

baptism was necessary for salvation we would be saved at least in part by works,

by something we do (and this clearly contradicts Scripture). Baptism is

sometimes closely linked to belief because it is the immediate and expected

consequence of faith: having believed, God expects us at the first available

opportunity to be baptized as an outward sign of what has happened to us through

the act of believing and as a public confession of our faith. This remembrance

will ensure that baptism, although it is not obligatory for salvation, is never

downgraded in our thinking to a mere optional extra.

c) Faith only the means and not the grounds of salvation

If faith were the grounds of salvation (specifically, of justification), i.e. if God

130

justified us because of our faith, this would make faith itself a meritorious work

and lead to justification by works (the work of faith). But salvation is a free gift:

God gives it all. The atonement is the grounds of salvation/justification: God can

justify the sinner because of the death of Jesus as a substitute sacrifice in payment

of the sin-debt of all mankind. (The cross satisfied the rightful claims of God

against the sinner so that he can now save man without compromising his justice.)

Faith is merely the means of justification. It is the channel through which God

can apply the fruits of the atonement to the sinner (removal of sin, imputation of

righteousness, etc). Ephesians 2:8 is thus strictly correct: we are not saved by

faith (i.e. by ourselves) but "by grace" (i.e. by God) "through faith". This

distinction reminds us yet again that salvation is God's work and God's gift: from

first to last, God does everything (which is why our salvation is so perfect and

secure). In a real sense, we do nothing: faith is simply receiving what God has

done, is doing and will do for, in, with and through us. And even faith, the

capacity to respond to, and trust in, God is a gift of God!

4. THE NATURE OF SALVATION

So far we have regarded salvation solely as a vertical and spiritual matter - the restoration

of the relationship between man and God. But this is only half of the story: salvation is

also horizontal and social. Space will not allow us to give this huge and important theme

the examination it deserves; nevertheless, for the sake of biblical holism (completeness),

we must at least touch on it.

In Chapter 5.9 we saw that Genesis 3 and 4 together describe the Fall of man. Genesis 3

describes the entry of sin into the human world with proud ambition and rebellious

independence: man's harmonious relationship with God was replaced by one of enmity

and alienation. But this change led quickly and inevitably to enmity and alienation

between man and his fellow-man (Genesis 4). Vertical/spiritual sin leads to

horizontal/social sin: war, exploitation, poverty, injustice, oppression, persecution,

jealousy, malice, murder, theft, hatred, etc are all results of the Fall. Moreover, social sin

is not only personal (the evil actions of a man towards his fellow-man) but structural

(social, economic and political structures/systems which are contrary to God's patterns).

If it is true that God's plan of redemption reverses the Fall and all its effects, and it is,

then we would expect that salvation begins with the restoration of the vertical/spiritual

(our relationship with God) but then proceeds to the restoration of the horizontal/social

(firstly to our own contact with our fellow-men and secondly to society at large). And

this is indeed what we find. In both the Old and New Covenants the terms of covenant

included social-economic-political measures for the ordering of society and the governing

of relationships between man and man, and the responsibility of God's people not only to

treat righteously those with whom they came into contact (the redemption of personal

social sin) but to work for righteousness in society as a whole (the redemption of

structural social sin).

131

Of course, in this age, we no more believe that we can attain horizontal/social sinlessness

(create a social utopia) than we can vertical/spiritual sinlessness (live a perfect life before

God). For the full realization of both of these we await Jesus' return, his termination of

this age, his judgement of all evil, and his recreation into perfection of both ourselves and

the whole earth. Only then will the vertical and horizontal effects of the Fall be fully

eradicated. But this does not release us from the mandate to pursue social righteousness

in this age any more than we are released from the obligation to pursue personal

righteousness.

It is evangelical theology's frequent neglect of this dimension of both sin and salvation

that has led to the allegation that it is pietistic, otherworldly and irrelevant, and to the

emergence of various social theologies (e.g. liberation theology) as a corrective to this

neglect. As so often happens, reactions have become overreactions, and many of these

theologies are often guilty of the opposite extreme: emphasis on the horizontal to the

exclusion of the vertical in their understandings of both sin and salvation. Nevertheless,

they are a corrective to the imbalance of some theologies, reminding us of the horizontal-

social dimensions of sin and thus of salvation (and of the personal and structural nature of

both), and exhorting us to maintain a biblical holism and balance in our life and doctrine.

5. MAN IN THE REDEEMED STATE

In Chapter 5 we noted that, biblically, man exists in four states: created; fallen; redeemed;

and glorified. The first two of these we examined in that chapter; the last (as indicated

then and several times since) will be examined in Chapter 10. In this chapter ([2c & d]

especially), in investigating how God's salvation affects and is experienced by man, we

have been examining man in the redeemed state. Here we need only to make some

summary observations about man in this state and to note what the redemption of man

does not mean.

Justification means that man has a new status: a position in heaven where he is perceived

as righteous because he is "in Christ". (His faith has allowed God to apply the fruits of

the atonement to him.) The restoration of original righteousness, of right-standing with

God, means that his relationship with God is restored: he can once again know God,

x

SIN

FALL

FAITH

x

SIN

SALVATION

Vertical/Spiritual

SALVATION

Horizontal/Social

Horizontal/Social Vertical/Spiritual

132

come into his presence and fellowship with him. Because of the continued existence of

the sinful nature, the fallen world and Satan, this relationship is not yet perfect;

nevertheless, man's justification and the new status this gives him ensures his future

glorification and with it the perfection of this relationship/fellowship.

Regeneration means that man has a new nature: a new ability and capacity to serve God

rather than sin because his spirit has been made alive and is now indwelt by the Holy

Spirit. Now, through his choices and his co-operation with the indwelling Spirit's

motivation and enabling, he can gradually become free of sin and its power and become

more like God (sanctification).

Justification and regeneration (and the sanctification they make possible) thus effect

profound changes to man in the fallen state (cut off from God and judged by him,

dead/dying and under the sentence of eternal death, corrupted by sin in every area,

enslaved by sin's power, and powerless to change his state) - and they contain in

themselves the promise of yet more profound changes at the moment of glorification.

Nevertheless, the changes do not mean:

(1) Man is now (or can become) sinless (Pelagianism). The reasons for this have

already been spelled out.

(2) Man is now divine. Interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, 2 Peter

1:3-4 cannot mean this. It says that we participate in the divine nature, not that

we become divine. Participation in a soccer match does not make me a soccer

match; partaking of a biscuit does not make me a biscuit. The participation is not

ontological (our humanity or human essence becomes divinity or divine essence)

but relational: through our relationship with God we receive everything we need

to be free of the power of sin and to lead a godly life - viz. position in and access

to heaven, Jesus praying continuously for us, a new nature and capacity to serve

God and not sin, a spirit made alive to God, and the indwelling and anointing

Spirit. We are indwelt by the Spirit of God and are being remade in the image of

God - but we are still only men, the finite creatures created by God in the

beginning.

133

Chapter 9

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

Chapter Outline: 1. What is the Church?

2. The Head of the Church

3. The Mandate of the Church

4. Church Structure and Government

5. The Ordinances of the Church

6. Church, Mission and Kingdom

In broad outline we could say that the first half of doctrine (Chapters 1 - 5) surveys God's

creation, his original plan to create a covenant partner with whom he could eternally

share his fellowship of love and joy of life. The second half (Lectures 6 - 10) surveys

God's redemption, the plan he put into operation to counter the effects of the Fall and

enable him to realize his initial intentions with creation.

In this latter half, Chapters 6 and 7 respectively examined the salvation provided by God

through Jesus Christ and the implementation of that salvation through the Holy Spirit.

Chapter 8 examined how that salvation is appropriated and experienced by man, and the

changes it causes within him. This chapter looks at the community of all those saved in

this way, at their life together to minister to God and each other and to serve his purposes

on the earth.

In so doing, this community prepares for the End, God's final intervention at the end of

time to complete the plan of redemption and so realize the plan of creation - eternal

fellowship with man on the (new) earth. The Doctrine of the Church thus not only

follows logically on the Doctrine of Salvation but leads with equal logic to the Doctrine

of Last Things.

1. WHAT IS THE CHURCH?

a) Definitions & Distinctions

(i) Ecclesia

This is the Greek word translated "church"; it means "called-out ones".

The church is thus not a building or an organization but a group of people. The

question, therefore, should not be "What is the church?" but "Who is the church?"

134

Specifically, the ecclesia are the people bought by and thus belonging to Jesus;

those called out from (i.e. separate from, or different to) the masses.

The name indicates the supernatural origin - viz. sovereign election - of God's

New Covenant people (as with his Old). This origin in turn indicates both the

church's special privilege and favour and her special purpose and responsibility

(God's election is never for indulgence but always for a task).

All who believe (i.e. are called out) are thus automatically part of the church (they

are saved into the "called-out ones", the church). To be saved means to become

part of the saved community; and one can express (live out) one's salvation only

in this community. An Old Testament convert did not become an isolated

"Jevohah-follower" but an Israelite (i.e. part of the saved community, Israel).

Similarly, a New Testament convert does not become an isolated Jesus-follower

but a member of the church. (The Biblical worldview reflects Hebrew

communalism rather than Greek individualism.) The New Testament never

speaks of "saint" (singular) but only of "saints" (plural). Thus to be a Christian in

isolation is not only extremely difficult (if not impossible) but profoundly

unbiblical. To love God is to love his people; to be committed to Christ is to be

committed to his church.

(ii) One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

This is the summarised doctrine of the church in ancient creeds.

"One": there is only one true church, the church of Jesus Christ

"Holy": the church is sanctified (made holy, set apart) by God

"Catholic": all churches everywhere are part of the one universal church

"Apostolic": the church is built on the foundation of the apostles

(iii) Universal Church vs Local Church

The universal church is: the total company of the redeemed; all true believers of

all ages in all places (including Old Testament saints); those whose names are

written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

The local church is: a subset of the above; the concrete (visual) expression of the

universal church in a particular time and place; the gathering of a certain number

of believers in space and time according to biblical structure, under biblical

government and fulfilling all the biblical mandates of the church.

The memberships of the two are not synonymous: all in the former should be in

the latter (it is meaningless to be part of the universal church without giving

concrete reality to that in membership of the local church) but not all in the latter

are part of former (many local church members are not true believers). Those

who belong to local churches can be readily seen from membership lists but the

135

exact membership of the universal church is known only to God.

Each local church must be patterned after the universal church. A local church

can depart so far from the pattern that it no longer belongs to the universal church

(Revelation 2 & 3).

(iv) Local Church vs Para-Church

Local church: Gathering of believers with qualifications listed above.

Para-church: Christian organizations (e.g. mission societies) which specialize in

certain tasks of the church (e.g. evangelism or social action).

Para-church organizations may, therefore, because of the often greater knowledge,

expertise and resources their specialization has given them, perform a legitimate

and valuable role in aiding local churches to fulfil their mandate in the area

concerned. However, many of these organizations began because the church

would not fulfill its mandate at that time; biblically, the local church is God's

chosen instrument and structure for achieving his purposes on the earth. This

truth is being restored to the church today and we should pursue the biblical

model as far as possible. For example, "mission" is the responsibility of the local

church and not of mission societies, and the church cannot conveniently leave it to

the latter. Churches, not societies, send people - as church planters not

missionaries.

This distinction also demonstrates that a number of Christians merely

fellowshipping or working together does not constitute a local church (otherwise a

prayer meeting or a mission society would be a local church). The association of

Christians requires a certain (biblical) structure and government, and the pursuit

of the church's full mandate, to qualify as a local church.

(v)Essence vs Form

Essence: the unchangeable aspects of the church's doctrine, life, ministry and

mission in all ages and places; that which makes it the church; that which is

absolute.

Form: the external "clothing" which constantly changes to accommodate the

diversity of cultures and milieus, and to make the unchanging essence accessible

and relevant to each time and place (e.g. music, dress, building patterns, order and

style of meetings, exegetical and theological approaches, customs); that which is

relative.

The church has invariably got into difficulties whenever the two have been

confused: when form has been treated as essence (e.g. the inseparable exportation

of Western culture with the gospel in mission history, and the planting of

136

"European" churches in the Third World as a result); or essence has been treated

as form (non-negotiable doctrinal and ethical positions and biblical mandates have

been compromised as relative and not binding to the new culture/era, with the

effectual loss of the church's identity, power or reason for existence.

b) Biblical Pictures

The Bible contains numerous analogies/pictures of the church which further

illuminate for us what (or who!) the church is. The pictures are numerous

because the nature and calling of the church is so multi-faceted that no one

symbol captures its richness; each analogy stresses a different dimension of the

church's life and ministry. Focusing on one or a few of the pictures to the

exclusion of the others will result in distorted church doctrine and practice: all the

pictures taken together represent the biblical revelation.

(i) The people/nation of God (Ephesians 2:12&19, 1 Peter 2:9-10)

The people of the covenant formula ("I will be your God and you will be my

people"); the final and eternal fulfilment of God's quest for a covenant people (cf.

Revelation 21:3).

Previously, this title was reserved jealously and exclusively for Israel alone. Now

it is applied to the church. The church is the true/new Israel (Galatians 6:16), the

eschatological fulfilment of the ancient people of God. The election of the church

preceded that of Israel; the latter was preparatory to and is now superseded by the

former (just as the Old Covenant was preparatory to and has now been superseded

by the New).

This title again highlights the supernatural origin and sovereign election of the

church, which in turn denote both her privilege (her special identity, her favoured

position) and her responsibility (God's salvific purpose with and through her to

the nations).

(ii) The family/household of God (Ephesians 2:19 cf. John 1:12, 1 John 3:2,

Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 3:26 - 4:7)

We are God's children (sons/daughters) and heirs. We are thus members of God's

family/household and brothers/sisters to all other believers.

(iii) The building/temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1

Peter 2:4-8)

In the Old Covenant, the temple was the place where God dwelt (where his glory

was manifest) and to which all the nations had to come to find God and salvation.

The church is now God's temple (another indication that the Old Covenant and all

its forms have been superseded), the place where God (the Holy Spirit) dwells and

137

his glory is manifest (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18), and to which all nations have to

come to find God and salvation! Indeed, the word used to describe the church in

these texts is not hieron (the whole temple complex) but naos (the Most Holy

Place).

In this temple, each of us has a strategic part: we are "living stones" being placed

in exactly the right place according to God's perfect wisdom. The word used here

of stones is not petros (rough stones) but lithos (carefully worked stones). The

temple thus grows qualitatively and quantitatively.

Jesus is the foundation of this temple (everything is built on him); a foundation is

laid only once and no other foundation can be laid (it is impossible to change the

foundation of a building or to move a building onto another foundation).

Alternatively, Jesus is the cornerstone (a cornerstone gives direction to the whole

and can also only be laid once) and the apostles and prophets are the foundation

(or lay the foundation).

(iv) The priesthood of God (1 Peter 2:5&9, Revelation 1:6)

This picture arises directly out of the previous one. A temple has priests that

minister to God and represent the people (those that cannot come into the temple)

before him. So too this new temple has priests. But since all Christians are part

of the new temple (indeed, of the Most Holy Place), all are priests. In the New

Covenant it is not some of God's people representing the rest of God's people (as

in the Old) but all of God's people representing those who cannot come into the

temple (who are not part of the church) - the world. Our ministry of "spiritual

sacrifices" before God includes intercession and worship (Hebrews 13:15).

We are, moreover, a "royal priesthood" and a "kingdom [of] priests" because we

are set apart by and minister to the king.

(v) The army of God (Matthew 12:29, 16:18, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians

6:10-18)

God is a warrior (Exodus 15:3); Jesus makes war (Revelation 19:11). The church

is God's army (cf. Joel 2:1-11), pushing back the princedom of darkness and

extending the kingdom of light. She does this in every area of her life and

ministry: in evangelism, healing, deliverance and intercession it is more overt

(Mark 16:15-18, Luke 10:17-19); but in her teaching (renewing minds, refuting

error), her fellowship (restoring bruised lives) and her social action (reversing the

effects of poverty, exploitation, injustice, etc) she is also involved in spiritual

warfare. Her war against evil is an earthly counterpart to the angelic warfare

between good and evil in heaven (Daniel 10:13&20, Revelation 12:7).

That the church is an army involved in a battle illuminates further aspect of her

nature and calling: knowledge of the enemy; discipline; fitness; training;

138

weapons; armour; tactics; obedience to orders, etc.

(vi) The flock of God (Acts 20:28-29, 1 Peter 5:2-4, Psalm 95:7)

We are God's sheep, those he possesses and thus looks after - protects, provides

for, nurtures, searches for the lost, gathers the strays, etc. Jesus is the Chief

Shepherd of this flock (Psalm 23, Isaiah 40:11, John 10:1-18) and the elders are

the under-shepherds.

(vii) The field of God (1 Corinthians 3:6-9)

We are the different crops in God's field, planted/nurtured by different ministries

but given life/growth by God, so that we may bear fruit to his glory.

(viii) The body of Christ (Romans 12:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 4:1-

14)

This most common of New Testament metaphors for the church contains four

important truths.

It emphasizes the unity of the church: there is only one body (a head with many

bodies would be a monster).

It emphasizes the fact that the church has a head (Jesus) and the unity of this

headship (a body with two heads would equally be a monster).

It emphasizes that the church has many different "parts" (people/gifts/ministries)

and that all are important for the successful growth and functioning of the whole.

It emphasizes the fact that the church now continues (as Christ's spiritual body)

the work of the Incarnation (Christ's ministry while in his physical body).

The body is distinct from Christ (the body is not Christ) yet inseparable from him

(without him there is no body).

(ix) The bride of Christ (Song of Songs, Ephesians 5:22-23, Revelation 19:6-9)

This picture again communicates election and favour, together with all the

promise, assurance, intimacy and nurturing of the perfect Bridegroom. And as

wonderful as this relationship is in the present age it represents only the courtship;

the delight of the wedding, consummation and life together still await us!

(x) A sacrament

A sacrament is something visible that makes known to man the presence or

existence of something invisible. Jesus was thus a sacrament of God. And the

139

church is now a sacrament of Christ: it represents him; it makes him present; it is

a sign to the world of Jesus and his salvation; it is an outward sign of inward

grace, of the existence of an eschatological, hope-filled, saved community in

whom grace is coming to fulfilment. Through its ministry and mission, but even

by its very existence and nature, the church makes known to human and angelic

beings the mysteries and purposes of God (Ephesians 1:9-10, 3:2-11, 1 Peter 1:10-

12).

(xi) A servant

Just as Jesus came to be God's suffering servant, to serve others and lay down his

life for all men, so the church is God's suffering servant, called to serve and

sacrifice itself for men, to similarly be humbled before she is exalted. She exists

for God and others before herself.

(xii) A pilgrim

The church is a pilgrim, both because she never considers herself as having

attained maturity or having completed her task, and so always presses on to take

hold of the things to which she is called (Philippians 3:12-16 cf. Psalm 84:5-7),

and also because, knowing that her true home lies elsewhere, she never allows

herself to settle and become comfortable on/in/with this earth and this age

(Philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:10&13-16&39, 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1&17, 2:11).

2. THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH

Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the Head of the church. He founded it; it belongs to him; it is

answerable to him alone and not to any man (popes, etc) or men (synods, etc). A multi-

headed body is a monster.

Headship in the New Testament has two aspects: government/pre-eminence (Colossians

1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23) and sourcing/sustaining (cf. the head of a river)(Ephesians 4:16,

Colossians 2:19). Both are true of Jesus' headship of the church: respectively, he

plans/decides/directs and he gives life/growth/maturity. He is "the inspiring, ruling,

guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its

unity, and the seat of its life".

With regard to the governmental aspect of headship: Jesus must not be head in name

only, the kind of lip-serviced but powerless constitutional monarch or honorary life-

president that he is in many churches. He can and should be the real hands-on governing

head of the church - through his Word, Spirit, appointed leaders and gifts. (The elders

are the nerve system that should convey the commands of the head to the body.) Where

Jesus is not allowed (or has ceased to be) the head in this way, then the

congregation/denomination has ceased to be the body (or has become a headless body

doomed to extinction). In other words, where man has replaced Jesus as head, the church

140

no longer exists. All church structures, programmes, ministries, etc are, therefore, to be

evaluated first and foremost by the criterion of whether they allow Jesus to reign freely

and absolutely as head.

Similarly, where Jesus is not accepted for who he is (the biblical doctrine of the person

and work of Christ), this is not the church - no matter how much space to govern they

may give to their heretical Jesus.

Converse to all of the above: if Jesus is the only head, then there is only one body - all

true denominations/congregations are, in fact, one church.

We have already seen that each local church is responsible to Jesus for being patterned

after his universal church. A local church can depart so far from this pattern that it is

disowned by the head and no longer belongs to the universal church (Revelation 2 & 3).

3. THE MANDATE OF THE CHURCH

The church, as we have seen, is God's called/elect/chosen people. But election is always

for a task/purpose never for indulgence. Greatly simplified, the function/responsibility of

the church is: towards God, worship and prayer; towards each other, fellowship (includes

pastoring) and instruction (includes teaching and training); towards the world,

evangelism and service; towards the enemy, warfare and conquest.

4. CHURCH STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY

a) Structure

In the course of church history, various "horizontal" and/or "vertical" structures of

variable complexity have emerged between churches. (To survey and evaluate

them is interesting but time-consuming - and we can to a large extent short-cut

this process.)

The New Testament model of church structure is that of the autonomous local

church, governed by its own leaders and not by any person(s), church(es) or other

structure(s) (boards, synods, etc) external to it. However, the local church is

independent but not isolationist (which tends to unaccountability, arrogance,

exclusivism and heresy). Isolation and its dangers are not to be avoided by

instituting unbiblical structures but by:

(1) The people of the church (especially the leaders) should be in

relationship with the people and leaders of neighbour churches. This is

nothing more than normal Christian living. And Christian relating should

be humble, teachable, submissive, co-operative and supportive and so

work against isolationism. Here we have nothing to do with structures

141

between churches, only with the to-be-expected relationships between

Christians.

(2) The leaders of the local church are in relationship with an apostle and

his team, men of greater wisdom, experience, anointing and authority, who

minister translocally and to whom local churches look for input and advice

in matters concerning their church. But: (a) we are still not dealing with

formal structures, vertical or horizontal, between a church and

someone/something external to it but only with the voluntary personal

relationship between an apostle/apostolic team and the leaders (and, by

extension, the people) of a local church; (b) the input is initiated by the

church leaders and not the apostolic team (invited, not imposed, authority)

and is evaluated and implemented by them (the local leaders remain the

highest authority in the local congregation).

This biblical structure ensures the autonomy of the local church and the authority

of its leaders on the one hand, and, on the other, guards against isolationism and

its dangers. It results not in a denomination and not even in a fellowship of

churches but in autonomous local churches, some of whom share a special

relationship (common vision, values and ventures) because their leaders relate to

the same apostolic team (although this special relationship does not - indeed, must

not - preclude relationship and co-operation with local churches who relate to

other apostolic teams).

(b)Government

It is super-spiritual nonsense to assert that, because Jesus is the head, the church

does not need human leaders or offices of government, and that we can and

should all just be friends together under Jesus. The church needs human leaders

to organize, lead, guide, discipline, control, etc - and where these are appointed by

the head they carry his authority.

The model of church structure determines the model of church government

(leadership). If all inter-church structures are unbiblical, it follows that all

external offices of church government are equally unbiblical. Even some of the

internal offices of church government that have emerged in church history have to

be rejected as unbiblical.

Again, a survey and evaluation of all the models that have emerged would be

interesting but too time-consuming - and as before we can largely short-cut the

process. In the main, three models of church government have emerged: the

Episcopal/hierarchical (external persons/structures rule through their appointed

priest/minister [sometimes there may be no external rule but internally the

leader(s) still rules hierarchically]); the congregational/democratic (the people

rule); and the Presbyterian (Jesus rules, and a plural eldership team leads the

people into Jesus' agenda).

142

Only two offices of church leadership/government appear in the New Testament.

(We cannot create or accept any others inside or outside of the church.) The first

is the elder. Episkopos (translated "bishop" or "overseer") and presbuteros

(translated "presbyter" or "elder") are used interchangeably (1 Peter 5:1 cf. v2,

Acts 20:17 cf. v28). Poimen (translated "shepherd" or "pastor" can also be used

for this office as shepherding the flock is central to its job-description (1 Peter

5:1-4, Acts 20:28-29). The elders are the highest authority in the local church -

yet they govern always with the knowledge that they are not the head but only

under-shepherds to the Chief Shepherd, accountable to him for the sheep.

Elements of both the episcopal and congregational models are true: the elders do

rule the people and they do serve the people (although they are not dictated to by

the people but by Jesus); they are over and under the people yet also amongst and

ahead of them. They are always a team: the wisdom of many exceeds the wisdom

of one; leading a church is too weighty a task for a single person and any single

leader is thus too vulnerable; team leadership prevents dictatorship and/or

personality-cults and so minimizes the danger of the church drifting into error; it

serves as a constant reminder that no man is the head of the church but only Jesus

(a single leader is in much greater danger of becoming regarded as the head).

Team leadership does not preclude a team leader, however (such a leader is both

biblically precedented and practically necessary), as long as this position is not so

accentuated that it creates another (unbiblical) office and so establishes an

unbiblical hierarchy (pastor/minister and elders), whether in actuality or even in

the minds of the people.

The second and only other office is that of the deacon. It is narrow-minded in the

extreme to reduce the responsibility of deacons to "waiting on tables" only (Acts

6). In a broad sense, the seven were chosen to assist the elders in the running of

the church and are subsequently found doing all sorts of things - both "spiritual"

and practical - other than waiting on tables. Deacons assist the elders in the

totality of leading and administrating the church. They follow in the wake of the

elders, assisting the elders to lead the people behind them into Jesus' agenda.

No other offices of leadership/government should be accepted because: they do

not appear in Scripture; all such offices in church history have brought more death

than life (we would expect this of structures contrary to God's pattern). External

offices/structures (popes, synods, mother churches, etc) undermine the autonomy

of the local church and the authority of local elders. Internal offices/structures

(wardens, councils, priests, ministers, etc) also undermine the authority of elders

or prevent team leadership or result in the abominable clergy-laity division, where

some are placed over others (they become the "aristocracy" of the church). These

then reserve the exercise of certain ministries to themselves and reduce the

remainder of the people to uninvolved (or, at best, partially involved) spectators.

143

c) Ministry

The above has brought us to the matter of the ministry of the church for, just as

one's model of church structure determines one's model of church government, so

one's right or wrong model of church government leads to a right or wrong model

of church ministry. Wrong models of ministry invariably result from confusion

between office (which has to do with government) and gift (which has to do with

ministry). God only appoints some to office and these thus have an exclusive right

to govern, to exercise authority. (There may be a further limitation here - one of

gender.) But this does not entail any exclusive rights to some or all of the

ministries of the church. Ministry arises from gift (not office) and there is no

limitation on any gift to any person/persons (officer or non- officer, male or

female, old or new Christian). In fact, the New Testament forcefully asserts the

contrary: every Christian has gifts and therefore ministries; every part of the body

has a vital role to play; every believer is a priest and minister. That is why the

non-offices of priest and minister are particularly damaging: they deny this truth;

they imply that only a small select group do the work of the ministry; they lead to

passivity, stagnation and ultimately death in the life of the remaining Christians

and consequently of the church. These titles confuse office and ministry; to the

extent that they are titles they refer to every Christian.

Even those that have rejected these incorrect denominational models of ministry

need to be careful. For example, by calling the leader of a church "pastor"

(which, as we saw, if it is in distinction to the elders, is also an incorrect model of

government), or by calling the elders "pastors", we can also confuse office and

gift (forgetting that pastor is first and foremost a gift in Scripture) and fall into the

trap of expecting the elders to do all the pastoring; but some not in the office of

elder may have this gift and are responsible to God for exercising it. Another

example: we look to the apostolic team to exercise the fivefold gifts/ministries of

Ephesians 4 and so bring the church to maturity (vv 11-16). But again, these are

gifts not offices (v8), and they are not restricted to members of apostolic teams;

some in the local church (both those in office and those not)(v7) may also have

these gifts and can edify the body by using them. Besides, those that exercise

these gifts don't do the ministry but train the people to do the ministry (v12).

So then, not everyone holds office and exercises authority but everyone has a gift

and exercises ministry. Church government is by a few; church ministry is by all:

all believers are priests and ministers. The two biblical offices do not refer to

gift/ministry or to any particular gift/ministry (although the office does require its

bearers to "shepherd", to be "able to teach" and to pray for the sick); rather, those

in office release and direct the gifts/ministries of all believers. The separation of

the church into clergy and laity (with the former laying claim to the exclusive

exercise of authority and ministry) has been one of the worst deceptions in church

history, and continues to prevent the church and the Christian from being fully

available to the head of the church for achieving his purposes through them.

144

5. THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH

An ordinance is a prescribed rite or practice. The ordinances of the church are thus the

two outward rites or practices prescribed by Christ to be performed by his church, viz.

baptism and communion. Each is a re-enactment and thereby a reminder of key salvific

events; they are thus physical/external signs or symbols of spiritual/internal realities.

Baptism is an acted-out picture of what happened at rebirth: our dying to our old life

(going under the water) and our rising to a new life (coming up out of the water) as we

identified with the death and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-4). It is the sign (mark)

of the New Covenant that we are now part of just as circumcision was of the Old

(Colossians 2:11-12). It is also the public confession of the private commitment we have

made (baptism in the New Testament was never a private or church affair as the only

suitable places for baptism were extremely public). For all these reasons, baptism before

conversion (e.g. that of infants) is meaningless. The example and command of Jesus, and

the teaching and practice of the early church, make clear the importance to God of

obedience to this ordinance by every believer as soon after conversion as possible.

Baptism neither regenerates of itself, nor is necessary for salvation (vs various creeds and

cults which assert one or both of these), but its close link with repentance and faith as part

of the process of salvation (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) shows that God sees it as the

inevitable and immediate firstfruit of conversion and that we can never relegate it to an

optional extra.

Communion is a symbolic re-enactment and reminder of the central saving event of

history (the atoning work of Christ on the cross), one instituted by Christ himself before

the event. It is thus also a reminder of our salvation through our identification with

Christ on the cross. It leads to worship and thanksgiving as we remember what Christ

has done for us; it proclaims the basic truths of the gospel to all present; it quickens our

anticipation of Christ's return because we observe it only till he comes, and so aids our

anticipation and preparedness (1 Corinthians 11:26); it reminds us of our oneness with all

those who participate with us (1 Corinthians 10:17) and so aids unity and fellowship. We

do not have to wait till high and holy days, or church meetings, or the presence of clergy,

to observe it. Jesus' words and the early church's practice (Acts 2:46) exhort us to do it

often: breaking bread and giving thanks occurred at virtually every meal; Jesus' intention

was that henceforth every time they performed this common rite they would invest it with

the new meaning he had just given it. This background also makes it clear that it was a

rite to be performed simply and naturally, in our homes or wherever, and not something

requiring elaborate ceremony, precise liturgy and complex theology.

In Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, baptism and communion are

numbered among the seven sacraments (the others are confirmation, ordination, marriage,

anointing of the sick and final unction). In their theology, sacraments are rites which

automatically and efficiently convey grace to the participants; they are means of grace.

Because God is present in the rite, even in the substances used, this impartation of grace

is unfailing and guaranteed; moreover, it causes actual change to the spiritual state of the

participant (e.g. baptism regenerates, communion renews, ordination anoints, final

145

unction removes sin and allows the dying person to avoid hell or to spend less time in

purgatory or perhaps to go direct to heaven) as long as the sacrament is performed in the

correct manner (i.e. by properly qualified clergy, according to the liturgy, accompanied

by the right actions, etc).

The theology and practice of the sacraments has to be rejected because: there is no

evidence in Scripture that the other five are church ordinances authorized by Christ

alongside baptism and communion (two of them don't exist in Scripture at all); there is no

evidence that these two (or the other five) are means of grace in the way claimed for

them; the whole business has overtones of the magic of primitive religion, where the gods

can be manipulated/coerced into doing something simply by the performance of certain

rituals (accompanied by set words and actions), regardless of the spiritual worthiness or

integrity of either the one taking part or the priest mediating for him. God's grace comes

to us all the time in a myriad of ways; there is no need to limit it to certain times and

practices. Moreover, the ordinances are "merely" outward symbols of inner realities;

grace comes in the inner, spiritual experiences rather than in the subsequent outer re-

enactments. This is not to say that God cannot be present in a very real way to anoint or

bless at baptism or communion. After all, performance of these rites is an act of

obedience, which always pleases him. But God is not bound by them; he can be present

just as really and impart grace just as effectively during a quiet time, a prayer meeting, a

worship session, sitting under ministry, a walk through his creation, listening to

wonderful music, appreciating great art...in short, through a myriad number of private

and corporate experiences.

6. CHURCH, MISSION AND KINGDOM

What is the place and role of the church in God's overall cosmic plan?

On the one hand, the church is an end. It represents the end of God's quest for a covenant

people: the church is the people of God in the final, perfect and eternal covenant. The

church marks the end of the process of salvation: it is the place to which all those who are

saved come. It is the great family of God; the great company of the redeemed from all

nations; the great nation that God has preserved through all these centuries and which

will survive for eternity.

But to only see the church as an end results in a static, uninvolved, institutionalized

church. In fact, the church is more of a means than an end; it is not the true end; although

partly an end in itself, it is chiefly a means to the true end.

God has no other redeeming agency on the earth. The church is the medium through

which God expresses himself and achieves his purposes on the earth in this age.

Therefore, while the church is made up of the "called-out ones", it is called into the world

and exists for the world to challenge and transform it, to bring it under the reign of Christ

- in short, to establish the kingdom of God.

146

In a word, then, the life and purpose of the church in this world is Mission. Not

everything in the life and ministry of the church will have a missionary intention but

everything should have a missionary dimension. The church continues, and is a partner

with God, in the missio dei, the ageless mission of God whereby, through Israel, then

Christ, and now the church, God goes out from himself towards the world to reconcile

and renew it and bring it under his benign reign.

Therefore, it is not that mission is bracketed by church (church - mission - church): the

church exists; it engages in mission; but only to return to (establish another) church.

Rather, it is church that is bracketed by mission (mission - church - mission): the church

did not come first but mission (the church in any place is the result of God and his

servants' mission); the "new" church now exists and pursues its life and ministry; but only

to itself become missionary into the world and partner God in his quest to reach all men.

Thus, the existence of the church in this world is, in a word, Mission. And the goal of its

mission is the Kingdom. Jesus' overarching aim was not to found the church but to

establish the kingdom. The church is related to the kingdom but is not synonymous with

it. In relation to the kingdom it is not an event but an act, not an end but a means. The

church prepares for the kingdom in what it is, says and does. In what it is it is a sign of

the kingdom: a picture and testimony to the world of what God desires for man, of

redeemed and reconciled humanity living under God's reign; it is a signpost to and a

glimpse of the future, of God's ultimate and absolute reign. In what it says it is a witness

to the kingdom. And in what it does it is an agent of the kingdom, working for and

establishing it. To the extent that the church expands through the world and demonstrates

the true redeemed and reconciled community, the kingdom can be said to have already

been established. Whatever of the kingdom is to be established now, God accomplishes

through the church.

That is why, although the church is in one sense an end (the eschatological fulfilment of

God's quest since creation to redeem a people for himself), it is in a greater sense only a

means - the means to the true end of the Kingdom of God.

147

Chapter 10

THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS

Chapter Outline:

Preface : The Study of Eschatology

Introduction : An Overview of Biblical Eschatology

A. FRAMEWORK OF THE END : THE KINGDOM OF GOD

1. The Kingdom and Israel

2. The Kingdom and the Incarnation

3. The Kingdom and the Church

4. The Kingdom and Jesus' Return

B. SCENARIOS OF THE END : MILLENIAL VIEWS

5. Dispensational Pre-Millenialism

6. Historic Pre-Millenialism

7. Postmillenialism

8. Amillenialism

C. CALENDAR OF THE END : END EVENTS AND THEIR ORDER

9. Death (and Immortality?)

10. The Intermediate State

11. The Signs of the Times

12. The Return of Jesus Christ

13. The Resurrection of the Dead

14. The Judgement of Mankind

15. Hell : Eternal Punishment

16. The New Heaven and the New Earth

PREFACE : THE STUDY OF ESCHATOLOGY

If there is one doctrine which has not been neglected by some sectors of the

contemporary church it is the Doctrine of Last Things - or, as it is more popularly known,

Eschatology (the only traditional name of a doctrine still commonly in use). However,

not all of this emphasis has been healthy and far from all of what has been taught has

been good. Teaching (like anything else) is to be judged by its fruit; and much of the

fruit of "pop-eschatology" has been bad: obsession/fanaticism, dogmatism/division,

imbalance, sensationalism/superficiality, idle speculation, fearfulness/paranoia - to

mention but a few! I thus want to take the unusual step of prefacing this chapter with

some comments about the study of this doctrine.

148

(1) Future events are a part of the biblical revelation and thus (universal

fascination with the future apart) are a legitimate object of study. However,

eschatology is just one of the doctrines (and by no means the most important one).

Overemphasis on, and obsession with, "end-times" is unbiblical and unhealthy

(and not surprisingly, therefore, the hallmark of cults and fringe groups).

(2) Revelation about the end is at times obscure and open to varying

interpretation. In no area of doctrine has there been such dogmatism and

consequently division (whether at popular or theological levels) and yet in no area

of doctrine is dogmatism less out of place. In pursuing and holding eschatological

views we need always to remain open, humble and flexible.

(3) There are some things in the field of eschatology which are essential and non-

negotiable (eg the return of Christ, the resurrection and judgement of mankind,

heaven and hell). But there are many other things (eg the nature of the millennium

and the rapture, the place of Israel, the timing of the "signs") which are more

peripheral and debatable (it is possible to hold various interpretations of these

without compromising on the central issues). Nevertheless, pop-eschatology has

the unerring tendency to major on the minors and minor on the majors. We must

give the correct weight to each issue and be especially flexible on the minors

while uncompromising on the majors.

(4) We must avoid the superficiality of much pop-eschatology by: (i) grounding

our doctrine less on current "fad-beliefs", high-profile speakers or clever

interpretations of obscure symbols, and more on a really thorough and scholarly

getting-to-grips with Scripture; (ii) not presenting one position as if it were the

only one but presenting and evaluating all the positions in an unprejudiced and

unthreatened manner; (iii) eschewing the popular tendency to assume that

eschatology is wholly concerned with the future when in fact the Bible asserts that

we are already living in the last days and that much of God's purposed end for the

world is already realised/happening.

(5) We must avoid reducing the doctrine to a realm of idle, "academic"

speculation. Biblical prophecy (no matter how large the predictive element) is

never given for speculation but always for sanctification: "Because I [God] am

going to do this, you must do that" (cf. 2 Peter 3:11-12&14). We must thus have

a devotional and practical response to this doctrine (as to any other): build our

faith, purify our lives, increase our evangelism, etc.

(6) Above all, we must avoid any teaching which in content or tone or both leads

to fearfulness and paranoia about end-times. While the doctrine of last things

contains sobering realities, its core message is one of certain victory, sure hope,

glorious promise and astoundingly wonderful news. Sound eschatology,

therefore, can only lead us to increased joy, celebration and worship of our God!

149

INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY

a) The Idea of an End

That there will be an end to the world and time seems so obvious and self-evident

to us that we cannot conceive of an alternative. But Israel's neighbours in the

ancient world had an entirely different view of time - one that was cyclical. To

them time was an unending repetition of cycles (of day and night, of the seasons,

of birth, maturation, procreation and death) with no beginning and no end - and

thus with no particular goal or purpose (except that contained within the cycle - eg

to have children, to raise a good crop). Even the gods were seen as subject to

these cycles: they could bring minor changes within a cycle (eg cause extreme

weather patterns or bring infertility to man or beast) but could not break out of

them to cause a new pattern. This worldview has no end and hence no

eschatology.

But through his decisive interventions into the history of Israel, God gave them a

completely different understanding of time. He broke them out of an endless and

purposeless repetition of cycles and set them on a definitive course with a clear

beginning (his sovereign election and calling of Israel) and a clear end (his goal

for them); consequently, the period inbetween now had a clear direction and

purpose (viz. to prepare for the goal, the end). Thus Israel came to have a linear

(vs cyclical) understanding of time and, with it, a growing eschatology (beliefs

about what that end was).

The "obvious" and "self-evident" concept of an end to time and the world which

is now shared by much of humanity is thus due to the Judaeo-Christian worldview

and its spreading influence.

b) The End in the Old Testament

God's interventions into her history gave Israel a linear view of time and history

and directed her towards a defined, purposed end. But what was Israel's

eschatology - i.e. what end did she expect?

Initially, during the first half of Old Testament history (the period of her

ascendancy), and particularly during the glorious reigns of David and Solomon,

all God's promises seemed to be in the process of being fulfilled (Israel's

eschatology was increasingly "realized"). God's end was going to take place in

this age, in this world and in a gradual (evolutionary) fashion. Had not God

promised David an everlasting dynasty?

However, as Israel's fortunes declined and gave way to centuries of internal

apostasy and external oppression, the fulfilment of God's promises seemed ever

more remote and so became increasingly pushed into the future. Accordingly,

Israel's eschatology became increasingly other-worldly: God's end would now

150

take place not in this age but in an age to come; not gradually through the normal

progress of human history but cataclysmically through divine intervention

(revolution not evolution). Not surprisingly, expectations became increasingly

apocalyptic (fantastic and bizarre) in expression.

Israel's eschatological expectation came to be centred in "the day of the Lord", a

dreadful day at the end of the age when God would intervene from heaven to

judge sin, destroy evil, purify his people, overthrow their enemies and inaugurate

a new age in which he and they would rule over the nations and the earth.

Specifically, he would do this through: the sending of a Messiah, his anointed

servant ([and] a heavenly figure, the Son of Man); the pouring out of his Spirit;

the cutting of a new covenant; the extension of salvation to all peoples.

c) The End in the New Testament

The most important - and perhaps surprising - eschatological statement in the

New Testament is that this end has already come! And indeed, a glance at the

above paragraph will show how everything Israel expected of the end has to some

measure already been fulfilled by the events surrounding the Incarnation.

According to the New Testament, therefore, we have been living in the last days

ever since (1 Corinthians 10:11, Hebrews 1:2, 9:26, 1 Peter 1:20, 1 John 2:18).

Eschatology is thus about the past and present as well as the future; it is about the

last things God has brought about, is bringing about and will bring about.

Moreover, God's end is above all neither a period of time nor certain events

during that period but a person: Jesus is "the End", "the Omega", "the Last"

(Greek: eschatos) (Revelation 1:17, 22:13). Eschatology is not so much about the

last things as the last man; it is really The Doctrine of Jesus Christ Part II. So the

End is a person - but this End has already come!

Nevertheless, it is equally clear that the full measure of Old Testament

expectation of God's end (let alone that of the New) was not met at Jesus' first

coming. The New Testament asserts that we are living in the last days but also

that we still await the last day: the day of Jesus' second coming when God's end

will be fully realised. God's end is partly past-present (inaugurated eschatology)

and partly future (future eschatology). The Bible speaks of two ages: this age and

the age to come. What has happened (what no one foresaw and what has taken

the world by surprise) is that, in Jesus (God's End), the age to come has entered

(invaded!) this age "before the time" so that we see "the presence of the future"

and taste of the powers of the age to come (Hebrews 6:5). As is typical of biblical

prophecy, Israel's expectations of the end thus had a double fulfilment, a first

partial one and a final full one. The End has come but he is to come again!

In Section A of this chapter we will explore these paradoxes more fully as we

seek to establish God's overarching eschatological action and purpose, the

framework within which we can safely study end events and their order. But we

151

have already established the following skeleton of biblical eschatology [see

diagram overleaf], to which any proposed "muscles and sinews" (the

eschatological viewpoints of Section B) must conform.

A. FRAMEWORK OF THE END: THE KINGDOM OF GOD

One of the two or three greatest themes running through Scripture is that of the kingdom.

The kingdom of God is not a place (noun) but the rule and reign of God (verb).

Wherever God reigns, i.e. he is king, there is the kingdom of God.

In creation, God's reign was absolute and universal, exercised over the whole earth

through his deputized and delegated ruler - man. While God always remains the ultimate

ruler of all creation, this rule was challenged and blurred through first the fall of Satan

and his demons and then the fall of man. Man surrendered his dominion over the earth to

Satan and Satan became "the prince of this world", "the God of this age".

Consequently, the whole of salvation-history, whatever else it may be, is the story of

God's dealings with mankind to restore his universal rule; it is the story of violent

confrontation between the kingdoms of God and Satan, and of the progressive

displacement and destruction of the latter by the former. In particular, the re-establishing

of the kingdom of God can be traced in the histories of Israel, the first coming of Jesus,

the church and the second coming of Jesus.

THIS AGE

(Old Age / Present Age)

THE AGE TO COME

(New Age / Future Age)

1st Coming

of the End

2nd

Coming

of the End

Last days

Last

Day

INAUGURATED

ESCHATOLOGY

FUTURE

ESCHATOLOGY

152

1. THE KINGDOM AND ISRAEL

a) The Lord is king: Pictures of the kingdom during Israel's ascendancy

Through his calling of Israel and his rule over them, God began to restore his

kingdom on the earth and demonstrate his kingship over nations and their gods.

In the first half of Old Testament history, the period of her ascendancy, God's

interventions and her relative obedience meant that Israel had a picture, a taste, an

experience of the kingdom of God in her midst. In the plagues of Egypt and the

exodus, we see a violent confrontation between kingdoms; God's victory

demonstrated his reign over the nations and both their human and demonic rulers

(Pharaoh and Egypt's gods). Moreover, as the conqueror/deliverer of a nation,

God shows that he is the rightful new ruler over Israel; according to ancient

practice, he inherits the nation. Through the entry into covenant and the giving of

the Law at Mt Sinai, God establishes his rule over every area of the nation's life.

But the Tabernacle designated Israel a kingdom nation (cf. slave nations of the

ancient world): their own king ruled and lived amongst them. The conquest of

Canaan similarly demonstrated God's reign over all nations and their gods; but

these gods were not brought into the Temple (contrary to ancient practice) for

they were not God's at all - God's reign was absolute. With the institution of the

monarchy in Israel, the divine King began to rule through his chosen and anointed

human king.

The fullest expression of God's reign came during the reigns of David and

Solomon (because these kings' obedience most allowed God to rule through

them). So great was the peace, prosperity and international pre-eminence of these

reigns that Israel saw the coming of the full reign of God as the natural evolution

of what they were already experiencing. God had promised David an ongoing

dynasty: God's kingdom would be increasingly realised through David's

descendants; its fulfilment would be in this age and this world and similar to what

they already knew.

b) The Lord will become king: Promises of the kingdom during Israel's

decline

In the second half of Old Testament history, however, as Israel's disobedience led

to her decline, her taste of the kingdom of God receded and was lost. The picture

became merely a promise; expectation of the kingdom was pushed into the future,

into another age and another world, and became more radicalized: it would be

completely different (rather than similar to) current experience and would come

about in a dramatic revolutionary (rather than gradual evolutionary) fashion.

For Isaiah, the coming of the kingdom involved the coming of seven things: God

himself, God's Messiah, God's Spirit, a new (and better) covenant, a new (and

better) salvation (which would save perfectly, universally and eternally), a new

153

people of God (with a new city, temple and priesthood), and a whole new order of

creation.

Daniel envisioned all temporal earthly kingdoms being violently destroyed and

replaced by an eternal heavenly kingdom, which would be introduced and

inherited by the "Son of Man", God's regent who would appear from heaven. Just

as the beasts of his visions represented earthly humanity, which would be

destroyed (the beasts rise up out of the sea, an apocalyptic symbol for restless

fallen humanity), so the Son of Man contains "in his loins" the new heavenly

humanity, which will rule with him.

By the end of the Old Testament era, then, Israel's eschatological expectation was

centred in the coming of God's King to overthrow the kingdoms of this world and

establish the kingdom of God, the rule of God over the whole earth through his

people.

2. THE KINGDOM AND THE INCARNATION

a) The Lord is King: The Kingdom came with Jesus

The most startling news of the New Testament is that Israel's expected end has

come: God's king has come and has established God's kingdom! Every aspect of

the Incarnation points to this: Jesus accepted the titles of God's coming king

("Messiah" and "Son of Man"); his life and character epitomised the life lived

under God's rule (i.e. in the kingdom of God); the theme of all his teaching

(especially the parables), and the summary of his message, was the kingdom of

God; and his acts of supernatural power both proved the existence, and

demonstrated the nature, of the kingdom. Like a herald, who by proclaiming a

new law brings it into existence in that place, Jesus simultaneously proclaimed

and inaugurated the kingdom wherever he went; and then promptly demonstrated

both its existence and nature by performing works of supernatural power, which

showed God's rule had invaded the world in a new way. Like every breakthrough

of the kingdom, Jesus' ministry was characterized by violent confrontation

between kingdoms - except that this time the enemy wasn't the rulers or gods of

nations but Satan himself, the god of this age, the ruler of this world: the final

cosmic battle had begun. Yet, as before, it was a no contest: God's power and

authority was absolute and irresistible in every area of Jesus' ministry.

In short, the fruit of Jesus' ministry was identical to that of the pictures and

promises of the kingdom in the Old Testament: freedom and liberty; justice and

righteousness; comfort and consolation; joy and celebration; peace and security.

In particular: Jesus' crucifixion fulfilled the Old Testament expectation of a "day

of the Lord", when God would judge sin and purify his people; his resurrection

the eschatological expectation of the defeat of death and the resurrection of the

dead; his ascension that of the Son of Man being exalted to rule at the right hand

154

of God. Moreover, the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was an end-of-the-world

event.

Just as Isaiah had prophesied, God had come to his people, the Messiah had

appeared, the Spirit had been poured out, a new and better covenant had been

made, a new and perfect salvation was available to all nations, and God had

redeemed a new people for himself. All of this could only mean one thing: the

end of the world had come because God had sent his king - Jesus! - to establish

his kingdom.

b) The Lord will become king: The kingdom is still to come with Jesus

And yet some of the expectations of the end had not been fulfilled, and others had

only been fulfilled in part. No wonder John the Baptist was confused! (Luke

7:18-19) And even Jesus, while he sometimes spoke of the kingdom as having

come (Matthew 11:12-13, 12:28, Luke 16:16, 17:20-21) or of being imminent

(Matthew 10:23, Mark 1:15, 9:1, Luke 21:32), at other times he indicated that it

would be delayed (Matthew 24:6&14, 25:1-13&14-30, Luke 19:11-27) and was

yet to come (Mark 10:30).

As difficult as it may be, we must hold all of this in tension and not violate

Scripture by conveniently ignoring or downplaying any of these groups of

statements. And we must remember the double reference typical of so much

biblical prophecy: the prophet would speak of two different persons or events as if

they were one, without regard to chronology or proportion, because they represent

different instances of the same pattern. The Prophet was doing this with regard to

the coming of the kingdom.

The full New Testament revelation is thus that the kingdom of God has both

already come and not yet come. In Jesus, the kingdom of God (i.e. the future,

God's end, that which is of the age and world to come) has broken through into

the present age and world in an unexpected and mysterious way. Incredibly, this

means that those who have met Jesus have seen the end (of the world); those who

are part of the kingdom have tasted of the life and the powers of the age to come!

Yet the kingdom has not come in its fullness: there remains a future, final

intervention of God which will end this age and usher in the next. In short, the

kingdom of God has been inaugurated but not consummated.

Last

Day

NT ERA

THE AGE TO COME

KING KING

LAST DAYS

THIS AGE

OT ERA

KINGDOM PROMISED

(not yet)

KINGDOM INAUGURATED

(already not yet

KINGDOM CONSUMMATED

(already)

155

3. THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH

a) Living in the Already - Not Yet tension of the kingdom

We have been tracing the re-establishing of the reign (kingdom) of God in

salvation-history, particularly in and through Israel and Jesus. Where does this

leave the church in this present period following the Incarnation?

The result of the unexpected invasion of the future (the age to come) into the

present, before the termination of this age, is an unforeseen period where two ages

and two worlds coexist (the "last days" of the New Testament: see Introduction).

The church needs to understand and live comfortably in the tension between the

"already" and the "not yet" of the kingdom. This period is analogous to that

between D-Day and V-Day: the enemy is already defeated though not yet

destroyed (the decisive blow has been struck and his eventual overthrow is

inevitable); we still live behind enemy lines where the enemy is in "possession"

but our final victory is certain.

Almost every error of doctrine and practice stems from a failure to hold onto both

parts of this tension. For example, some millennial views (i.e. end-time

scenarios) lose sight of the "already" (breeding pessimism, fear and withdrawal

through their one-sided emphasis on the supposedly irresistible evil of this world)

while others lose sight of the "not yet" (ignoring the evil realities of this age and

idealistically thinking they can build the kingdom in its fullness here and now).

Some theologies of healing ignore the "already" (God does not heal today) while

others ignore the "not yet" (God always heals: we should never be sick). Some

teaching on sanctification loses the "already" (we will always sin in this life) and

other teaching loses the "not yet" (we can and should be perfect).

b) The continual coming of the kingdom in this age

The church thus lives in a tension ("between the times") but not in a vacuum: this

is the period of the growth of the kingdom and the church is instrumental in

advancing it. What began in Jesus, viz. the breakthrough of the kingdom, is now

continued in and through the church as one continuous event. The book of Acts

records the acts of the apostles and the early church continuing the work of Jesus;

indeed, their acts are often represented as the works of Jesus himself, or as those

of the Spirit, who links the ministries of Jesus and of the church into one. The

church does the same things as Jesus and these lead to the same kingdom-fruits.

Contrary to the disciples' expectation, Jesus indicated a delay in the coming of the

kingdom and taught what was to be done in the interim: the church era was to be

the period in which the church extended the kingdom throughout the world by

preaching the gospel in the power of the Spirit. Because Jesus is the already

coronated and reigning king, the church can extend the kingdom. It does this in

the same manner as Jesus did: it announces (and so inaugurates) the kingdom in

156

any place and then demonstrates its presence and nature through works of power.

Church history (especially the history of revival and mission) is thus a history of

the coming of the kingdom through the church, a continuation of Acts. The travel

record of the church becomes the record of the coming of the kingdom; wherever

the church goes, there the kingdom comes.

c) The relationship between the kingdom and the church

Kingdom and church are neither wholly identical nor wholly distinct.

The church is not identical to the kingdom: the church are the people serving the

king; the kingdom is the personal reign of God. The church is only part of God's

kingdom: God also reigns over nations, nature, angels, etc.

Nevertheless, the church is related to the kingdom: in what it is it is a sign of the

kingdom, showing that God's reign has come and what it looks like; in what it

says it proclaims and explains the kingdom; in what it does it is an agent of the

kingdom, working to extend it through all of its life and ministry.

On one level, the church is an end: the fulfilment of God's search through the ages

for a covenant people (the people of God in the final and perfect covenant). But

on another level it is a means: it works to extend, and is itself part of, the greater

reality of God's universal and blessed reign over all creation. The Kingdom of

God is the conclusion and climax of salvation history, the fulfilment of creation

and redemption.

4. THE KINGDOM AND JESUS' RETURN

The fourth and last key chapter in the story of God re-establishing his rule and

reign over all creation is the return of Christ, the second coming of the king to

consummate the kingdom he inaugurated at his first coming. At the beginning of

time and history, the kingdom of God became the kingdom of this world; at the

end of time and history, when Christ returns, it will be shouted, "The kingdom of

the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will

reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15) The reign that Jesus brought at the

Incarnation, and which the church now extends, is partial. But God's reign over

the new heaven and new earth will be absolute, universal, eternal, perfect, blessed

and glorious.

It should now be absolutely clear that God's end - and thus eschatology - is all

about the coming of God's king to establish God's kingdom. The kingdom is the

theme; the king is the hero; all other persons and events that appear in the play are

mere sets, props and bit-players. Eschatology is not, as is so often implied by the

sensation-seeking of pop eschatology, a matter of "heads and horns" but of king

157

and kingdom. (In fact, it is quite possible to have an eschatology that is both

sound and substantial without having a detailed knowledge of obscure apocalyptic

symbols and their interpretation.) Eschatology should, therefore, never focus on

comparatively less important matters such as tribulations, raptures and antichrists

but on the comings of God's king to bring about God's purposed end - the

kingdom.

This understanding of king and kingdom as the essence of eschatology has

reinforced two important keys which we established in the Introduction. First,

that eschatology, the doctrine of last things, is really about the last man: Jesus, the

Last (Eschatos), is the king who establishes the kingdom. Second, that

eschatology is about the past and present as well as the future: the king has

already come and the kingdom has already been (and is being) established.

The kingdom of God is thus the overarching and all-embracing framework within

which we can now stretch a canvas and paint a doctrine of last things. It is only

when we understand this to be the essence of God's eschatological purpose and

actions that we can safely, and with right emphasis, examine the details. We can

now move, therefore, to an examination of the various scenarios of the end which

Christians have arrived at and of the separate end-time events which make up

these scenarios.

B. SCENARIOS OF THE END : MILLENIAL VIEWS

Four main scenarios of the end have emerged in church history. We call them millennial

views as each is built around a particular understanding of the millennium (i.e. the

thousand-year period mentioned in Revelation 20:1-6). For reasons of space, I will in

each case merely outline the view's scenario of the end without giving any historical

background to, or critical evaluation of, the position. Such an evaluation is essential and

the student should be sure to conduct his own.

[N.B. My detailed evaluation of each position can be found in my Eschatology manual.]

5. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENIALISM

This eschatological position is part of a wider theology called dispensationalism. To

understand the position it is necessary to know three of the presuppositions which

undergird the entire theology. (1) God deals with humanity in seven distinct

dispensations, seven periods during which God relates to man on a different basis and

judges him according to a different criterion. (2) There is an absolute and abiding

distinction between Israel and the church: God has two totally distinct peoples (Israel vs

the church) and consequently two distinct programmes/purposes (earthly vs heavenly)

158

worked out in distinct periods (millennium vs church age). (3) All Scripture, including

all prophecy, must be interpreted literally.

This scenario is complex and more easily understood if divided as follows:

Old Testament. Many Old Testament prophecies point to a future earthly kingdom

involving Israel. Israel would: be restored to Canaan; enjoy prosperity and blessing; be

raised above the nations; and live under the benevolent rule of the Messiah. Also,

Abraham had been promised that his physical seed would possess the Promised Land

forever, and David had been promised that his physical seed would sit on the throne of

Israel forever. These prophecies and promises have not yet been literally fulfilled - and

so there is still to come a period, the millennium, which will see their literal fulfilment.

First Coming. At Christ's first coming, he offered the promised kingdom to the Jews (his

rule over and through Israel). The offer was rejected and so the establishment of the

kingdom was postponed to the millennium.

Church Age. In the meantime, Jesus established the church. The church, unlike the

Jewish Davidic kingdom, was not predicted in the Old Testament. The church thus

constitutes a "parenthesis" in the plan of God, interrupting God's predicted plan for Israel.

The church age does not fulfil or advance the programme of events predicted in the Old

Testament.

First Return. Christ's return occurs in two phases. In the first, which is imminent (or

"any moment", i.e. nothing has to happen first): Jesus descends part of the way from

heaven; dead believers (excluding Old Testament saints) are resurrected and living

believers are transformed); both are raptured (caught up to meet the descending Lord in

the air); the church returns to heaven with Jesus to celebrate the wedding feast of the

Lamb for seven years.

Tribulation. Those seven years on the earth are the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 and the

period of the "signs of the times". The signs include: tribulation; the appearance of the

antichrist; judgement on mankind; the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom (i.e. the

good news of the soon to be established Davidic kingdom) to all nations; the turning of a

remnant of Israel (the 144 000 of Revelation 7:3-8) to Jesus as the Messiah; through their

witness, the salvation of an innumerable number of Gentiles; the gathering of the kings of

the earth at Armageddon to attack and destroy Israel.

Second Return. At the end of the seven years, Christ returns (for the second time) in

glory, accompanied by the church. This time he descends all the way to earth and

destroys his (and Israel's ) enemies. By this time, all Israel has been restored to Palestine.

At Christ's return the vast majority of Jews turn to him and are saved. The devil is bound

for a 1000 years. Old Testament and tribulation saints are raised and join the church age

saints (the raptured church) in heaven. There follows the judgement on all those who

survive the tribulation, both Gentiles and Jews. Gentiles are judged according to how

they treated Christ's brethren (both Jews and believers) during the tribulation: those who

159

pass the test are allowed to enter the millennium; those who fail are cast into hell. Jews

that turned to Christ when he returned (the vast majority) also enter the millennium; rebel

Israelites are put to death.

Millennium. Christ rules over the earth from his throne in Jerusalem for 1000 years. The

kingdom is primarily Jewish - although Gentiles also share in its blessings, Jews are

exalted above Gentiles - a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies regarding national

Israel. It is a golden age of peace, prosperity and productivity; the earth is full of the

knowledge of the Lord; the nations go to worship God at the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem,

where sacrifices have been restored (although they are now merely memorial and no

longer propitiatory). Initially, Christ rules over believers (Jew and Gentile) only, those

who were still living at the time of his second return and who passed the judgement tests

for Jews or Gentiles. There are thus no unregenerate people on earth at the beginning of

the millennium. But those who enter it are normal human beings; they will marry,

reproduce and die. Many of those born will become true believers; others won't, but they

will be kept in check by Christ's iron rule (or put to death if necessary). Meanwhile, for

the duration of the entire 1000 years, the resurrected saints will be living in the heavenly

new Jerusalem, a city that will hover in the air over the earth and give the latter light.

They play some part in Christ's millennial reign and judgements, and are able to move

between the heavenly and earthly Jerusalems for this purpose; but their chief existence is

in the heavenly city.

End Events. Towards the end of the millennium, Satan is loosed and he gathers the rebels

against Christ's rule for a final attack against Christ and his people. But the revolt is

crushed, Christ's enemies are destroyed and Satan is cast into hell. All believers who

died during the millennium are raised (all believers from previous periods have already

been raised). All unbelieving dead are raised; they are judged before the great white

throne and cast into hell.

Final State. God creates a new heaven and a new earth. The heavenly Jerusalem (the

dwelling place of resurrected saints during the millennium) descends to earth. God and

his people dwell together in everlasting bliss. Though all the people of God now dwell

together, the distinction between Jew and Gentile remains throughout eternity. (The

Israelite's national hope was realised in the millennium; his individual hope is realised

together with redeemed Gentiles on the new earth.)

160

6. HISTORIC PREMILLENIALISM

End of Church Age. Shortly before Christ's return, the "signs of the times" occur:

tribulation, apostasy, the antichrist and the evangelization of the nations. The church

goes through the tribulation.

Second Coming. This is a single event. Dead believers are raised, living believers are

transformed, and both are raptured to meet the Lord in the air; they then return with him

to earth. The antichrist and his forces are slain and thrown into hell; Satan is bound for a

1000 years. Just before or just after Christ's return (either way, after the gathering of the

Gentiles is complete), the vast majority of Jews are saved; their conversion is a source of

untold blessing for the world.

Millennium. Christ sets up his 1000-year millennial reign: he reigns visibly over the

whole world; and his saints - both Jew and Gentile (there is only one people of God),

both those who were living and those who were raised at his return - reign with him. Sin

and death still exist, but evil is greatly restrained: unbelieving nations are kept in check

by Jesus' rod-of-iron rule; righteousness, justice, peace and prosperity prevail as never

before; even nature will be unusually productive and reflect the blessedness of the age.

End of Millennium. Satan is loosed; he deceives the nations and gathers them for an

attack against the "camp of the saints". But he is consumed by fire from heaven and

thrown into hell. There follows the resurrection of unbelievers and the judgement of all

men - believers and unbelievers - before the great white throne. Those whose names are

not found in the Lamb's book of life are thrown into the fire and those whose are enter

(Jews &

Gentiles)

Jesus rules on earth

from earthly Jerusalem

HELL

Heavenly Jerusalem

descends to earth

NEW HEAVEN

&

NEW EARTH

In heaven: Wedding

Feast of the Lamb

(7 years: Daniel‟s 70th week)

On earth: Tribulation

(Signs of the Times)

Remnant of Israel saved

Convert Gentile multitude HELL

Millennial

unbelievers

raised, judged

& sent to hell

Millennial

saints

raised

Jesus

crushes

rebellion

Satan loosed

Final rebellion

Satan thrown

into hell

MILLENIUM

(1000yrs)

Church lives in new,

heavenly Jerusalem

hovering over earth

Resurrection of

O.T. & Tribulation

saints to join

church age saints

Judgements of

surviving Jews

and Gentiles

MILLEN.

Jesus‟

2nd Return

Jesus‟

1st Return

Dead believers raised

Living believers

transformed and

Church raptured Jesus‟

1st Coming

Satan

bound

“All Israel saved”

O.T. promise

of Jewish

kingdom

Jews

reject

kingdom

Kingdom postponed

(„Time in parenthesis‟)

Kingdom

prepared for

CHURCH

DISPENSATION

LAW

DISPENSATION

KINGDOM

DISPENSATION

Jewish kingdom realised

161

eternal life.

Final State. Unbelievers spend eternity in hell. Believers spend eternity on a new earth

purged of all evil.

7. POSTMILLENIALISM

During the church era, the kingdom of God is extended in the world through the

preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit. Eventually, the world

will be "Christianized": the present age will merge gradually into the millennium as an

increasingly larger proportion of the world's inhabitants are converted to Christianity.

The millennium is a long period of righteousness and peace, a golden age, but neither a

visible earthly rule by Christ nor a literal 1000 years. Both in the natural and human (eg

social, political, economic) realms it will be a time of harmony and prosperity. Not that

every individual will be a Christian but Christian doctrine and ethics will be the norm for

nations and individuals (the rule rather than the exception). Sin will not be eliminated but

reduced to a minimum; evil will not be abolished in all its forms but reduced to negligible

proportions. Towards the end of the millennium there will be a limited manifestation of

evil (Satan will be loosed and will attack the church) but this will be of short duration and

without harm to the church. At the end of the age, Christ returns (after, or "post", the

millennium) to a truly Christianized world. This is followed by a general (i.e. single and

universal) resurrection and a general judgement, and the introduction of the final state,

viz. heaven and hell.

Postmillennialists interpret Revelation 20:1-3 as the binding of Satan in both the present

church age and the future golden age (some postmillennialists would limit this to the

latter), and verses 4-6 as the present reign of the souls of deceased believers in heaven

with Christ (some postmillennialists would ascribe this to the present reign of regenerate

believers on earth). For postmillennialists, the great tribulation (Matthew 24) and

apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2) is already past: it was fulfilled in the siege and destruction

of Jerusalem in AD 70. Finally, postmillennialists expect a mass-conversion of Jews

before the millennium but not a separate destiny or political kingdom for them.

CHURCH AGE

Jesus‟

1st Coming

Jesus‟

2nd Coming

Signs of the Times

Satan

bound

Antichrist et al to Hell

Resurrection/Transformation

Rapture & Return of Believers

Christ rules on earth with saints over nations

MILLENIUM

NEW HEAVEN

&

NEW EARTH

HELL

Satan loosed Satan thrown

into hell

Rebellion crushed

Resurrection of unbelievers

Judgement

of all men

162

8. AMILLENIALISM

According to amillennialists, Revelation 20:1-6 refers neither to the final state nor to a

future earthly age, whether before or after Christ's return, but to this present age, to the

period between Jesus' comings (not a literal 1000 years). During this period Satan is

bound on earth (vv 1-3) and the souls of deceased believers reign in heaven (vv 4-6). The

resulting scenario of the end is as follows:

The Last Days. Throughout the period between Jesus' comings (the New Covenant era,

or church "age"), the kingdom of God is already present (God reigns in and through the

church) and growing (the church preaches the gospel and extends the kingdom

throughout the world); nevertheless, the kingdom has not yet come in its fullness.

Throughout this period also, despite the conclusive victory over Satan won by Christ at

his first coming, the princedom of Satan continues to exist and grow alongside the

kingdom of God. Finally, because this entire period is the last days (cf. Introduction), the

signs of the times occur throughout this period.

This period (from the Incarnation to shortly before the end of the age) is also the

millennium, the complete period of indeterminate length described in Revelation 20:1-6.

Throughout this period Satan is bound (i.e. unable to deceive the nations as he was before

the gospel was revealed) and deceased believers reign with Christ in heaven (the

intermediate state). It can be seen how both of these aspects of the millennium, not

possible previously, were made possible by the Incarnation: Christ's defeat of Satan on

the cross means that Satan was bound and his forces disarmed, and that the church can

now rob the strong man of his possessions; Christ's atonement and justification of the

believer, and his victory over death, mean that the deceased believer is no longer under

the power of death but can enjoy a life with Jesus in heaven.

The Last Day. Towards the end of the age (at the end of the millennium), there will occur

a series of climactic events associated with Christ's return. Satan will be loosed and will

be responsible for unleashing great evil. The signs will intensify; the signs will include

the great tribulation and apostasy and the appearance of the antichrist, but also the

completion by the church of the task of preaching the gospel to all nations and the

HEAVEN

HELL

SATAN BOUND

General resurrection

General

judgement

Jesus‟ 2

nd Coming

CHURCH AGE

Souls of deceased believers reign with Christ in heaven

MILLENIUM

Gospel preached;

world Christianized

Tribulation

& Apostasy

A.D. 70

Golden Age;

evil restrained

Jesus‟ 1

st Coming

Minor

attack

Satan loosed

163

consequent salvation of the full number of both Jews and Gentiles. Christ returns (a

single event). At his return there is a general resurrection (i.e. of all the dead); in

particular, raised dead believers will join transformed living believers in meeting the

Lord in the air and then returning with him to the earth (the rapture). There follows the

general judgement (i.e. of all men) and the introduction of the final states - hell for the

unrighteous and, for the righteous, the new heaven and new earth.

C. CALENDAR OF THE END : END EVENTS AND THEIR ORDER

In this final section we survey the most important events associated with the end, in the

order most generally agreed upon. Each deserves substantial examination but again

space will limit us to merely introductory comments.

9. DEATH (and Immortality?)

Eschatology is concerned with the end of the individual as well as the end of the world.

In this and the next paragraphs we ask about the lot of the individual who dies before

Christ's return.

The Bible makes it absolutely clear that death in the human world is the result of sin

(Genesis 2:17, 3:19&22, Romans 5:12, 8:10, 1 Corinthians 15:21; cf. Chapter 5.9). It

was not part of God's original plan of creation; it is the negation of everything for which

God created man (viz. life and immortality)(cf. Chapter 5.5).

But the Bible is equally clear that Jesus conquered death. On the cross he removed the

penalty of death from us (cf. Chapter 6.8b[i]). In his resurrection he overcame the power

of death (cf. Chapter 6.8c[ii]).

Why then must believers still die? Because, while we are now part of the age to come

Judgement

NEW HEAVEN

&

NEW EARTH

HELL

SATAN BOUND

Resurrection

Jesus‟

2nd Coming Deceased believers reign in heaven

CHURCH AGE

(MILLENIUM)

Jesus‟

1st Coming

Signs intensify

Satan loosed

164

(new nature), we are still part of this age (old nature - which has been rendered powerless

but not yet eradicated). Nothing imperfect in ourselves or the cosmos can enter a perfect

eternity (an eternal existence in our present ambiguous state would not be a blessing!).

Death is the doorway which allows us to die to the presence of sin (the sin nature is

eradicated) and to enter eternity transformed and glorified. Death is thus no longer a

punishment or satisfaction for sin (Christ has already died that aspect of our death for us);

it is no longer an enemy but a friend.

Finally, does some part of man live on after death as is popularly imagined? I have

already rejected "the immortality of the soul" as a Greek philosophical idea rather than a

Biblical Hebrew one (cf. Chapter 5.2b). While man was "destined for immortality"

(created for eternal fellowship with God), he is not immortal in himself or in any part of

him; his life (whether eternal or temporal) is a received rather than inherent one. Man

forfeited this life at the Fall. Moreover, man is a unity not a composite of parts, the

whole man created by God; and so when he dies he dies in totality. If there is existence

after death (and there is: see [10], [15] and [16] below), it is again received rather than

inherent.

10. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE

The Bible is quite clear about man's resurrection to an eternal existence in heaven and

hell at the end of time (the final state), but it also hints of an existence before then, i.e.

between death and Christ's return (the intermediate state). While not much is said, there

is enough to discount the ideas of annihilation or "soul-sleep": immediately upon dying,

the believer enters into an existence with Jesus in heaven; there is never a time when he is

separate from Christ (John 11:23-25, Luke 16:19-31, 23:42-43 [cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4],

Philippians 1:23-25, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Romans 8:38-39, 14:8,

Revelation 6:9-11, 20:4-6). This existence would appear to be one of the soul-spirit: both

psyche (Matthew 10:28, Revelation 6:9, 20:4) and pneuma (Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59,

Hebrews 12:23) are used to describe that aspect of man which continues to exist after

death.

The intermediate state is the first part of our blessed, glorious and eternal life with Jesus;

but the Bible makes it clear that this is a state of provisional blessing only, and that its

main message about the future hope of the individual is the resurrection from the dead at

Christ's return. Because man is a unity, as essentially body as he is soul/spirit, the

blessedness of the intermediate state can only be provisional, anticipatory, incomplete.

Nevertheless, this is god news!

The Bible is even less clear about an intermediate state for the ungodly but it seems to

suggest a state of provisional punishment (cf. the provisional blessing of the righteous)

rather than soul-sleep (Luke 16:19-31, 2 Peter 2:9, Matthew 11:23-24).

165

11. THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES

Jesus listed various things that would occur before his return and exhorted his disciples to

watch for them (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 - but see also 12:35-48 and 18:20-37).

Much (perhaps too much!) has been made of these "signs". For example, they are often

regarded as (i) spectacular and unmistakable events which (ii) occur exclusively in the

days immediately preceding Christ's return, and which thus allow us both (iii) to draw up

an exact timetable of events in those days and (iv) to predict the timing of the second

coming. None of these assumptions are true.

The signs do not occur only in the days immediately preceding Jesus' return. They refer

to what God did at Jesus‟ first coming (Matthew 16:3 cf. Luke 12:56) and, by extension,

to everything God is doing in bringing his kingdom throughout the church era. They

refer to first century events (particularly the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem,

including the Temple, in AD 70) as well as end-time events (and to similar occurrences

in-between): Jesus is employing the foreshortening or double reference typical of biblical

prophecy (the superimposition of different instances of the same pattern without regard to

chronology or proportion). Further, it would have been meaningless for Jesus to instruct

his contemporaries on matters which were irrelevant to them. Lastly, the church in every

generation is exhorted to remain watchful for Christ's return: this would have been

meaningless if the signs were to occur only amongst the last generation of believers. The

signs, then, characterize the entire period between Jesus‟ comings (something not so

surprising when we remember that the New Testament describes this entire period as the

"last days"). They point to the past (the decisive event has occurred: the kingdom has

come); they point to the present (God is presently at work in the world, growing his

kingdom); and they point to the future (Christ's victorious return is now certain).

The signs are not always spectacular, abnormal, catastrophic. This would preclude the

elements of watchfulness and having to make a decision based on faith (cf. Luke 17:20-

21). Some of the signs are "hidden" in the non-spectacular processes of history.

Because of the above two points (the signs occur throughout the church era and are often

perceived only by faith), the signs give us neither a timetable of the end-times nor a date

for Christ's return. Indeed, such predictions are neither the aim of biblical prophecy

(which is always sanctification, not speculation) nor its design (prophecy does not give us

a chronological knowledge of the future as history does of the past). Moreover, many of

the signs are mentioned more than once and in different positions relative to other signs.

And we never know how prophecies are going to be fulfilled until the prophesied event

occurs (and sometimes not even then: Matthew 11:3!). While it does seem that there will

be an intensification of the signs in the days preceding Jesus' return (coincident with the

loosing of Satan and the last great offensive of evil), even this does not allow us to date

the return, for we can never be sure that the signs are not in fact capable of even greater

intensification.

Having made these cautionary general observations about the signs, I will leave the

student to study the individual signs. At least ten can be delineated in the texts given at

166

the start of this section: revolutions, wars and rumours of wars; earthquakes, famines and

pestilences; false Christs, false prophets and deceiving signs; spirits of antichrist,

antichrists and the Antichrist; apostasy; persecution, witness and martyrdom; great

tribulation; the preaching of the gospel to all nations; the abomination that causes

desolation; and celestial disturbances. (Other signs can be found, inter alia, in 1Timothy

4, 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Thessalonians 2.)

12. THE RETURN OF JESUS CHRIST

The event of future eschatology (as the Incarnation was of inaugurated eschatology): the

return of God's End and King to consummate the kingdom; the climax of history and the

world. To a measure, it does not matter if our understanding of events before and after

Jesus‟ return is not clear: this is the centre of the Bible and the Christian's expectation of

the future.

The Bible promises Christ's return. In the Old Testament, this promise is implicit,

contained in the many prophecies of a glorious and ruling Messiah that were not fulfilled

at his first coming. In the New Testament it is explicit, every book pointing to his return

and exhorting the believer to be prepared for it. This promise has not been invalidated by

any "delay" in Christ's return (i.e. the non-fulfilment of Jesus or Paul's supposed

prediction of a quick return): Paul and others may have expected a quick return but the

New Testament nowhere teaches this. In fact, Jesus denied knowing the day and hour of

his return (eg Matthew 24:36) and stressed both the uncertainty of its timing (eg Matthew

24:42&44) and its delay rather than imminence (eg Luke 19:11. Three statements which

may seem to speak of an early return, when properly interpreted, do not: Mark 9:1, 13:30,

Matthew 10:23.) The excited expectation of Jesus' return is thus as valid for the church

today and as necessary - for godliness, preparedness, urgency, diligence, passion, hope,

etc.

But the timing of Jesus' return remains as to us as it was to the early church (despite the

very confident assertions of many of our contemporaries). We have already noted that

Jesus said no man knows the hour (it is amazing what some will do to explain away this

text) and stressed the uncertainty of its timing. This is precisely why believers are

repeatedly exhorted to be watchful (Matthew 24:36&42& 44, 25:13): for both believers

and unbelievers it will be unexpected; believers, however, should be prepared. We have

also seen that the signs do not allow us to date Christ's return (we can never know if they

have climaxed) or be sure that the return is imminent (by any interpretation, many of the

signs have not been fulfilled). In short, we do not know how close Jesus' return is -

which is exactly as he intended! All these attempts to date the return are, at best, futile

and, at worst, ungodly. Such pop eschatology is the habit of cults - and that is where it

should remain!

More important than the timing of Jesus' return is the nature and the purpose of his return

- and about these the Bible is quite clear. The return will be personal (Christ himself will

return in his own person), literal (not figurative), physical (not spiritual) and visible (not

167

invisible) (Acts 1:11, 3:19-21, Philippians 3:20, Colossians 3:4, Titus 2:13 cf. v11,

Revelation 1:7). And it will be glorious (unlike the Incarnation, his divinity will not be

veiled: Matthew 24:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:16); awesomely wonderful for the believer,

awesomely terrible for the unbeliever (Genesis 49:8-12, Isaiah 24, 34, 63:1-6, Joel 1:15,

2:1-11&30-31, 3:1-3&9-16, 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 2:8, Revelation 14:18-20, 19:11-21).

Jesus returns to do everything that is necessary for the termination of this age and world

and the introduction of the next - in a word, to finally judge and destroy the kingdom of

darkness and to consummate the kingdom of God (see the remaining sections below).

13. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

The believer's main hope (both now and during the intermediate state), and the Bible's

main teaching about the future of the individual, is the resurrection of the body.

Greek philosophy is dualistic: soul/spirit is good/superior/immortal; body: matter is

evil/inferior/temporal. The individual's hope for the afterlife is, therefore, the freeing of

the soul from the restraints and corruptions of the body (and from the entire world of

matter: souls existing in an ethereal world). The biblical worldview is in complete

opposition to this: man is a unity, the whole man created by God and the whole man,

therefore, good. The individual's hope for the afterlife is thus the redemption of every

part of his being, and this includes the resurrection of the body. (Man is essentially body

as much as he is soul or spirit, and so an eternal existence without a body would be less

than perfect.) Similarly, the hope does not involve escaping from the world of matter but

a life in a glorified body on a renewed (new) earth. (See again Chapter 5.2b, especially

the last paragraph; and Chapter 6.8c[ii] for how this hope is based on Christ's

resurrection.)

Some millennial views teach different resurrections for different groups over a wide

period of time. I believe that the simplest and best interpretation of Scripture teaches a

general resurrection: the resurrection of all men, believers and unbelievers (Daniel 12:2,

John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15), at one time, viz. the return of Christ (John 6:39-40&44&54, 1

Corinthians 15:23, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16), preparatory to judgement.

(See also Job 19:23-27, Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 26:19.)

The Bible gives only a hint of what the resurrected body will be like (perhaps because it

is beyond our present comprehension) and even this is mostly in terms of what it is not

(i.e. how it differs from our present bodies)(1 Corinthians 15:36-57). Perhaps the clearest

glimpse is in what Jesus' resurrected body was like (Philippians 3:20-21, 1 John 3:2):

there is both continuity (identity, recognizability) and discontinuity (supernatural

properties) between our present and resurrected bodies. What is clear is that our

resurrected bodies will be free of original and actual sin and the effects of sin; they will

equip us for an eternal and glorified life on the new earth.

168

14. THE JUDGEMENT OF MANKIND

The Bible speaks of a judgement of all mankind at the end of time even though men are

already judged in this life by their response to Christ (John 3:18&36, 5:24) and God

already knows the destiny of each individual (John 10:27-28, Ephesians 1:4). The

purpose of this judgement is thus not investigation (God is omniscient) but vindication

(of God's mercy/justice), publication (of each person's destiny) and execution (of that

destiny).

Again (vs some millennial views), I believe Scripture teaches a general judgement rather

than multiple judgements. This occurs at the end of the age (Matthew 13:40-43, 2 Peter

3:7), after Christ's return (Matthew 25:31-32, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) and the

resurrection of the dead (Revelation 20:12).

Scripture identifies both the Father (Matthew 18:35) and the Son (Matthew 25:32) as the

judge. Angels (Matthew 13:41-43) and the saints (Matthew 19:28) will also be involved

in judging. The distinctive theme of the New Testament, however, is that Jesus is the

judge. This is fitting as we are saved/damned by our acceptance: rejection of him.

Moreover, Christ's work of judgement represents his highest exaltation and final triumph:

in this act he judges his judges, subjugates his enemies and demonstrates his absolute

lordship over all.

Both angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3) and all mankind (Matthew 25:32), including believers

(Romans 14:10&12), will be judged. All things done in our lifetime (2 Corinthians 5:10)

- deeds (Matthew 16:27), words (Matthew 12:36) and thoughts (Romans 2:16) - will be

judged. But this holds no terror for the Christian: on the day of judgement his sins will

be revealed as forgiven sins. And being judged according to our works does not

contradict salvation by faith: faith reveals and proves itself in works; the judgement of

our works is not with a view to salvation/damnation but to determining rewards

("crowns") for the work done. God is just and judges each man according to the light

received: there will be degrees of both reward and punishment (Matthew 11:20-22, Luke

12:47-48, 16:31, Romans 1:18-21, 2:12-16).

The coming day of judgement means that the history of the world is not an endless series

of meaningless cycles but a movement towards a definite goal, an endpoint which works

retrospectively to influence and direct that history. The day of judgement will

conclusively reveal that salvation and everlasting blessedness depends on one's

relationship to Jesus Christ. The inescapableness of the day of judgement underscores

the accountability of man for his life and the seriousness of the need to get it in order.

The day of judgement will bring the final triumph of God and his salvation, the conquest

of all evil, the revelation of the victory of the Lamb and the recognition of Jesus as the

Lord of all!

169

15. HELL

The doctrine of hell is obviously a difficult doctrine, intellectually and emotionally, and

requires an apologetic handling as well as a purely doctrinal one. But, if we are to be

faithful to Scripture, we have to embrace it, and not pander to the disapprobation of the

spirit of the age by settling for unbiblical universalism (God is loving and saves all men:

see chapter 8.1) or even annihilationism (a God of love cannot bear to punish men so he

simply annihilates them: see below).

Jesus, the man of love, said more about hell than anyone else (Matthew 3:12, 5:22&29-

30, 8:12, 10:28, 13:30&41-42&49-50, 18:8-9, 22:13, 23:15&33, 25:30&41&46, Mark

9:43-48, John 3:36, 5:28-29; cf. Daniel 12:2). These texts indicate that the pains of hell

are internal (isolation and separation, bitter and hopeless remorse) but also external (those

who inhabit hell have some form of physical existence). Most importantly, they are

eternal: the word apollymi never denotes annihilation when applied to other things in the

New Testament (the sheep, coin and son are lost but not annihilated [Luke 15], the

wineskins are ruined but not annihilated [Matthew 9:17]) so we cannot make it mean this

here (and must not be misled by translations such as "destroy" or "perish"); the word

aionios means eternal when applied to the final state of the righteous and there is nothing

to indicate a change of meaning when applied to the final state of the unrighteous.

The New Testament writers were similarly unflinching in teaching hell - and its eternal

duration: "destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 cannot mean annihilation for "eternal

annihilation" would be meaningless; Revelation 14:11 uses the same term for the

description of hell (eis aionas aionon, lit. to ages of ages, trans. for ever and ever) as 4:9

does for God's eternal existence.

The imagery is probably not to be taken literally ("fire" and "darkness" would seem to be

contradictory if read thus). But, whatever else hell may or may not mean, it is both real

and eternal. It may be a place; it is certainly a state or condition of existence. It may be

simply the total absence of God and anything good, or the eternal awareness of exclusion;

it may be something more. It is just; and something which the inhabitants rather than

God have chosen. And it is utterly hopeless.

We should never become trivial about hell. It is a terrifying prospect. It must add

soberness to our preaching, urgency to our evangelism and passion to prayer.

16. THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH

The final state of the righteous is often thought of (a la Greek philosophy) in exclusively

spiritual (ethereal) terms. But, in keeping with the "earthiness" of the biblical worldview

we have been tracing throughout this course, we look forward to a new heaven and a new

earth (Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1). God's purpose in creating the

cosmos was to provide a home for man and an arena where he and man could walk

together in covenant (cf. Chapter 3.3d&6b). God's purpose has not changed. If it had,

170

this would mean a victory for evil. God's redemptive programme and power extend not

only to the individual or even all the elect but to the entire cosmos. Further, the

individual's hope is the resurrection of the body; this would be meaningless if heaven was

merely the habitat of wafting souls. Our future hope is of an eternal and blissful

existence with Jesus, in resurrected bodies (every part of our being transformed and

glorified), on the perfected new earth.

The promise to Israel of Canaan as an inheritance was merely the Old Testament type of

the New Testament (and eternal) promise to all God's people (the church of all nations,

Jew and Gentile) of the whole earth (Psalm 37:11 cf. Matthew 5:5, Genesis 17:8 cf.

Romans 4:13. The New typically expands the reference of Old Testament prophecies.)

The race of the first Adam was to have dominion over the whole earth; God will still

fulfil his plan: the perfected race of the second Adam will have dominion over the

perfected new earth.

Moreover, the church is the final and perfect fulfilment of God's quest through the ages,

and by means of various covenants, to create/redeem a people for himself; and the final

and perfect (New) covenant will be perfectly fulfilled on the new earth because God will

dwell there with man (Revelation 21:1-3). Heaven is where God dwells and so heaven

and earth will no longer be separated by sin. We will live simultaneously on the new

earth and in heaven!

Quite what this eternal existence will be like is beyond our comprehension: the Bible can

only hint at it. I shall leave the student to study the relevant passages - and to fantasize

(the only time our fantasies can't outstrip reality!)

Throughout this chapter we have been tracing God's end - the end-times and the last

things, the end of the individual and of the world, of time and history. We now have

reached the end of the end. But, of course, it's only the end of the beginning!

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALL DOCTRINES

This is not a list of all the books on the subject I know but only of the sources I have used

to a greater or lesser measure and can recommend to the student. Always be discerning

when using sources, however; even in these publications not all the chapters are equally

good. The first two are smaller (and cheaper!) paperbacks; the last two are large

reference works.

1. Charles Ryrie: A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Moody Press)

2. T. C. Hammond: In Understanding be Men (Inter Varsity Press)

3. Loius Berkhof: Systematic Theology (Eerdmans)

4. Donald Guthrie: New Testament Theology (Inter Varsity Press)

5. Colin Brown (Ed.): The New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology [3 vol] (Paternoster Press)

There are many other sources which I have used, some unconsciously, which are

impossible to list: the many church preachers and college lecturers who fashion one's

thinking in a way that can be neither measured nor traced; my thanks go to them. In

particular, I want to express my admiration of, and indebtedness to, Adrio Konig, at one

time Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of South Africa, whose

continually fresh and sparkling theology greatly inspired me; anyone who has likewise

studied under him will recognize his stamp in many of the preceding pages.

ESCHATOLOGY

In 1993, the second time I presented the Doctrine Survey (see Author's Preface), I

expanded the tenth and last lecture (Eschatology) into an entire ten-lecture course of its

own. I did this because eschatology is a complex subject and there is much "damage" to

undo. The chapter on eschatology in this manual is a condensation of the notes prepared

for that course (a condensation not entirely successful: the student may have noticed that

it is still longer than any of the other chapters!). The complete notes for the Eschatology

course are now also available in another manual. Because of the additional research that

went into the preparation of this chapter, I list below the sources that I used. In a field

where there is so much rubbish available, I unreservedly recommend these sources as the

best I have ever come across.

1. Anthony A. Hoekema: The Bible and the Future (Paternoster Press)

2. George Eldon Ladd: The Presence of the Future (Eerdmans)

3. Robert G. Clouse (Ed): The Meaning of the Millennium (Inter Varsity

Press)

4. Derek J. Morphew: Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom (Struik)

5. Adrio Konig: Jesus the Last (UNISA)

172

The first surveys the traditional field of eschatology (Sections B and C of Chapter 10)

from an amillennial point of view; the second does the same from a historic premillenial

point of view. The third is a presentation of the four millennial positions by four leading

scholars (including the authors of 1 and 2), with a reply to each from the other three. The

fourth, as the title indicates, focuses on the kingdom; Section A draws substantially on it.

The fifth restores to contemporary eschatological studies the biblical emphasis on Jesus

as the real centre of last things, an emphasis I have sought to underline throughout.

Date post:	11-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

A Survey of Christian Doctrine - New Covenant Ministries International

Documents