Lecture 8 - November 3, 2009          (downloadable/printable notes)

Attributes of God

1.                  The true essence of God cannot be defined; at least that’s been the position of most theologians.  Actually it makes perfect sense because we cannot understand who we are as finite human beings, much less the infinite God.

2.                  The closest we can come to understanding the nature of God is what John declares in 1 John 4:8 that “God is love,” but that doesn’t cover all what He may be.

3.                  The best we can do to understand the nature or the essence of God is to look at His attributes. Those characteristics that theologians and clergymen have decided best describe the God of scriptures.

4.                  The first that we’ll consider is the one the Greek philosophers have helped bring to light—the eternity of God.  We won’t go back and rehash our discussion of that over again except to say that somehow God stands above time and is able to see it all as present in consciousness.  Grudem (page 171) uses the analogy of reading a long novel of the history of mankind from beginning to end then putting it back on the bookshelf. Yet before you put it back, you flip through the pages and recall word for word what you’ve read.

5.                  I would add that the novel, while having the ending decided, is still evolving in the mind of God as it is put back on the shelf. Isaiah 46: 9-10 says: “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’”

Think like a theologian for a moment – what if He is writing the history novel as He is putting it back on the shelf?  What kind of problems does that create? Determinism is the biggest problem (yet is such a  thing as free will or just wishful thinking on our part?); but maybe, there could be different plot lines, different choices that could branch off in different directions (allowing a measure of free will) while ultimately ending up where God wants it to be.  I see God nurturing His creation in the direction He wants it to go, while being reluctant to violently bend it to His will. Maybe that’s what makes history so long, allowing the infinite possibilities and infinite outcomes to ultimately work out in the mind of God as He would have to. 

6.                  Another characteristic of God that Philosophers and theologians alike are fond of is the perfection of God. Grudem’s definition of the perfection of God is that God completely possesses everything that would be desirable for Him to possess (Grudem, page 218).   Paul says in Acts 17: 24 & 25 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.  And he is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything because He himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.”   Jesus also tells His disciples that they are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). 

7.                  At the risk of being redundant, you might say that God is not only perfection but also “absolute perfection.” In other words, God alone is perfection in the absolute! Beyond our wildest and grandest imagination, God is perfect.  In fact, some people have suggested that God is simple perfection.  Simple not as something that is elementary or easy to grasp (because God cannot be grasped or completely understood) but that God is simple in the sense that God has no parts, that He is absolute oneness in the most perfect sense.

8.                  God is absolutely divinely perfect within and of Himself.  He does not grow nor change because when you are absolutely divinely perfect as God is, you do not need anything else to make yourself better.  There is no better you! You’re God and because you don’t need anything there is no better and improved you to become. Amen (unless you advocate Process theology, see Grudem page 166)!! 

9.                  However, we mean that God cannot change for the better and certainly cannot change for the worse—He is absolutely perfect as He is. 

10.              Following upon the idea of God being simple—no parts, everything that God has He is.   For example, God doesn’t have love, he is Love.  God doesn’t have mercy, he is Mercy.  God doesn’t have light, he is Light.  God doesn’t have goodness, He is Goodness.   We may have some of these attributes but God is these things and more.

11.              You might say who we are is a collection of these things and more. But God’s essence is not just a collection of the following attributes: love, justice, wisdom, holiness, wrath, blessedness, omnipresence, independence, truth, omnipotence, mercy, intellect, jealousy, and so on (see Grudem, page 178, figure 11.2).

12.              Neither are these attributes merely just additions to His real being (like Grudem has on page 179, figure 11.3), however, we might maintain that these attributes are expressions of a greater more mysterious being that we cannot begin to grasp.

13.              Grudem says that whatever God is we must remember that God’s whole being includes all of His attributes: he is entirely loving, entirely just, entirely truthful. Mercy, good and so forth. “Every attribute of God that we find in Scripture is true of all God’s being, and we therefore can say that every attribute of God also qualifies every attribute” (Grudem, page 179, see figure 11.4 & 11.5).

14.              All of this leads us to say once more that God is Simple, meaning that He is unified whole, the completely integrated person who is infinitely perfect in all the these attributes.  Hence, each of these attributes when referring to God should be capitalized.

15.              It is very inappropriate to speak of the Old Testament God as being the God of wrath and the New Testament God being the God of love (sounds too much like Maricon).  He is the same God always, and everything he says or does is fully consistent at all times with all of His attributes. There are no contradictions in the nature and person of God.  According to Grudem, page 180, the unity of God should caution us against attempting to single out any one attribute of God as more important than all the others.  Do you agree?

16.              The only reason we know about these characteristics of God is that we have seen them in God’s created order.   For example, in Genesis 1 the writer  repeatedly says that what God called into being He declared good.  Because God is good what He creates is good, he doesn’t make anything evil or bad.  God always acts like God – a good Creator only creates things that are good.  

17.              We can take it deeper because God creates things that are good, therefore everything is like  God the Creator or at least reflects the Creator’s goodness and beauty- For example a tree (like the one on 71) might reflect the goodness and beauty of God, but God is not like a tree. God is not like any created thing, but every created thing is somehow like God. Other religions see an even greater connection between God and the creation.  See Rose publications  worldviews: pantheism, panentheism.  Let me say it again, everything in some way is like God, but God is not like anything He created.  God defines His Creation, His creation doesn’t define God.  The connection is a one way street.  Because the Creator is so much greater than the creation.

Lecture 9 - November 10, 2009  (downloadable/printable notes)                      

 The Holy Trinity

1.                  Before we begin with the Trinity, let’s review the attributes of God and how that relates to the person of God.  Love, justice, holiness, blessedness, wisdom, truthfulness, mercy, knowledge, power, perfection, Omni-presence, represent some of the attributes of God that is found in the scriptures.  These attributes become the means by which we can talk and think about God, however they are not representative of whom we believe God to be.
 

2.                  Yes most of us believe God is love, but you have to also realize that God is more than love.  His being is infinitely more complex than love, as important as love is.  This has led some to believe that God is the sum total of all the attributes that the Bible speaks of.  But most theologians are not very pleased with this understanding of God.

3.                  Others might see God’s attributes as simply something that has been added on to His mysterious and unknown being (see Grudem page 179).  But the classical theologians believe that God’s whole being includes all of his attributes in their entirety.

4.                  So you might say that God is entirely loving, entirely good, entirely merciful, entirely just, entirely Holy, so on and so forth. Every attribute of God that we find in Scripture is true of all of God’s being and therefore qualifies and enriches every other attribute of God.

5.                  This paradoxical language is very important in doing Christian theology.  Many things that we believe cannot be said and done without language that sounds contradictory in nature.  For example, Jesus Christ is said to be fully human and fully divine at the same time.  Christian believers are thought to be “righteous yet sinners”, and the one that we are considering tonight, “one God in three Persons.”

6.                  Jews in general and others in particular have a difficult time with our Trinity. To them it sounds like we are worshiping three Gods, not one which is basic to their faith.  Even one of our nation’s founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, remarked that the doctrine of the Trinity was a “metaphysical insanity” that “hindered the religious growth of humanity and represented relapse into polytheism, differing from paganism by being more unintelligible” (Christian Theology by Alister McGrath, page 245).

7.                  Yet this seemly “unintelligible” doctrine is one that for centuries we have taken to express the basic beliefs of our faith.

8.                  The doctrine of the Trinity is one that goes back to the New Testament, but reached a classical, mature, intellectual, and theological formulation in the 4^th and 5^th century. To better understand the formation of this and other doctrines, it would help to remember that the early church has not always been a church of one accord.  In fact as you well know, the early church could not even agree on what was actually Holy Writ until the 4^th century.  Look at the Johannine handout on Orthodoxy and Cannon.

9.                  With the legalization of Christianity and it consequential immergence as the official religion of the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine wanted religious and doctrinal conformity in his empire.  So he pushed for the beginning of a series of religious councils which would seek to bring doctrinal uniformity to Christianity.  The first was the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; the second was the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. with the 7^th council ending up in 787A.D., well after his death. During these religious councils many of the Christian doctrines we take for granted were argued and fleshed out.

10.              The actual word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and was not coined until the 2^nd and 3^rd century by one of the church fathers named Tertullian.  Yet the concept of the Trinity is found in the New Testament in well known scriptures like Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and 2 Corinthians 13:13, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.”

11.              But these two verses in and of themselves are not enough to establish a doctrine of the Trinity. There is in the New Testament a Trinitarian pattern of divine activity that speaks loudly to the doctrine of Trinity.  The pattern is namely that the Father is revealed in Christ through the Holy Spirit.   The totality of God’s presence can be expressed best by involving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  For example, the following scriptures illustrate this pattern in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:20-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6; and 1 Peter 1:2.  

12.               The doctrine of the Trinity can be summed up by saying that “there is one God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”  That in itself is a simple statement but that’s about all that is simple about it.

13.              Let’s look at the theological roots of our doctrine of the Trinity (turn to Erickson, page 348ff). Basic to our faith and the faith of Judaism and Islam is the oneness of God.  We believe that there is only one God.  Every other representation of God is a false god, and should be, by its very nature, rejected.  And really at this time in human history, polytheism is a very old and outdated way of understanding the concept of a supernatural being or beings.
 

14.              The very heart and soul of Judaism is Deuteronomy 6:4.   The New Testament also affirms the belief in one God which James states, 2:19, “You believe in one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder.”  Paul states in 1 Corinthians 8:4, “We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.” Paul writes to Timothy: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” 1Timothy 2:5-6.

15.              With this evidence, we are obviously monotheistic, but when we start talking about the deity of Jesus we run into trouble (see Erickson, page 350 2^nd paragraph; see Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1:1-3).

16.              What about Jesus’ own self-awareness of being God (see Erickson, page 351)?

17.              The deity of Holy Spirit, see Erickson, page 352.

18.              The next theological basis of the Trinity is three-in-Oneness (see Erickson pages 352-358).

19.              See Phillip Cary Teaching Company – The History of Christian Theology, vol. 1, page 152ff; what is the doctrine of Trinity? What does it really say?  The church Father, Augustine, gave us a good summary of the Trinity.  These are his seven statements that make up the Christian understanding of Trinity.

1.                  The Father is God

2.                  The Son is God

3.                  The Holy Spirit is God

4.                  The Father is not the Son

5.                  The Son is not the Holy Spirit

6.                  The Holy Spirit is not the Father

7.                  There is one God and only one God

20.              Augustine was writing in the 5^th century, how does Christianity get to this point and these 7 affirmations of the Trinity?  Historians tell us that in the 2^nd century there became a group of theologians that were Logos theologians.  Logos means word to us, but to Greek thinkers Logos means reason.  To which they might say that in the beginning there was the word, or the Reason of God.

21.              They came to treat the Logos as another God.  In fact, Justin the Martyr actually referred to the Logos as being “another God.”  The Logos to them was an intermediary between God and the Creation.  The Epistle of Hebrews speaks of Jesus, our intermediary, who makes intersession on our behalf.  These folks believed that Jesus was a halfway between God and Creation.   Jehovah Witnesses today see Jesus as a second class god between us and Jehovah. These folks are subordinationists who make Jesus out to be a second class god.

22.              There was a more radical subordinationist that came to ask a very important question. If Jesus is not fully God in every sense, what is He? Christianity has always been committed to the idea that there are only two kinds of beings: the Creator and the Creation.  There is no third kind of being.  Arius (subordinationist) asked the logical question, “Well what was the Logos, creator or creation?  He chose that Jesus was a part of the creation.  In fact, he dared to say: “There was a time when He was not.”  He, like us, was created out of nothing.  There was a time when He didn’t exist.  It tore folks apart.  To them, Jesus was eternal.  The early church dealt with this problem in the Council of Nicaea in 325 with the Nicene Creed.  In part it states: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made…”

23.              He was begotten not made, the same essence as the Father.  What is the difference between begotten and not made?  Well one, John 3:16 says “that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…”  It does not say God gave his only created sons…we are his created children.  My father and mother begot me, my wife and I begot our three children.  I wasn’t created by my parents and I haven’t created my children.  We don’t make our children.

24.              For the doctrine of the Trinity, we say “one God in three Persons.”  What do we mean by persons?  The Nicene Creed says “of the same being or essence as the Father.”  What is the essence of God? We don’t know, but whatever it is the Father and the Son are the same.

25.              The same essence comes from the Greek word homoousios. It can be translated “of the same being” or of the same substance.   It means that Christ does not come out of nothing like the creation does.  He comes out of God the Father and is the very same essence of the Father.  Again, Jesus is not a second class citizen.  He is not subordinate to the Father.

26.              Remember Arius taught that as far as Jesus was concerned, “there was a time when He was not,” the First Council of Nicaea rejected that heresy, saying instead that Jesus was begotten from the Father and still being the same essence of the Father was eternal.   He has always existed, but yet the Son was begotten by the Father owing his existence to the Father.

27.              This is the mystery of the Trinity not the business of the threeness and oneness but about this eternal generation—how Jesus is eternal like the Father yet begotten of the Father.

28.              See Erickson, page 362, Essential Elements of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  As someone has said of this doctrine:   “Try to explain it, and you’ll lose your mind; but try to deny it, and you’ll lose your soul.”

Lecture 10 - November 17, 2009  (downloadable/printable notes)

 What God Does?

1.                   Review of doctrine of Trinity- I believe that I might have confused you in talking about the begotten nature of Christ from the Father.  Consequently, I would like to review and hopefully clear up the terminology. 

2.                  First, let’s start with John 3: 16.  Les was right; one could interpret John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” as begotten in the sense that Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). 

3.                  However, the begotten status of Jesus is one that goes further back than the incarnation of Jesus.  Philippians 2: 6-7 is a Christological hymn that refers to the pre-existence of Christ “Who, being the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a  servant, being made in human likeness.”  This passage speaks of the existence of the Christ before He became flesh.   Another Christological reference is found in Colossians 1: 15 where Christ is the first-born.  The meaning of a casual reading and superficial reading might be that Christ was the first person or being of Creation.  But that would make Christ a created being not a part of the Trinity that was not pre-existence.  The meaning that Christ was “first born before creation” is made clear in verse 16 where it states, “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and earth.”  Christ was eternal born, not created of God, bringing forth God creation.  He was the creating agent of God almighty.

4.                  He was not created out of nothing, but He was born of God before creation.  He came from the Father, begotten as a father should, not created.  We don’t create our children we give birth to them.

5.                  The Father begot the Son but there was never a time, in or out of time in all of eternality that the Son didn’t exist.  There was never once when He was not.

6.                  The Son is eternal and has always existed, but was begotten from the Father.  This is the paradox of the Trinity and the part that we cannot explain—an eternal generation of the Son that is not a process in or out of time.

7.                  God’s Plan, see Erickson page 372 ff.

Define terms- Erickson uses “predestination” restrictively with matters of eternal salvation or damnation. While another term “foreordination” has an inclusive and even boarder meaning for all of God’s plans (page 373).

8.                  Biblical teaching—Erickson page 373-382

9.                  Both Grudem and Erickson embrace a form of Calvinism.  See The History of Christian Theology by Phillip Cary.  Define two terms:  Calvinism and Arminianism (page 18 of McKim).

10.              Calvinism (page 36 McKim)—systematized teachings of John Calvin (1509-64) that spread throughout Europe and internationally from the 16^th century to the present day.  It is also called the Reformed tradition.  In which include God’s initiative in salvation, and election, and union with Christ. (McKin page 234).

11.              See continuation of definition in Erickson, page 381.  Are most evangelical Christian Calvinistic to one degree or the other? They are if Erickson is right about Calvin’s teachings being more Biblical than Arminian.

12.              Define Arminianism- the teachings of James Arminius (1560-1609) which conflicted with Calvinism, particularly on issues of human sinfulness, predestination, and whether or not salvation can be lost. It stressed human response to the gospel, conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace.

13.              See Cary, page 118, volume 2 of The History of Christian Theology. The most distinctive teachings of Protestant theology are the three solas.   Sola is Latin for alone.  The three Solas are “faith alone,” “grace alone,” and “scripture alone.” 

14.              Faith alone is justification alone.  Catholics do teach justification by faith; they just don’t add alone. For example, Protestants might quote Ephesians 2:8 -9 “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”

15.              Catholics might quote it as well, but say “good works are necessary for salvation because they are works of love, and love, loving God and neighbor is necessary for salvation” (Cary, page 118).   Protestants and Catholics alike might quote Paul in his letter to the Galatians “faith working by love.”  But Protestants would not say that love was necessary for salvation.    Protestants want to get away from that anxiety that says are my works good enough. Beside faith is always accompanied by love if it is not dead (James 2: 17). 

16.              For Catholics, Christians can go to hell.  Dante, Journey Through Hell, has a lot of bad Christians in hell.  Christians who have faith in Christ, but don’t have works. For Protestants, there are no Christians in hell.  Good or bad Christians don’t go to hell. If you have true faith in Christ, you are going to heaven no matter how bad a Christian you are. 

17.              Grace alone.  This understanding of Grace excludes merit, in fact we say unmerited grace.  Grace alone.  We are saved by the grace of God, and we don’t earn anything.  We earn nothing, Christ alone earns everything.

18.              Roman Catholics disagree. Yes they are saved by grace…but again not grace alone for Catholics; merit or at least some increase in our worthiness is a part of the story. 

19.               Scripture alone…meaning the Church does not have the right to make new doctrines.  Scripture alone excludes any authority of the Church apart from scripture. It is not a doctrine of private interpretation.  It does not mean just me and my Bible, forget about the church, forget about tradition, and other Christians.

20.              The reformers come along and really want to relieve some very deep theological concerns and anxiety, especially about salvation.   Calvin begins talking about how we end up being the Children of God.  We first have to get the faith before we can talk about how we keep it.

21.              He uses the terminology of election—which is just another way of saying “God’s choice.”  It is God who chooses who becomes his children.  It is God who makes the ultimate choice and ultimate difference who becomes a son or daughter of God. Hence forth all of this talk about God’s choice leads to the doctrine of predestination.

22.              Ok.  Let’s fast forward to the day we die…for the Catholics faith is very important for your salvation but you must have love and good works.   What happens if you don’t have faith and good works up until you die or anyway at your death? To be saved in the end, you have to not only be justified now by faith in Christ, you have to be justified on the day of your death.   To be saved you have to persevere in faith and works to the end.

23.              Augustine would say that you cannot know whether you’re going to persevere to the end or not.  Calvin and the reformers say yes you can.  Why? Because you are one of the elect! God has chosen you.  If you have been predestined to be saved, you will be predestined to the end, no matter what.  Salvation is a matter of faith alone but also God has predestined it for some.

24.              Many reformers wanted to believe in predestination because it was the only real way to assure themselves that they were truly saved in this life.   The doctrine of predestination wasn’t invented by Calvin, it really dates back to the 5^th century with Augustine.

25.              Augustine taught that salvation was ultimately up to God’s choice.  He chooses some for salvation and lets others be damned.  He passes over them.  Calvin took this a step further.  He will say that God doesn’t let these sinners go to hell, he ordains that they will go to hell.  The doctrine of double predestination.  Augustine says they will go to hell but by their own choice.

26.              But is there any difference between God ordaining something and permitting it?   According to Calvin by permitting an evil to happen that he foresees and could prevent, God ordains it.  Do you agree? Is there a difference between allowing someone to be damned and ordaining them to be damned?

27.              If you accept this notion of double predestination with all this talk of what is allowed and what is ordained being the same, you also set new developments that can take place. 

28.              The doctrine of eternal divine decrees.  The idea is that by permitting the whole history of the human race to be filled with particular evils that it is filled with, God decrees, ordains, everything that will happen, both good and evil.   Some say that Calvin believed God was the author of evil, but not according to Cary (page 136).   Calvin believed that human beings were the cause of evil.

4.                  The doctrine of creation is very important, not just because of the controversy over the issue of evolution and creationism but because of the foundation it lays for other doctrines. The doctrine that God is the creator, Lord and Master over all that He has made should influence all the major doctrines of our faith.  Actually all the doctrines are the most important as we study them…see Erickson page 480.

5.                  Once you establish the existence of God, you need to establish what He wants and what He does, and doing so you start with His creation.

6.                  The beginning of a classical Christian doctrine of creation starts with ex nihilo, creation out of nothing.  As Erickson says, (page 394) “we begin with the doctrine of creation by noting that it (the world, universe) is creation out of nothing, or without the use of preexisting materials.”  There is not to my knowledge a scripture passage that directly and explicitly uses this phrase, but many of the Old Testament and New Testament strongly imply this meaning (see Erickson 398).

7.                  Furthermore, as we learn to think more like professional theologians, we begin by asking the question that without the doctrine of creation out of nothing, where does preexistence matter come from?  If we maintain as the scriptures state that God is “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” then what is preexistent to Him?  Another god? No! Nothing!

8.                  Therefore, the scriptures reject a Maricon type of dualism (see dualism, Erickson page 397-398), where a different God of superior stuff was preexistent to the God of creation.

9.                  Instead, all of creation is called forth out of nothing by one “Triune God” (see Erickson, page 398).

10.              The purpose of creation is somehow to give glory to God (Psalm 19:1) (Erickson, 399).  To what extent God wants or needs this glory is something that is tied up in the weakness of human words to adequately express.  I personally believe that God wants (or needs) something from His creation or He wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of making the creation and sacrificing His Son for His creation.  Yet, I also believe that God is self-sufficient, perfect, and that He doesn’t need us to be blessed, content, or fulfilled. 

11.              Erickson brings out a good point when he says that creation could be divided into two parts.  He writes on page 399 “While creation in the proper sense refers to bringing into existence all of physical reality as well as all spiritual beings other than God himself, the term also cover the subsequent origination of new entities fashioned from this previously created material.”  According to Erickson, it may be “that what God did originally was merely to create matter from nothing, and then in His subsequently creative activity, he fashioned everything from the atoms he had created” (page 399).  Could this process of “subsequently creative activity” still be going on? If so, how?

Some Theological meanings of the Doctrine of Creation

(see Erickson, page 400ff)

12.              It is very easy to get caught up in the debate of creationism verses evolution, or some other understanding of how God did what he did.  And while such a debate might be important for someone who is debating the issue of inerrancy or some other understanding of the interpretation of scripture in Genesis 1, it is not vital in talking about the many theological issues of the Doctrine of Creation as long as one affirms the fact that no matter how long it took God to do it, he did it!

13.              We have already established that to God time has no meaning.  That time was something that God created in order for us regulate and govern our lives, not to be a governing force in God’s existence whatsoever.  2 Peter 3: 8 clearly states this “but do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

14.              Let’s look at the teachings that Erickson believes are affirmed by the doctrine of creation.  One, the doctrine of creation is first and rather obviously a statement that there is no ultimate reality other than God.  The doctrine of creation is an affirmation that all reality is a reality that comes from God.  No matter how long that really took to develop.

15.              Focus on the goodness of creation [page 401-402] and responsible stewardship of God’s creation [page 402-403, Erickson page 401]; also see Implications of the Doctrine of Creation [page 410].

 Doctrine of Man

16.              What is the doctrine of man?  According to Herschel Hobbs in The Baptist Faith and Message “Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation.  In the beginning, man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his creator with freedom of choice… See the revised edition of Faith and Message (page 42).   

17.              The doctrine is important because mankind was the crowning work of His creation.

18.              This doctrine is important because mankind alone is said to be created in the image of God.  Look at Erickson page 481, “Thus, a direct clue to the nature of God ought to emerge from the study of humans.” If so, what classical argument for the existence of God should be argued from “man being made in the image of God?” Teleological argument! Therefore, what does being created in the image of God mean? Physical image!! Or something else?

19.              It means something else! As we’ve discussed, John 4:24 “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.

20.              It is interesting how human beings are seen or at least afraid of being viewed.  Ancient people generally have been afraid of being identified with animals and beasts. Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 “I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.  Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animals.”

21.              Do you think the writer of Ecclesiastes has read Genesis 1 and 2?  Yes, but in light of his understanding of death, he doesn’t see the merit and reward for being made in the image of God.

22.              According the Hobbs (page 43), three things may be noted about man.  His body is akin to the natural elements. His physical life is akin to the all animal life.  He has a living soul or spirit that is made in God’s image and likeness.

23.              Hobbs goes on to state that man has a twofold nature.   He is both spirit and body. Man is not a body and has a soul, but he is a soul (a complete person) and has a body. 

24.              I like to put it like this:  we are a soul, meaning we are a complete human being comprised of spirit and body. However, it is our spirit that will live eternally.  While our complete soul (body, mind, and spirit) is saved, only our spirit lives on eternally.  Can we distinguish between mind and spirit? I cannot, except that my spirit while depending on my mind and will is not the same.  If I lose my mind (like Alzheimer’s disease), I don’t lose my spirit.

25.              If God is spirit then the true image of God in man is spiritual in nature.  The complete nature of all the attributes of God represent the spiritual nature of man, at least in the smallest and best degree of that nature.  But if you could pick one attribute of God that would come closest to reflect the meaning of being created in the image of God, it would be love.  We are the closest to being created in the image of God when we love as unselfishly as He does.

26.              What are human beings defined as of today?  Science seems to be leaning more and more toward determinism. DNA and genetics are being seen as the primary reason behind our behaviors and shortcomings.   Consequently, we are scared of being determined, machine like (see Erickson, page 486).

Lecture 13 - December 7, 2009    (printable/downloadable notes)

1.                  Before we get into the doctrine of sin, it is necessary to talk a little about the origin of mankind and then the fall.  According to Erickson, origin is better than beginnings because it carries the connotation of purpose rather just something simply starting up and beginning (page 497).  Along those lines Erickson states and I wholeheartedly agree that theology does not ask merely how humans came to be on the face of the earth, but why, or what purpose lies behind our presence here.   According to Erickson “the biblical picture of humanity’s origin is that of an all-wise, all-powerful, and good God created the human race to love and serve him, and to enjoy a relationship with him.”

2.                  The book of creations itself contains two accounts of God creating human beings.  The first is Gen. 1: 26-27 and simply records God’s decision to make human beings in His own image and likeness, and “God’s action implementing this decision” (Erickson, 498).   Nothing is said about the materials or the method that God used.    According to verses 26-28 they are to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth and everything in the earth. (What do you think dominion means to most Christians today?)

3.                  The second account of creation of man is Genesis 2:7.  Some believe that 2: 4 ff is evidence of a second earth creation, or what we’ve seen as the gap theory.  Instead, a more reasonable theory (at least to most scholars) would be that the writer of Genesis at this point (at least) a complier or editor of two similar but different accounts of creation.  He knows both accounts (both add more detail as we shall see to the story of creation) and chooses to preserve them both for present day reader.

4.                  The second account of the creation of man is not just simply saying that God but how God did it, he: “formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man being a living being.”  It is interesting that the phrase “a living being” is the N.T. equivalent of a living soul (KJV).  

5.                  Let’s turn to Erickson chapter 25, page 538-546 where he discusses the basic views of Human constitution, in other words what human beings are made up of.  There are three that he considers:  trichotomism, dichotomism, and monism.

6.                  In summation I believe were created as “living souls” not just something that has a soul, but that everything we are body, mind, and spirit is “a living being” or a living soul.  (But what does our understanding about the human constitution say about the relationship between the human mind and human spirit in diseases like Alzheimers? See book “What about the Soul?: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology” edited by Joel B. Green)

7.                  In further summation our purpose as a human being is to worship, love, and serve our God with all of our being, everything that we are and all that we hope to be.

8.                  If you are a Christian and you are talking about the origins of mankind, you have to talk about Adam and Eve.   When the topic of Adam and Eve comes up there is a shape disagreement about whether they are historical figures or just merely symbolic.  Some say it is important and others say it is not.  Let’s look at what Erickson states (498 and following).

The Nature of Sin (page 579)

11.              Like all the doctrines the doctrine of sin is very important and is connected directly or indirectly to our other doctrines. (Erickson, page 580)

Terms for Sin (page 583) Ignorance, etc.

1.                  According to Theology Today (Vol. 50, number 2, July 1993) in article entitled Whatever happened to the Doctrine of Sin by David H. Kelsey:

Culture in general aside, by century's end, people concerned specifically about the health of Christian systematic theology…are entitled to suspect that the doctrine of sin was somehow evaporating from formal theology…. After all, by mid-century the clearest line dividing the older, beleaguered Protestant "liberalism" from the newer, unhelpfully labeled "neo-orthodoxy" had been the distinction between the "optimistic" view that human nature was progressively improving beyond sin and the "pessimistic" view that human nature is inherently and structurally "estranged." The last quarter of the century, however, has been dominated by discussions of theologies of "critical correlation" with general human experience, theologies of "liberation" and theologies of "hope." The doctrine of sin may no longer seem prominent in the conversation. If this suspicion were true, it would be of profound importance for the social as well as the intellectual history of Christianity, because the doctrine of sin is one of those doctrines in which Christian life-forming is held closest to Christian truth-claiming, practical theology closest to dogmatic theology. What has happened to the doctrine of sin?

2.                  Published some twenty years ago, Karl Menninger's popular book, Whatever Became of Sin?, gave voice to a widespread suspicion that the concept of  "sin" was steadily evaporating from everyday life.

3.                  But along with the concept of sin, the doctrine of sin is also rapidly becoming a thing of the past in a lot of people’s thinking as we’ve seen in the article by David Kelsey.

4.                  However, like all the doctrines that we’ve studied thus far, the doctrine of sin is very important and is connected directly or indirectly to our other doctrines (Erickson, page 580).

5.                  What is the doctrine of sin?   See Erickson page 596, and handout 52 “Theories on the Nature of sin.”

6.                  Look at handout 49 “Theories of Original Righteousness.”

7.                  Look at handout 50 “Theories of Original Sin” also see page 684ff of Erickson.  Also continue with chapter 28 page 600 Erickson.

8.                  Look at handout 51.

9.                  See terms for sin (page 583 of Erickson.) Ignorance, etc.

Lecture 15 - January 26, 2010   (printable/downloadable notes)

(Continuation of doctrine of sin and beginning of doctrine of incarnation)

1.                  See Erickson Chapter 29, page 618.   Erickson has entitled this chapter, The Results of Sin.  As we know, God created everything good. However, the goodness of God’s creation was premature because of the fall of mankind.  Mankind was created good.  In a sense, mankind was perfect.  Now perfection does not mean that it was divine in nature, only God is that, but it simply means that morally, physically, and spiritually Adam was complete or perfect.  Not until Christ did the world ever see another perfect human being; in fact Jesus Christ is the new Adam.

2.                  Yet sin corrupted or tainted God’s creation, and what was perfect and good quickly became flawed or incomplete.  The sin along with a flawed and sin-infected world that mankind lived in resulted in (1) mankind being pushed further from the source of the One Good—namely God  (symbolically kicked out of the Garden).  (Genesis 3:8)

3.                  (2) It resulted in the infection of sin growing and mutating into new forms of rebellion. (3) Greater self-centeredness and increasing ignorance of what is right and good, and (4) a greater need for the mercy and forgiveness of God or He would destroy mankind and begin over again (like He almost did in Noah’s flood).

4.                  As Erickson says, the results of sin are: Divine disfavor, guilt, punishment, and death in general.  Specifically enslavement, flight from reality, denial of sin, self-deceit, rejection of authority, inability to love and more (See Erickson page 619 and following).

Doctrine of Christology

The Person of Jesus Christ

5.                  Historical Jesus!   The quest for the historical Jesus and his biblical teachings is one that every preacher and dedicated layperson wants to know more about.  The person of Jesus Christ and what are his teaching, not to mention how do we follow Him, is the heart and soul of every disciple of Christ.
 

6.                  However, the quest of the historical Jesus was based ideas and beliefs as early as the 17^th century Deists, which state that Christianity rests upon fraudulent foundations which assumed that the Jesus of the Christian church and the Jesus of history was one and the same person.  Of course some in joining this particular quest sought to disprove the faith, like Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) by maintaining the real Jesus of history was concealed from us by the apostolic church, which somehow substituted a fictitious Christ of faith for the real historical Jesus(Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath, page 311). 

7.                  A more subtle version of this approach is linked with rise of liberal Protestantism in the nineteenth century.  The assumption according McGrath underlying this “life of Jesus movement in the later 19^th century was that the remarkable religious personality of Jesus, whose shape could be determined by conscientious historical inquiry, would provide a solid historical foundation for faith”(page 312).  Of course, the conclusions raised from this inquiry turned out to be radically subjective so that their understanding of Jesus was based on their 19^th century standards.

8.                  According to Erickson (page 680), one of two writings which spelled the end of the liberal quest for Jesus was Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus (see quote on page 681).

9.                  All of this is to give you a small inkling of how the life of Jesus has been poked, prodded, and studied in recent times.  Sometimes the life of Jesus has been scrutinized and studied from the perspective of faith and reason, and sometimes it has not.  Either way, Jesus Christ is the most controversial and scrutinized person in history of the world. 

10.              Now look at the two basic approaches to studying Jesus.  “Christology from Above” (Erickson, page 682-683) and “Christology from Below” (Erickson, page 684-     ).

Deity of Jesus (see Erickson page 700)