The place to begin discussing theology is with Scripture. I believe in the inspiration of Scripture. [i] Specifically, I believe in the verbal [ii] plenary [iii] inspiration of the original manuscripts of Scripture. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of scripture and guided the authors as they recorded the revelation of God [iv] not eliminating the authors’ style, specific perspective, personal characteristics and experiences, or situations, but rather moving holy men of God to communicate the message of God and worked through the authors style, and perspectives. [v]

The Holy Spirit worked through men to cause them to recognize the canon of scripture from extant documents. [vi] Specifically, neither individuals nor the Church selected the canon but rather the Church acknowledged the books that God chose to be part of the Canon of Scripture [vii] recognizing 66 books. [viii] The recognition of the 39 books of the Old Testament Canon is found in both Jewish tradition and New Testament attestation [ix] and the recognition of the 27 Protestant books of the New Testament stems from the authority the church placed in these books. [x] No additional authoritative revelation can be added to the Canon of Scripture. [xi]

The Bible is inerrant. [xii] That is, the original manuscripts of the Bible are without error, completely true. [xiii] The weight of evidence demonstrates that while we do not have the original manuscripts, we do have the original text and therefore can place our confidence in the inerrancy of Bible. [xiv]

No translation of Scripture is perfect, [xv] instead God has preserved his word throughout history (Isaiah 40:8) through multiple translations which accurately convey the word of God. [xvi] Therefore, claims of the superiority of one translation to all other translations are false claims. [xvii]

Scripture has authority in all matters of life. [xviii] That is, in any aspect of life to which Scripture speaks, Scripture holds absolute authority. In areas of life in which Scripture does not directly speak the individual is responsible for living in a way which is consistent with Scripture.

Scripture serves the express purpose of revealing God’s plan and way of salvation to individuals. [xix] All Scripture point to Jesus Christ [xx] and the work Jesus Christ provides a unifying framework through which Scripture can be understood. Scripture further serves to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness. [xxi]

In addition to revelation in Scripture, God reveals himself through creation. [xxii] The individual who ignores the value of other forms of revelation undermines the value of scripture itself. [xxiii]

Therefore, there is revealed a self-existent, personal, immanent, transcendent, eternal, immutable, infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, sovereign, holy, loving, triune God. The name God provided to Moses, “I AM” demonstrates both self-existence and simplicity, the doctrine that God cannot be divided. [xxiv] Related to God’s self-existence, is aseity, that is, God is self-sufficient and not caused. [xxv] Stating that God is personal captures the idea that God is not just an impersonal force but a deity to whom people can relate. This means that humans are capable of knowing God, relating to God, and interacting with God. [xxvi] God is immanent, that is, God is present and active within his creation. Contrary to the position of Deism, God does intervene in creation. [xxvii] Equally as important, God is transcendent, that is God exists separately from creation. God is not just the set of cosmic rules that govern the universe or the mathematical notion of probability.  God transcends our universe. [xxviii] God’s eternality describes both God’s existence in eternity past and existence in eternity future. There has never been a time without God and there never will be a time without God. [xxix] The term immutable refers to the fact that God is unchanging and also extends to encompass the idea that God is unable to change. [xxx] The term infinite, when used of God captures God’s freedoms from limitations, abundance, completeness, unboundedness, and timelessness. [xxxi] By saying God is omniscient I mean to convey that God knows everything, past, present, future, all possibilities, and all potential results. God’s knowledge is exhaustive. [xxxii] Omnipresent refers to the fact that God is everywhere at any given time, Heaven, Sheol, Earth, throughout the entire created realm, God is present. [xxxiii] God’s omnipotence refers to his power. This does not mean that God can do anything but rather that nothing external to God can limit what God can do. [xxxiv] Closely related to God’s omnipotence is his sovereignty, that is God has full control of everything.

Three characteristics of God are particularly important because these characteristics are critical to setting apart God from any other supposed deity. These characteristics are God’s holiness, love, and triunity.

To say that God is holy is to say that God is set-apart or consecrated, separate from all that is sin or evil. Scripture regularly speaks of God as holy and God’s holiness is directly tied to his righteousness and justice. [xxxv]

God is a loving benevolent being. In fact, God’s love stands in sharp contrast to the romantic or sentimental love that describes so much human love and was common of pagan deities. [xxxvi] God very being uniquely allows God to be love. That is, God is triune and so God has been eternally capable of love. Instead of stating that love is one of God’s characteristics is may be better to say that true love is something that can only be understood as coming from God. [xxxvii]

God’s triunity and unity stand together as a significant aspect of God. It is important to first recognize that there is one God. [xxxviii] However, equally important, God exists in three persons. [xxxix] Specifically, God is one essence (ousia) and three persons (hypostases). [xl] Within the godhead theologians have often chosen to speak of the immanent and economic trinity. Immanently, the trinity is marked by three in oneness. Economically, the trinity is marked by important works and roles that each member of the godhead performs.

God the Father is the first person of the godhead. The term Father refers to the relationship between the first and second person of the Godhead. The use of the term Father to describe the first person of the godhead is intended to draw out the relationship between the first and second members of the trinity. The relationship is that of love, protection, leading, and providing. The Son submits to the Father without subordinating to the Father. The relation is a relation of origin meaning that the relationship has been for all time. [xli] God the Father is regularly referred to as Yahweh in the Old Testament and is the provider and ruler of the universe. [xlii]

God the Son is fully God, [xliii] fully human, [xliv] and relates to God the Father as the Son through filiation. The term homoousios describes the fact that Jesus shares identical essence with the Father. [xlv] Through hypostatic union, the son brought together humanity and divinity into the same person becoming one person with two natures. [xlvi]

God the Spirit is the third member of the godhead and proceeds from the Father and the Son. [xlvii] The Spirit is a distinct divine person of the trinity. [xlviii] The Spirit was given to the Church as the paraclete, [xlix] gives life, [l] can be grieved, [li] and must be honored as God. [lii]

At some point God created the physical universe and everything in it. Specifically, I believe in a literal six-day [liii] creation narrative as described in Genesis one and two. [liv]

In addition to creating the physical world and all that is in it, God also created a spiritual realm. [lv] Within the spiritual realm God created ministering spirits commonly known as angels. [lvi] These angels serve God by caring for believers, delivering messages, protecting and leading nations, carrying out God’s judgements, acting as God’s agents, and worshiping God. [lvii] At some point in the past, a significant number of angels rebelled against God and became demons. [lviii] As fallen angels it is important to recognize that these demons are not on the level of God. [lix] However, demons are a source of conflict for the Christian. [lx] One specifically named demon is Satan. [lxi] Satan is the adversary and originator of evil. [lxii] However, Satan is not God and will be completely and utterly defeated. [lxiii] In the present time, Satan and the demonic forces are a reality that must be contended with.

God physically created Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam’s rib. [lxiv] He created both man and woman in his own image and innocent. [lxv] God gave humanity the responsibility to fill, [lxvi] subdue, [lxvii] and rule over creation. [lxviii]

As the image of God, human life is sacred [lxix] and God is the one who gives life to the physical body. [lxx] Furthermore, the body, while fragile, is also valuable. [lxxi] In addition to the physical body, humans are also spiritual. [lxxii] That is, humans are an integrated complexity, the union of physical and spiritual components that cannot themselves necessarily be divided. [lxxiii] Individuals are not souls trapped in bodies, but rather integrated unity made up of both a physical body and spiritual soul. [lxxiv] This view also suggests that traducianism is the means by which human reproduction occurs. [lxxv]

            Having created Adam and Eve, God permitted Adam and Eve to eat from every plant in the garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. [lxxvi] However, Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God, [lxxvii] immediately fell into sin, [lxxviii] and died. [lxxix] As a result, God placed the entire creation into bondage. [lxxx] After the fall the image of God was marred but not destroyed. [lxxxi] That is, humans are still created to bear the image but their very being is marred by sin. Specifically, humanity became totally depraved. [lxxxii] The doctrine of original sin argues that the disobedience of the first man drove all subsequent humans into bondage to sin. That is, all humans at the moment of conception enter into a sinful state. [lxxxiii] This sin is inherited [lxxxiv] and often spoken of as being embedded in the flesh. [lxxxv] The end result is that each human, apart from grace, is in a position of bondage to sin and incapable of pulling themselves out of this condition. [lxxxvi]

Humanity was totally depraved and incapable solving the sin problem. However, God provided a means of resolving the problem and ultimately redeeming all of creation.

God the Son was incarnated as a man, born to a virgin, lived a sinless life, allowed himself to be crucified, died, rose from the dead three days later, ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father where he serves as a mediator between God the Father and man. [lxxxvii]

Salvation refers to the solution to sin as well as the consequences of sin. [lxxxviii] That is, salvation provides both a hope for eternity and a hope for the present. Theologically, salvation is based in God’s omnibenevolence and omnipotence. [lxxxix]

Regarding when God decreed to provide salvation to man and in what order decisions were made, I humbly adopt a position that such discussions often artificially force human ways of thinking about logic and time upon the transcendent God. [xc] However, the results of God’s decree to provide salvation is significant and worth discussion.

God provides salvation for all. [xci]   However, in spite of salvation being provided for all, God only applies salvation to those who by grace through faith believe in God’s atoning work. [xcii] Hence, universalism is rejected. Contrary to the strong Calvinists position that limited atonement must be true otherwise God would fail to accomplish his sovereign will, God had a two-fold purpose in atonement, to provide salvation to all and to apply salvation to the elect. [xciii]

The term elect refers to those who God chose and is closely related to the words chosen, predestined, and called. [xciv] The exact nature of how God’s election interacts with human freewill are beyond human comprehension and must simply be stated as God has elected some individuals to receive his salvation and these individuals freely choose to accept God’s love and hence salvation. The term prevenient grace refers to the work of God in an individual before they accept salvation [xcv] and effectual grace refers to the grace that produces salvation in the elect. [xcvi] Hence, God works to graciously provide prevenient grace which becomes effectual grace in the elect.

Regarding the specific details of how Christ provided salvation, first and foremost, Christ died for sins making atonement. [xcvii] Regarding atonement, Christ served as our substitute taking the just punishment for sin upon himself and reconciling us to God. [xcviii] That is, in fulfillment of Isa. 53:5,10, Christ accepted both the guilt and penalty of sin. [xcix] Christ became the atoning sacrifice for sin. [c] The terms redemption, mediation, regeneration, born again, adoption, reconciliation, forgiveness, justification, propitiation, and atonement are all used throughout scripture to bring out specific aspects of the salvation provided by God. [ci]

Salvation is a gift from God and not the result of any works done by an individual. [cii] This claim is counter to Roman Catholic theology but also counter to Lordship Salvation whereby salvation is held to be dependent on faith and dedication. [ciii] Finally, this also dismisses any attempt to make salvation a form of karma whereby some form of causality is accepted. [civ] Salvation is and only is a gift from God.

The central fact of salvation is that salvation is not the result of any works but the result of grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. The result of salvation is not just the hope of eternal life, but full life presently. [cv] In the present dispensation a central component of a full present life is life as part of Christ’s church.

The term church has a dual usage as both the visible individual local community of believers [cvi] and the universal invisible Body of Christ [cvii] which consists of all redeemed from the day of Pentecost [cviii] until the end of this age.

The church universal [cix] is completely distinct from Israel. [cx] This collection of redeemed are united in Christ [cxi] by the baptism of the Holy Spirit [cxii] whereby they individually form one new people. [cxiii] The church is holy in that it is distinct in practice and belief from the world. [cxiv] The church is apostolic in that the church conforms with the apostolic teaching as witnessed in Scripture. [cxv]

The visible local church is a group of individuals who have bound themselves together for mutual edification. The officers of individual local churches are deacons and elders/pastors/bishops. [cxvi] The ministry of deacons is one of service. [cxvii] The ministry of the elders/pastors/bishops is one of teaching and administration and in particular, the defense the church from false doctrine. [cxviii] A central component of the local church is church membership. That is the decision to enter into a covenant community with fellow members. [cxix]

Congregational church government is the ideal mode of government for a church wherein the final authority rests in the local congregation under the Lordship and direction of Christ. [cxx] These churches have local autonomy. [cxxi] This is not to exclude churches from working together and fellowshipping together but rather to denote that no single individual except Christ has absolute authority over a local church. [cxxii]

The two ordinances [cxxiii] of the church are baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion, or the Eucharist). Baptism is an outward representation of an inward change and in the NT always immediately followed conversion. [cxxiv] Since baptism is an outward representation of an inward change, baptism should be reserved for those who have had this inward change. [cxxv] In addition to being reserved for those who have already had an inward change, baptism should ideally be by immersion. [cxxvi] The Lord’s Supper is a memorial [cxxvii] instituted by Christ to commemorate his death and build hope in his Second Coming. [cxxviii]

Sanctification is an important component of ecclesiology. [cxxix] Sanctification refers to the threefold process with Christ at the center. That is, every saved person is positionally sanctified in that their position before God is the same as Christ’s position. [cxxx] However, the individual also retains a tendency to sin and so is being progressively sanctified, that is progressively made to be more like Christ. [cxxxi] Finally, the individual is awaiting perfective sanctification when the believer will see Christ and be as he is. [cxxxii] Sanctification is both an individual and corporate process which is completely the work of God but with human responsibility. [cxxxiii]

Spiritual gifts are a central component within the operation of the church. Throughout history, God has worked through various individuals to help his people. [cxxxiv] In the NT several lists of spiritual gifts are present. [cxxxv] The gifts are varied and designed specifically for the building up of the body. [cxxxvi] Some spiritual gifts have ceased. [cxxxvii] However, as the body of Christ, many spiritual gifts are still provided to the church through the Holy Spirit’s working in individual members who make up the church.

With the Church in place the outstanding question that remains to be answered is how does this fit together with the ultimate plan of God and his kingdom? One day in the future, God will bring his plan for his creation to culmination and complete his work of redemption. [cxxxviii]

Regarding God’s kingdom, there is one Kingdom of God with God as King. [cxxxix] However, from the beginning God has mediated his rule over creation through human agents. [cxl] The entire nation of Israel was supposed to serve as a kingdom of priests mediating the Kingdom of God to the world. [cxli] However, these mediators continually failed to fully mediate and the Old Testament is filled with the hope of an eternal kingdom of righteousness, justice, peace, and prosperity. [cxlii] Hence, the world is waiting in anticipation of a fully realized Kingdom of God on earth. In the meantime, this kingdom is coming progressively in distinct stages. [cxliii]

There is a day coming when God will judge the earth and cleanse it prior to the full inauguration of his kingdom on earth.  This is commonly called the Day of the Lord. [cxliv] Central to this Day of the Lord is the fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week. [cxlv] This future period of time which begins with a covenant of peace, includes the abomination of desolation in the middle, and has a distinct end. [cxlvi] This time is known as the Great Tribulation. [cxlvii]

Prior to the Great Tribulation, the Rapture will occur to take all current Christians away from the Earth. [cxlviii] This rapture is the first stage of the Second Coming [cxlix] and marks the beginning of the Day of the Lord. [cl] The end of the Great Tribulation will be marked by the second stage of the Second Coming of Jesus at which time Jesus will come down to Earth to begin the Millennial Kingdom and the wicked will be taken for judgement. [cli] At this time the embodied saints who were resurrected at the rapture will accompany Jesus as the army of heaven. [clii] This marks the end of the age where the wicked are taken, the righteous remain and Satan is bound.

The mortal righteous, embodied saints, and Christ will enter into a Kingdom that lasts for 1000 years. [cliii] During this period Christ will reign from Earth. [cliv] At the conclusion of this period of time Satan will be allowed to incite a rebellion but God the Father will step in and destroy the rebellion and cast Satan into the Lake of Fire for eternal judgement. [clv] Following this God judges all those dead according to what they have done and casts the dead into the lake of fire forever. [clvi]

The eternal state for the righteous is in the presence of God. Specifically, God the Father joins God the Son and God the Spirit dwelling on earth together with the righteous. [clvii] The eternal state is a kingdom reminiscent of the blessings of the Garden of Eden marked by justice, peace, and prosperity. [clviii] Hence, God is in the process of redeeming and recreating what was destroyed in the Fall.

[i] 2 Tim 3:16; The inspiration of scripture has always been the orthodox Christian view. See Nathan D Holsteen and J Michael Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, Volume One, Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2015).

[ii] Verbal refers to the idea that every word of scripture is inspired. That is, the Holy Spirit’s superintending work involved the careful selection of words in order to convey specific meanings. For example, in John 21:20-23 John points out that the exact phrases Jesus used were important. Failure to value the exact words led to incorrect teachings among early Christians. Jesus further highlighted this by stating that until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). Blomberg argues this passage affirms Jesus’ belief in the authority of Scripture down to the smallest component of a word. Craig Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992). 104.

[iii] Plenary refers to the claim that the Bible in its entirety is inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” Further, the use and reference to the Hebrew canon in John 10:34-35, Luke 24:25-27, Luke 24:44-45, John 10:34, John 15:25, Matthew 13:35, 1 Cor. 14:21, Romans 3:19, Gal. 4:21-22 and 2 Pet. 1:19, show that Christ and the apostles viewed the entire Hebrew canon as authoritative. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter appears to place some of Paul’s writings on the level of scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul appears to take New and Old Testaments references and call both Scripture. Revelation 22:18-19 warns against adding to or taking away from, at least some, New Testament writings, a phrase very similar to Deut. 4:2; 12:32; and Prov. 30:6. For more details see J Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 178. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999). 78.

[iv] In culture today, the term inspired has been robbed of its meaning. People use the term to refer to things that are far less than the inspired Word of God. The word superintendence may provide a more meaningful term that also “allows for the spectrum of relationships God had with the writers and the variety of material.” Ryrie., 81. As stated in 2 Tim. 3:16, the subject of inspiration is the writings, not the writer. In 2 Peter 1:19-21, the writers did not write out their own messages but rather wrote the messages of God as they were “carried along by the Spirit.” First Cor. 2:10-13 teaches that Scripture is the product of things taught by the Spirit not by the writer. These three ideas work together to describe the act whereby the writers of Scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they composed. See Holsteen and Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, 38-46.

[v] 2 Pet. 1:21. That writers wrote from a unique perspective and unique situations is well established. Lewis provides a valuable perspective “The human author’s unique perspectives were prepared by divine providence.” The sovereign God of the universe supervised every aspect of the composition of Scripture including the circumstances under which each composition was written and is capable of using any medium he chooses to communicate his revelation. Gordon R Lewis, "The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture," in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980). 249

[vi] The Holy Spirit guided the church to accept the correct documents as Canon. Therefore, there is not a foolproof external demonstration of the traditional 66 books of the Bible as being the Word of God. There are strong arguments for the traditional 66 books of the Bible but each of these arguments reside on a statement of faith.

[vii] Holsteen and Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, 60-66.

[viii] Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation

[ix] By the time of the New Testament there were a significant number of attestations to the canonization of the traditional Jewish/Protestant Old Testament. Christ himself attested to the authority of the Old Testament through quotations and references (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; 5:17, 18; 11:10; 19:4, 5; 21:13, 42; 22:29, 31, 32; 26:31, 56; Mark 12:10, 11, 24; Luke 24:25, 44; John 10:35). In particular, in Luke 11:51 Jesus emphasizes the time spanned from Abel to Zacharias. The timespan is important because it does not cover the entire history of Israel but rather spans Genesis through 2 Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Canon). It seems entirely plausible that Jesus intended to span all of scripture rather than some period of time. In addition to the words of Jesus, New Testament Authors quoted from 28 of the 39 Old Testament books and early church fathers referenced the Old Testament in their writings. The overwhelming body of evidence supports the Jewish/Protestant Canon of Old Testament scriptures. Milton C Fisher, The Canon of the Old Testament, ed. Frank E Gaebelein, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979). 385-392

[x] Very early in the history of the church the question of the Canon was resolved. Andrew F Walls, The Canon of the New Testament, ed. Frank E Gaebelein, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979). 631-643.

[xi] Hebrews 1:1-2 contrasts revelation in the Old Testament to revelation in Christ. Specifically, the passage argues that in “these last days” God speaks through Christ. Allen states, “Thus, the Son is the “eschatological culmination” of God’s revelation begun in the Old Testament Scriptures.” David L Allen, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010). 115. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that only books written by Apostles or those with direct apostolic contact should be considered canonical.

[xii] Scripture does not directly teach inerrancy. However, it does proclaim that the words of God are true, Psalm 119:160; Psalm 119:89; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17. Therefore, drawing on the doctrine of inspiration Scripture itself, as sourced in God the Father, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, must be truth. Scripture also declares that neither God nor Scripture can be untruthful Heb 6:18; John 10:35. Hence, Scripture is truth and therefore without error. For further explanation see Norman L Geisler, Systematic Theology in One Volume (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2011)., 370-382 Furthermore, Jesus considered the words of scripture to be historically true. Jesus spoke of the Old Testament as true accounts of actual events. John S Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018). Chapter 7 Inerrancy and Infallibility.

[xiii] The Bible is true in all affirmations it makes, that is both positive and negative affirmation in the Bible correspond perfectly with reality. What the Bible says is true is true and what the Bible says is false is false. Moreover, the Bible’s truth extends into all fields of inquiry including history and science. It is important to note that this does not mean that every statement in the Bible is true (1 Sam. 15:13).

 Some argue that inerrancy is a modern invention by fundamentalists and evangelicals. However, this is not the case. In City of God, Augustine refers to scripture as infallible. Historically, churchmen have held to inerrancy (e.g. Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274, Martin Luther 1483-1546, John Calvin 1509-1564). The inerrancy of the Bible has been the orthodox understanding of scripture throughout the history of the church. The term inerrant is a recent term but the doctrine of inerrancy has been is a historical position. Geisler, Systematic Theology, 369-382

There are errors present in many biblical manuscripts. However, the presence of an error in a manuscript does not itself prove that there was an error in the original manuscript. Furthermore, these errors are insignificant and rare. In addition to being insignificant and rare, the errors found in many manuscripts are usually fairly obvious. We can have great confidence that the manuscripts we use today are faithful renderings of the original inspired manuscripts. Ibid., 381

[xiv] According to Geisler, humanity is in possession of nearly 5700 extant New Testament manuscripts. These manuscripts allow a reconstruction of the original text with 99% accuracy. Further, we can use the 99% accuracy we have to construct the original truth of scripture with 100% accuracy. That is, we can have complete confidence in our ability to faithfully render God’s inspired revelation.

[xv] Norman L Geisler, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980). 502

[xvi] In fact, the New Testament itself appears to have used multiple translations of the Old Testament in its own teaching. The New Testament regularly quotes the Septuagint. Karen H Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015). 200-228.

[xvii] I believe there are times when using a particular translation may be more appropriate than others. For example, a pastor may wish to use a single translation for preaching to enable a large portion of the congregation to follow along during public reading of Scripture. Such events do not need to represent a claim of one translation over another but rather a pragmatic decision.

“The verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach.” Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition, http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html (accessed November 1, 2019).

[xviii] This does not mean that Scripture necessarily matches the human standard of authority but rather that Scripture is the standard by which everything else should be judged. Individuals may find the Bible’s standards in areas to be at odds with their standard, but the Bible’s authority demands that the individual submit to the Bible’s authority. Furthermore, the authority of scripture is not narrow but rather supreme. That is, the Bible does not carry authority in mere areas of spiritual life. Scripture has ultimate authority in all areas including science, philosophy politics, and culture. Deut. 4:1–8; Deut. 6:1–9; Deut. 6:24–25; Deut. 7:11; Deut. 8:11; Josh. 23:6; Psalm 19:7–11; John Frame, The Bible's Authority, ed. Mark Ward (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

[xix] 2 Timothy 3:15, Lea and Griffen state “The aim of the content of the sacred writings is to relate God’s saving purpose in Christ. Timothy’s study of the Scriptures had grounded him in that wisdom and enlightenment that leads to faith in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures lead to salvation but only as they point to Christ. The Scriptures themselves do not provide salvation, but they do point to the Savior who can provide it.” Thomas D Lea and Hayne P Griffin, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, Vol. 34, in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992). 234

[xx] The Old Testament looked forward to Jesus Christ and the New Testament looked backward on Jesus. As stated in the Exposition of the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy, “Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is – the witness of the Father to the incarnate Son.” Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition, http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html (accessed November 1, 2019).

[xxi] 2 Timothy 3:16-17

[xxii] Rom. 1:18–32, Acts 17:22–34, Acts 14:15–17, Psalm 19:1, Psalm 104:1–35.

[xxiii] Scripture itself calls on the reader to consider nature e.g. Prov. 6:6. Therefore, any rejection of other forms of revelation requires one to deny scriptural commands.

[xxiv] In Exodus 3:14 God declares “I AM who I AM,” a declaration that highlights his eternality, uncreated, and self-sufficiency. Acts 17:25 further builds on this idea by noting that God needs nothing but rather he himself gives life. The idea here is that God simply is. Beyond self-existence, God’s simplicity or un-compositeness stems from his unity (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:18; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; James 2:19), immateriality (John 4:24), and immortality (1 Tim. 1:17). God is one and cannot be divided. He is immaterial and so cannot have physical divisions. God is immortal and cannot be temporally divided. The term simplicity is often used to describe the fact that God cannot be divided. There is a strong historical basis for God’s simplicity and self-existence, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nazianzen all spoke of God as a simple, uncompounded being. Moreover, both the ante-Nicene and Athanasian creeds discuss God’s simplicity. Major reformers including Luther, Calvin, and Arminius also argued for the simplicity of God. For a general overview with quotations of the Early Church Fathers and creeds see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 426-428.  For specific references see see Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,, Vol. 1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 374. Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire),, Vol. 2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 464. Origen, “De Principiis,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, Vol. 4, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 243. Gregory Nazianzen, “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Vol. 7, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894).

[xxv] God has no needs that he cannot meet in the godhead, specifically, God does not need us. God exists on his own. (John 5:26, Acts 17:23-25, Isa. 43:10-11, John 17:24)

[xxvi] That we can relate to God as a person is fundamental to forming a relationship with God. A variety of scripture supports the notion that God desires for people to interact with him on a personal level including the personal names Scripture attributes to God in the Old Testament (“ I AM” - Ex. 3:14, El Shaddai – Gen 17:1, El Elyon – Gen 14:19, El Olam – Gen 21:33, El Roi Gen 16:13, Adonai – Gen 19:2). Within the New Testament a very significant personal name “Father” is used 245 times of God (it was used only 15 in the Old Testament).  Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999). 28.  Beyond personal names, God is also described as having a will (Ps. 115:3; Isa. 46:10-11), emotions (Gen. 6:6; Ex. 32:10-11; John 11:35; James 5:11) and intellect (Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16).

It is significant to note that in calling God personal is not the same as stating that God is a human person but rather that God can be related to as a person. The Bible regularly uses anthropomorphism to talk about God. An immediate challenge arises from such language, these analogical statements are necessarily our own projections of ourselves. When we say the Lord is compassionate and merciful (James 5:11) we are forced to consider compassion and mercy as we see compassion and mercy. Some might argue that such analogical statements are flawed but these analogical statements about God are, in fact, reasonable because of Genesis 1:26,27.  Robert D. Culver, "Anthropomorphism," in Baker Encylopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988).

[xxvii] In Acts 17:24-28 the Apostle Paul taught that God had not just created everything but that he also is not far from us and that in him we have our very being. Jeremiah 23:24 argues that God fills the entire universe. Beyond his filling work, the Bible regularly describes God as being active within nature (Matt. 5:45; 6:25-30; 10:29-30).

[xxviii] God’s transcendentalism is extremely important in light of liberalism.  Erickson notes that liberalism tends to “tends to view God as working primarily through natural processes rather than through radical discontinuities with nature…nothing is secular, for God is at work everywhere and through everything that occurs.” J Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 276. The theologian must hold God’s immanence and transcendence in careful balance to ensure that God is recognized as both active in creation (as opposed to Deism) and outside of creation (as opposed to panentheism). Scripture affirms the transcendence of God (Isa. 55:8-9; Ps. 113:5-6; John 8:23).  For a further description including more extensive details on how both immanence and transcendence factor into classical liberalism, Tillich’s theology and Process Theology see God’s Nearness and Distance: Immanence and Transcendence in J Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013).

[xxix] Several passaged describe God as eternal.  God is described in Genesis 1:1 as the one who created in the beginning. Jesus appears to have viewed the very name of God given in Exodus 3:14 as a reference to God’s eternality when he declared himself to be God in John 8:58. Psalm 90:2 declares that God is from everlasting to everlasting. Isaiah 40:28 articulates God as everlasting and not subject to change over time.

[xxx] That God does not change is attested to throughout Scripture (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26-27; Mal 3:6; Heb 1:10-12; Heb. 13:8; James 1:17).

In addition to the Scriptural basis for the doctrine, there are several important theological arguments for God’s immutability. Since God is simple, there can be no composition, however, if some aspect of God changed then God could be decomposed into what had not changed and what had changed. Historically, God’s immutability is attested to by such churchman as Novatian, Aristides, Melito of Sardis, Gregory of Thaumaturgis, Alexander of Alexandria, Augustine, Anslem, Thomas Aquinas, and John Wesley Geisler, Systematic Theology, 447-448. 

It is also important to note that free-will or open theists reject the doctrine of immutability arguing that the doctrine is rooted in Greek philosophy and argue that God is changed or moved by human actions. In particular, open theists reject the anthropopathite interpretation of verses such as Gen. 6:6 and Jonah 3:10 in which God is said to have “repented.” Open theists use these verses to argue that God changes his mind. Erickson argues that a better solution to rejecting anthropopathisms is to instead reconsider the meaning of human freedom see J Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 252.

God’s immutability does not preclude his personal relationships with people and his experience of emotions. God is fully who he is and does not develop but he does interact with people. The key is that God’s character and purposes do not change and God does not develop.

[xxxi] God’s infiniteness is based on the fact that he is creator (Gen. 1:1), cannot be contained in creation (1 Kgs 8:27), has infinite understanding (Ps. 147:5), and is eternal (Isa. 57:15). Geisler notes that the Greek deities were thought of as finite beings but the God of the Bible is infinite and throughout the history of the church the infiniteness of God has been recognized. Geisler, Systematic Theology, 272-474.

[xxxii] That God’s knowledge includes both past present and future is clear from Isaiah 46:9-10. In fact, God provided a test for false prophets in Deuteronomy 18:22. God identified the standard for someone speaking on his behalf as 100%, 100% of the time. Only an omniscient being could hold that standard.

One objection to God’s omniscience is worth considering. How can God be omniscient and humans have free choice?  This view suffers from confusion between determinism and direct causation. Just because God knows the outcome does not mean that God has directly caused the action.

A second objection stems from process theology in which it is held that God is himself in the process of developing and his knowledge is only that of what might happen. On the surface, this view seems to contradict the knowledge ascribed to God in Isaiah 46. A full critique of this view is beyond the scope of this paper and the reader is referred to Duane F. Lindsey, "An Evangelical Overview of Process Theology," Bibliotheca Sacra, no. 134 (1977): 15-32.

[xxxiii] It is not hard to believe that God is present in Heaven, and while some might deny God’s active presence on Earth, even then it is not too hard to believe that God is present on Earth, but to state that God is present in Hell may initially seem false. However, Scripture testifies that God is everywhere.  In Psalm 139:7-10 David notes that there is no place where he can go that God is not present. God is both creator and sustainer (Col 1:17) and therefore is not absent from any element of creation. Jeremiah 23:23-24 teaches that even in a secret place God is present. Scripture does not directly speak as to how God’s presence interacts with Hell, it is entirely possible that while Hell falls under God’s supervision, the blessings associated with the presence of God are completely removed from Hell.

[xxxiv] It is important to first note that God’s omnipotence has been the subject of many apparent contradictions, “can God make a rock so big that he is unable to move it?” Such questions miss the point of omnipotence, the point of omnipotence is that nothing external to God can exercise control over God. God is truth and so God cannot lie, but the control is not some external entity that prevents God from lying but rather that God himself limits God. That God is all powerful is widely attested to in scripture (Ps. 135:5-6; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 32:17; Matt. 19:26; Luke 18:27; Eph. 1:4-11; Heb 2:10; Rev. 4:11). In fact, even the name almighty demonstrates God’s omnipotence (58 times from Gen. 17:1-Rev.21:22).

[xxxv] God’s holiness means that he is set-apart from sin. Several passages of scripture deal with God’s status as being set-apart, holy. (Ex. 15:11; Rev. 15:4; Lev. 11:44; Matt. 5:48; 1 Pet 1:16) Isaiah notes the Trisagion, holy, holy, holy in Isa. 6:1-5 by which the infiniteness of God’s holiness is described. In Revelation 4:8 John again brings attention to the Trisagion. In Psalm 89:35 we are reminded that God even swears by his holiness. In Isa. 5:16 the prophet notes that God’s righteousness is tied to his holiness.

[xxxvi] 1 John 4:7-10 teaches that love comes from God. Beyond the traditional human notions of love, divine love is marked by self-sacrifice and self-giving (John 3:16; John 15:13; Rom. 5:8). 

[xxxvii] 1 John 3:11-18

[xxxviii] Deut. 6:4, the Shema Yisrael, clearly articulates that God is one. Isa. 45:18 further supports God’s unity. When asked what the most important command was, Jesus responded in Mark 12:29 with “the Lord is one.” The apostle Paul taught that there is one God in Eph. 4:6. The whole of scripture teaches that there is only one God.

[xxxix] Following Nathan D Holsteen and J Michael Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, Volume One, Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2015). a person is defined as a center of self-conciseness that allows for relationships with others and I/thou distinctions.

There are numerous passages in the Old Testament that hint to God’s plurality. Genesis 1:1 uses a plural form of the word Elohim. Occasionally, God uses the word us when speaking of himself (Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isa. 6:8). There are numerous passages where two individuals are named God (Ps. 45:6-7 cf. with Heb. 1:8; Ps. 110:1 cf. with Matt. 22:41-46; Mal. 3:1-2; Hos. 1:6-7; Hag. 2:1-5). There are even some passages that mention three who are named God (Isa. 48:16; Num. 6:24-26). God has three distinct persons and therefore God is not just unity, but triunity.

Having identified God as triunity it is important to carefully avoid significant heresies. Modalism suggests that there is one God who operates in different modes. This heresy is rebuffed by an important event in scripture where the persons of the Godhead are present simultaneously, the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:15-17. For further discussion see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 551-564.

[xl] The terms ousia and hypostasis are used by theologians tin an attempt to differentiate between God’s oneness and God’s threeness J Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 309. Basil the Great holds that ousia describes the very essence of God and that hypostasis provides specific instances Basil of Caesarea, Letter CCXXXIV, Vol. 8, in St. Basil: Letters and Select Works: A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895).

[xli] Recent trends have been to push for more neutral language to describe the first person of the trinity and is worth noting that there are at least three instances of motherly language being used to speak of God (Isa. 66:12-13; Hos. 11:4; Matt. 23:37). However, overwhelmingly the New Testament speaks of God as Father and Jesus as Son (I estimate roughly 268 uses of the term Father in the New Testament are intended to refer to the first person of the Godhead), deviating from the titles used in the Bible is an unnecessary deviation from Scripture. Indeed, evidence does not suggest that using more gender inclusive language of God would solve any social injustices. Based on these facts I suggest that the language of God the Father should be retained and even used as a model for what a father should be.

[xlii] Eph. 1:3; Eph 1:17; 1 Tim. 6:15-16

[xliii] The use of Father intrinsically requires a Son as argued by Athanasius. God the Son has always been God. Monarchianism/Adoptionism falsely holds that Jesus is only a man who was brought under the power of God thus denying the deity of Christ. Colossians 2:9 states that in Christ the fulness of deity rests. Divine names are used of Christ (1 Cor. 8:6; John 20:28; John 1:1-3; Rev. 19:16; John 8:58, 10:7, 11:25, 14:6;). Christ is ascribed the divine attributes (holy Acts 3:14; uncreated Col. 1:15; eternal/immutable Heb. 13:8, omniscient Luke 6:8, 11:17). The only valid conclusion is that God the Son is and always has been God.

[xliv] In 1 Timothy 2:5 Jesus is presented as a man, born of a woman (Luke 2:6-7; Gal 4:4-5), developed as a human (Luke 2:40,52), and died (John 19:30,33).

[xlv] Arius (256-336) provided an early challenge to the claim that Jesus shares the same essence as the Father. Arianism was rejected at the Council of Nicea (325) and codified in the Nicene creed. The council stated that Jesus was begotten (John 3:16) of the Father but not made by the Father. The term μονογενής that is sometimes translated as begotten actually carries the idea of uniqueness, or one-and-only. John 1:18 is useful for understanding that Jesus is the unique one who bears the image of God or conveys all that the Father is to the world.  Colossians 1:15-20 and Colossians 2:9 provide a high Christology and affirm that Jesus is of identical essence to the Father. Several other passages of Scripture also support homoousios and present Jesus as the God-man (Rom. 1:3-4, 8:3, 9:5; 1 Cor. 2:8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb 1:3-6, 2:9-11; Philp. 2; John 1; Isaiah 9:6).

[xlvi] This idea is elaborated in Leo’s tome.

[xlvii] That the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son stems from John 14:26, 15:26, and 20:22. It is important to recall that procession is not the same as subordination. The Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son does not place the Spirit in a lesser position than either the Father or the Son.

One might argue that the Holy Spirit is something entirely different but several references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament are worth noting (Ex. 31:3, 35:31; 1 Sam 16:13-14; Ps. 51:11, 106:33; Isa 63:10, 61:1;). In particular, 1 Samuel 16:13-14 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit had some sort of a filling role even in the Old Testament.

[xlviii] The fact that the Spirit is a person is attested to by the use of the personal pronoun “he” used to speak of the Spirit in John 16:13. The deity of the Spirit is attested to in the names ascribed to the Spirit: Holy Spirit (Rom 1:4), Spirit of God (Matt. 3:16), Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11), and Spirit of the Lord (Luke 4:18).  The attributes ascribed to the Spirit as support deity: Omniscience (Isa. 4:13; 1 Cor. 2:10-12), omnipresence (Ps. 139:7-10), omnipotence (Job 33:4; Rom. 15:18-19), and eternality (Heb. 9:14). Finally, the Apostle Peter directly refers to the Holy Spirit as God in the confrontation he has with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3-4.

[xlix] The term paraclete carries the idea of mediator, intercessor, helper, and comforter and shows up especially in Johannine literature (John 14:15-27; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). Walter Bauer, Frederick W Danker, William Ardnt and Wilbur F. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

[l] John 6:63; 1 Corinthians 15:45-58; 2 Corinthians 3:6

[li] Ephesians 4:30

[lii] Matthew 12:30-31; Mark 3:29

[liii] I acknowledge that the word day י֥וֹם (day) used throughout Gen. 1 has a broad interpretation and has been historically a topic of significant debate with some early scholars wondering why it took God so long to create and more modern scholars struggling with the idea that it only took six days to create. However, the use of evening and morning suggest that Moses has a literal day in mind. However, since the Sun was not created until the fourth day there is already some interpretive challenge. Nevertheless, passages like Ex 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 5:12; and Heb 4:4; all seem to indicate a literal six-day period. Further discussion can be found in Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, p. 148). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers., J. P. Lewis. (1989). The Days of Creation: An Historical Survey of Interpretation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 32, 433–455., and Geisler, Systematic Theology, 644-647.

[liv] Contrary to naturalism, I hold that supernatural forces are a viable explanation for the existence of the universe. However, I go further in that I do not believe macro-evolution is a viable explanation for the life. That is, I do not believe that “evolution on the large scale, from microbe to man, from the first one-cell animal to human beings as the highest animal so far developed in the chain.” Is a viable explanation for life. Geisler, N. L. (1999). Evolution, Biological. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 225). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[lv] The existence of a spiritual realm will be argued later, for now it is sufficient to see that God was the creator as evidenced in Col. 1:16.

[lvi] First, Heb. 1:14 clearly argues that there are ministering spirits. Gen. 18 demonstrates that these beings are not omnipresent as they depart Abraham and walk to Sodom. Heb. 12:22 demonstrates that they are regularly invisible as there are a multitude of them that we do not see. Unlike humans, angels do not appear to biologically reproduce as discussed in Mat. 22:30. Eph. 3:10 describes them as beings of great strength and wisdom. Jude 6 suggests that angels have free will or at least had free will at some point (For further details see Thomas Aquinas on Angels). Luke 20:36 suggests that angels are immortal.

[lvii] Each of these jobs is seen in scripture. Specifically, caring for believers (Ps. 34:7) delivering messages (Lk. 2), protecting and leading nations (Ex. 23:20), carrying out God’s judgements (Rev. 16:2), act as God’s agents (Jdg. 13:8), and worship God (Rev. 5; 7).

[lviii] While no passage explicitly discusses the fall of angels into demons, there does seem to be reasonable evidence that Ez. 28:15-17 describes the fall of Satan. Together with Rev. 12:3-9 is seems reasonable to conclude that when Satan fell, he took with him a significant portion of the angels who became demons.

[lix] Specifically, they are not all omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Hence, demons should not be feared. That being said, Jude 9 and Acts 19:13-15 are important reminders that while we do not need to fear demons, we also should not treat the demonic in a way that is trivial or underestimates the reality and consequence of the spiritual realm.

[lx] Eph. 6:12 indicates that spiritual warfare is a reality. Scripture also teaches that demons can bring about, temptation (1 Cor. 7:5; Jam. 1:14), divisiveness (2 Cor. 2:5-11; Jam. 4:1-2), interference with ministry (1 Thess. 2:18; 2 Tim. 4:14-15), doctrinal deviation (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3), spiritual blindness (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 2:14), physical affliction (Matt. 9:32; Matt 4:24), and mental torment (1 Sam 16:14-23; 2 Cor 1:8;).

[lxi] The word Satan in Hebrew means adversary. Rev. 12:9 connects Satan with the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

[lxii] Satan opposes God and his people in several important ways, he incites people into foolish or sinful deeds (1 Chron. 21:1), accuses the faithful (Zech. 3:1), tempts (Matt. 4), takes away the word of the gospel (Mk. 4:15), binds people in sin/illness (Lk. 13:16), enters people (Lk. 22:3), destroys the flesh (1 Cor. 5:5), deceives (2 Cor. 11:14), sends messengers to torment believers (2 Cor. 12:7), holds the power of death (Job. 2:14), prowls (1 Pet. 5:8).

[lxiii] In Job we see that Satan’s power and influence is not unlimited and he is not autonomous. Jesus teaches us not to fear Satan (cf. Matt 10:28) and we have clear instruction to resist Satan (Eph 6:10-18; Jam. 4:7). Ultimately Satan will be completely defeated (Col. 2:15; Rev. 20:1–3, 10).

[lxiv] As discussed in Gen. 1:27; 2:7; 2:18-25.

[lxv] The notion of man’s innocence goes beyond just an absence of sin. Specifically, Gen. 3:5 implies that neither Adam nor Eve knew sin. In Eccl. 7:29 Solomon indicates that God made mankind upright or righteous. Geisler, Systematic Theology, 707-708

The image of God captures several ideas regarding humanity. The Bible does not teach exactly what it means to be made in the image of God. However, it does provide enough details on God, humanity, and God’s expectations of humanity that three perspectives can be taken. First, the use of image of God sets humanity apart from the rest of creation. The structural view of the image of God holds that personhood is derived from God. The relational view of the image of God holds that God created humanity to need companionship in a way that is similar to the trinity. The functional view of the image of God holds that God created man to exercise dominion and bear his image in the sense of bearing his authority. I believe that it is likely that all three views describe elements of what it means to be created in the image of God. That is the three views are all lenses through which the image of God can considered.Invalid source specified. 32-34. Additional information on the notion of the image of God can be found in Invalid source specified. 29-91.

It is also important to note that both men and women are created in the image of God. Passages like 1 Cor. 11:7-12 have been used to denigrate women. However, 1 Cor. 11:7-12 is not written to discuss the image of God but rather as a discussion of roles in the church and family. As noted by John Calvin in Calvin, J., & Pringle, J. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, (2010).

[lxvi] In Gen. 1:28 God commands humanity to be fruitful and multiply.

[lxvii] The idea behind subdue appears to be related to functional image bearing role of humanity. That is humanity is to bear God’s authority as vice-regents over creation. Spence-Jones notes that “The commission thus received was to utilize for his necessities the vast resources of the earth, by agricultural and mining operations, by geographical research, scientific discovery, and mechanical invention.” Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). Genesis (p. 31). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

[lxviii] The explicit mention of fish, birds, and living things that moves on the earth in Gen 1:28 carries the notion of totality. God placed humanity at the pinnacle of creation with the expectation that humanity would care for the earth acting on God’s behalf. Psalm 8:5 notes that God created humanity to be unique and “crowned him with glory and honor (NIV).”

[lxix] In Gen. 9:6 the argument that murder warrants the execution of the murdered is grounded in the notion that humanity is created in the image of God.

[lxx] At creation, God provided man with the breath of life, making man a living being. The breath of life idea comes up regularly in Scripture and demonstrates that the Spirit is the agent of life Gen. 2:7; 6:17, 7:15; Ps. 104:29–30; Job 33:4; 34:14–15; Ezk. 37:3–14.

[lxxi] First, that the body is fragile, is an immediate consequence of the death that surrounds each and every person. On one hand, the value of the body can be seen through the innate desire that individuals have to preserve their own life. However, beyond this innate desire, Scripture itself teaches that the body is valuable. In 2 Cor. 5:1-10 Paul anticipates the eternal heavenly body that awaits Christians. The natural state of humanity is bodily and so the body is itself valuable.

[lxxii] Verses such as 1 Thess. 5:23 and Gen 2:7 suggest that there is more to a person than just the physical. That is, contrary to monism, humans are more than just one substance. Contrary to materialism humans do have a non-physical component.

[lxxiii] This is contrary to trichotomy which suggests that individuals are body, soul, and spirit. That is where the body is physical, the soul is animal, and the spirit is rational. Several weaknesses exist in this perspective. First, such a distinction threatens the unity of the individual that is eluded to in Heb. 4:12; Second, this division does not account for other aspects of a person such as emotion and possibly even consciousness. Finally, the purpose of the divisions in passages like Mark 12:30 and 1 Thess. 5:23 may have much more to do with describing the whole person rather than identify parts of a person. That is, a three-part description of human nature. Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). 1 Thessalonians (p. 106). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

[lxxiv] Burns et. al. (2015), 34-36.

[lxxv] Specifically, once God integrated the body and soul in Adam, he also placed within Adam the agency to perpetually reproduce both the material and immaterial components of a person. Several other views have been suggested including creationism, in which God is said to be creating new souls for humans and the pre-existence view which holds that God pre-created all the souls needed.  Pre-existence is an untenable position based on a desire to see the human soul as eternally present in the past. Such a view has been dismissed by orthodoxy. For further study see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 712. Creationism has the problem that it places God in the position of substantially creating continually. While it is not outside of the realm of possibility, the position of the Bible seems to be that God is not regularly engaged in creation but rather ceased after the sixth day (Heb. 4:4). God can certainly miraculously create, but such actions seems to be special actions described as miraculous rather than regular occurrences.

 In support of traducianism is Gen. 5:3 where we see that Adam begot a son in his own image. Second, traducianism explains original sin in that the soul as a direct result of reproduction. An individual inherits the sin of the parents without requiring that God create a fallen soul. Geisler, Systematic Theology, 711-720.

A final note on creationism and traducianism. In a creationism model, the advocate is forced to decide when God joins the created soul to the body. The decision has a direct effect on positions such as abortion. Up until the point where the soul is joined to the body, one might argue that a human life is not at risk and abortion is an appropriate step.

[lxxvi] Gen. 2:15-17

[lxxvii] I take the entire Fall narrative in Genesis 3 to be a factual account of real events that took place. I also interpret Rev. 12:9 and 20:2 to indicate that Satan was working through the serpent to orchestrate the Fall.

[lxxviii] Ryrie defines sin as lawlessness or that which is against the character of God. It can be thought of as missing the mark, badness, iniquity, rebellion, going astray, crime, and ignorance but the central idea is the connection to God and going against God. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999). 237-243.

[lxxix] Scripture speaks of five deaths that resulted from the fall. The first death is spiritual death which resulted in separation from God (Gen. 3:8-11; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13). The second type of death was not immediately completed but rather the process began. That is physical death or the unnatural separation of the material and immaterial (Gen. 3:19). The third type of death was covenantal death or the removal of blessing (Gen 3:14-19). Fourth, Adam and Eve experienced relational death as interpersonal and social relationships were damaged (Gen 3:16). Finally, cosmic death occurred, that is the corruption and decay of all creation (Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. 8:20-23). Burns et. al. (2015), 42.

[lxxx] Rom. 8:20 speaks to this fact, but the judgements outlines in Gen 3 also speaks to the conflict between creation and the caretaker, the cursing of the ground, and the institution of death.

[lxxxi] Contrary to Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 207.

[lxxxii] The notion of total depravity carries the idea that every aspect of human life is impacted or tainted by sin. This does not mean the people are as bad as they could be but rather that people have capability for all evil. Several passages deserve attention. Gen. 6:5 teaches about the evil intentions of the heart. Ps. 14:2-3 demonstrates that there is none who do good. Eccl. 7:20 argues that there are no righteous people Jer. 17:9 addresses the deceitfulness and depravity of the heart. Finally, Eph. 2:1-3 describes humanity individually as dead in trespasses and sin. To say that man is totally depraved is to acknowledge that apart from God no one could even come to accept know or accept salvation. Burns et. al. (2015), 44.

[lxxxiii] The very nature of each and every person becomes corrupted by sin and guilty of Adam’s sin. In support of this view Rom. 3:10-12, 23 demonstrates that all have sinned without allowance for exception. A few other verses support the notion that this state came from conception, including Ps. 51:5 and Ps 58:3. That children are subject to the guilt of sin is evidenced in Gen. 8:21 and Prov. 22:15.

Historically, the doctrine of original sin has been a point of contention and was rejected in Pelagianism. However, several church fathers rejected Pelagianism. For example, Augustine held that humanity was “not able not to sin” in Augustine, Admonition and Grace 11:32–12.33) as cited in Andrew Hay, “Original Sin,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[lxxxiv] Rom. 5:12 teaches that sin came from Adam and spreads into all of Adam’s descendants. Two views are traditionally put forth, federal headship, and seminalism. In federal headship, Adam is viewed as representative of all people in the fall. In this way, the fall is considered to have been binding on all people. Seminalism holds that all humanity was present in Adam when he fell. Certainly, Hebrews 7:4-10 provides an argument that Levi was present in Abraham when Abraham tithed but this is not directly about the inheritance of original sin and so is not automatically a support for seminalism. Nevertheless, seminalism does seem to best explain original sin as a whole. Specifically, seminalism does not necessitate God enforcing a contract on those who had no opportunity to accept the contract as federal headship does. Furthermore, seminalism allows for Jesus to have been born without bondage to sin (the virgin birth). Hence, I lean toward seminalism. This is also consistent with Augustine’s view that humans pass on distortion through procreation. Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, 1.19, 2.37 as cited in Hay, The Lexham Bible Dictionary.

[lxxxv] The use of the term “flesh” to is often used to talk about human nature and in particular, fallen human nature. However, this term is really a term that emphasizes the contrast between one who is acting in ways that are noticeably apart from God. That is, the term flesh does not refer to a physical spiritual duality but rather a duality between living as God desires and living contrary to God. That is, the opposite of flesh is not incorporeal but rather the opposite of flesh is something more akin to holiness, walking in the Spirit. Such a view is supported by Gal 5:19-21. Certainly, the flesh carries physical connotations, but these connotations are reminiscent of the human condition (Gal 2:16; Matt. 26:41; Rom 6:19). When scripture talks of unbelievers as in the flesh (Rom 8:9) the idea is not that believers are made out of flesh but rather that unbelievers are devoid of the Spirit.

[lxxxvi] Rom. 7:15-25 provides and extensive commentary on our bondage to sin.

[lxxxvii] Much of is tied directly to soteriology so rather than provide a full description of the work of Christ some relevant passages of Scripture are included here. The incarnation is described in Phil. 2:5-11. Christ’s sinless life is attested to in Scripture (1 Pet 2:22; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb 4:15). The crucifixion and resurrection are covered in 1 Cor. 15:1-8 among other places. Christ’s position at the right hand of the Father is described in (Acts 7:55–56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1).

[lxxxviii] Specifically, humans need more than just relief from punishment but relief from the sinful state. That is sin has a logical punishment of physical death but also a state of separation from the source of blessing (Rom 6:23; Eph. 2:12).

[lxxxix] Since God is all loving he does not force himself on any individual. Hence God created humanity with free choice and in particular the choice of whether to choose him or not. In his omnipotence God has the power to provide fallen man with a means of choosing him. Contrary to a strong monergism I hold that God’s love is persuasive but not coercive and therefore an individual works cooperatively with God so that salvation is by faith through grace.  For further discussion see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 818-822.

[xc] This is not to completely dismiss the Supralapsarianism-Infralapsarianism-Sublapsarianism-Wesleyanism discussion but rather to instead focus on the results of God’s decrees Geisler, Systematic Theology, 815-816.

[xci] Jn. 3:16; Rom 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim 2:4; 1 Jn. 2:2.

[xcii] The nature of salvation by grace through faith is the subject of Eph 2:8-9.

[xciii] Geisler discusses a hypothesis that God so wanted all to be saved that he provided salvation for all while knowing that some would reject it, Geisler, Systematic Theology, 817-818.

[xciv] Numerous passages utilize these terms to refer to the general collection of individuals that God in his foreknowledge chose to apply salvation (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom 8:29).

[xcv] Rom 2:4; Tit. 2:11.

[xcvi] Phil 1:6

[xcvii] 1 Cor. 15:3

[xcviii] Rom 5:6-11 This explanation of atonement was advocated by Calvin in the Institutes of Christian Religion, 2.16.2

[xcix] Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 2.16.6.

[c] 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:21-25. For a full discussion of substitutionary atonement see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 836 and 840-841.

[ci] For a detailed explanation see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 844-851.

[cii] Eph. 2:8 is classically cited to argue that salvation is by faith. However, several other verses also support this claim including Titus 3:5; Rom. 4:4-5; Rom 11:6.

[ciii] Those advocating Lordship Salvation hold that saving faith necessarily requires submission to Christ as a disciple under his lordship. It is certainly true that submission to the Lordship of Christ is an important consequence of salvation but to place it as a prerequisite or corequisite leads one into a works based salvation. Manfred E. Kober, "Lordship Salvation Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?, Part 2," Faith Pulpit (Faith Baptist Theological Seminary), April-May 1989.

[civ] Holsteen & Svigel, Exploring Christian Theology, Volume Two, 201-202.

[cv] Jn. 10:10 speaks of Christ coming to bring abundant life.

[cvi] The local assembly of believers together in what was called a church is attested to in several passages of Scripture including 1 Cor. 11:18 and Rev. 2-3. This concept of the church is also widely attested to in the early church fathers including 1 Clem. 1:1.

[cvii] The notion of a universal body of Christ which is identified as the church is attested to in several passages including Eph. 1:22,23;4:15,16; Col. 1:18. Ignatius of Antioch (about 110) was the first to write of the catholic (universal) church (Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 90). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.).

[cviii] The word ἐκκλησία was in use before to describe any assembly of people, similar to a pride of lions or flock of sheep. However, in the NT the writers of the Bible adopt the term and give it an entirely new meaning. This provides some evidence that the church really is something new. After Pentecost, the term ἐκκλησία begins to take on a new meaning in the Bible.

Throughout the book of Acts, the term ἐκκλησία appears to be used both of the universal collection of those following Christ (Acts 8:1-3, 9:31,) and the local assemblies of believers (Acts 5:11, Acts 11:10-26, Acts 13:1, Acts 14:21-27, 15:22, 15:41, 16:5, 18:22, 20:17-28). The term seems to carry more than what the people did but rather how they were identified. In this way local assemblies are merely collections of the larger collection of people who identify with Christ. In fact, Hebrews 10:25 strongly suggests that the church is not defined by assembling together but rather assembling together is something the church does. Hence local churches are local collections of the church.

The Church is more specific than just the people of God or a unique covenant people. Several points deserve attention. First in Mathew 16:18, when speaking of the Church, Jesus seems to be thinking of an entity that is not yet. Second, by Acts 5:11 the Church is clearly established. In fact, Luke does not use the word ἐκκλησία in his Gospel but uses it extensively in Acts. Third, Eph. 3:4-12 teaches that the church was something previously unrevealed. In Against Heresies 3.12.7, Irenaeus of Lyons teaches that the origin of the Church is rooted in the Apostles. In short, it seems that the Church is something that is to come prior to Pentecost and something that is present after Pentecost. This presents Pentecost as a pivotal moment for the formation of the Church.

[cix] The term universal or catholic as used in the Apostle’s creed calls attention to the universal body of Christ mentioned earlier.

[cx] A primary difference between the Church and Israel is rooted in the covenants given to Israel, including: national identity (Gen 12:2, Ex 19:4-6), land in perpetuity (Gen 12:6-7), and a kingdom (2 Sam 7:4-29) that God made with Israel. The church and Israel can be distinguished in that God’s blessings for Israel were mediated through the Mosaic Covenant and the blessings for the church are mediated through the New Covenant. This does not mean that there are no New Covenant blessings for Israel, but rather that the blessings on the New Covenant come through Christ and are inherited by both those Jews who follow Christ and those Gentiles who follow Christ as one new people of God (Eph. 2).

The Abrahamic Covenant guaranteed blessing of all people through Abraham and his seed (Gen 12.). After 430 years (Gal. 3:17-19), God provided the Mosaic Covenant in Ex. 19:5-8 as a means of mediating the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant is discussed extensively in both Jer. 31 and Ez. 36-37 and made the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) obsolete as discussed in Heb. 8:13. That the New Covenant is mediated through Christ is demonstrated in Hebrews 12:24. First, Cor. 11:23-26 teaches that Christ instituted the New Covenant as described in Luke 22:20. Therefore, Israel and the Church are distinct in how God’s blessings are mediated.

This is not to say that there are two distinct peoples of God throughout all eternity, as in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948), 4:29–35 but rather that God still has a plan for the nation of Israel in the future. The mystery revealed in Ephesians 2:11-3:11 is that Jews were reconciled to God as Jews and Gentiles were reconciled to God as Gentiles. Both Jew and Gentile became the people of God through Christ.

It is also worth noting that the decision to identify Israel as the group for whom the blessings of God are mediated through the Mosaic covenant places the formation of Israel long after Abraham. In fact, in this argument Abraham, Isaac, even Jacob are not part of Israel. Some might note that in this case then Israel is not the same as the people of God. Indeed, there are well known people of God who are clearly not part of Israel, for example, Enoch. Hence, it is a false need to equate the people of God with Israel. The more significant question is a question of how we can define Israel as a people and it seems most reasonable to define the people group as what they do, or what customs they follow. Hence, defining Israel in terms of the Mosaic Covenant seems most reasonable approach. This is also consistent with Paul in Rom. 3:1-2; and 9:4 where Israel is noted for having been entrusted with the things of God and in a position of covenant blessing.

There are several competing views including Covenant Theology. One view that deserves particular attention in ecclesiology is the view that the church existed within Israel. However, as stated, the church is completely separate from Israel. Others hold that those who were redeemed in Israel prior to Pentecost were incorporated into the church  J. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, ed. 3rd (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 1058-59. 1058-59. However, this again fails to recognize the idea that people groups are identified by what they do or their customs. Prior to Pentecost the blessing of God was not mediated through the New Covenant and so it does not make sense to speak of the pre-Pentecost redeemed as being incorporated into the Church, what they did was mediated by a different covenant.

[cxi] To see the unity of all redeemed in Christ the reader is directed to John 17:11, 21–23. It is significant to note that the unity in Christ effectively creates an entirely new people of God as described in Eph. 2:14-16. The early church clearly saw themselves as united together as discussed in Didache 9.

[cxii] Baptism by the Holy Spirit is the act whereby an individual is joined together with the Body of Christ at conversion as discussed in 1 Cor. 12:13. In this instance baptism is not used of the literal act of submerging but rather is used metaphorically of the individual entering into the sphere of realm of those who through the Spirit are joined together with Christ Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testamant, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018).

[cxiii] Rom. 12:5 and 1 Cor. 10:17 discuss the notion that all are together as one body and 1 Cor. 1:10 places a strong emphasis on unity.

[cxiv] The notion of the church being holy, set apart can be seen in Eph. 5:25-27 where Christ is said to have sanctified the church. This does have significant implications for practice of local churches. Specifically, the holiness of the Church demands that the assembled local church be willing to practice discipline to remove those who are a threat to the holiness of the church as in 1 Cor. 5:4-5 and 11-13.

[cxv] See Eph. 2:20, 3:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Tim. 2:2; It is important to clarify that in this usage the title Apostle refers only to one who was witness to the risen Christ.

[cxvi] Different interpretations for the terms pastor, bishop, and elder have been proposed by various groups. However, Scripture uses the terms for elder and bishop interchangeably in name in Titus 1:5-7 and interchangeably in function in 1 Peter 2:25; 5:1-2. Furthermore, 1 Peter 5:1-4 indicates that the role of an elder/bishop is to shepherd or pastor the flock. Hence, the three terms Pastor, Elder, Bishop are in reference to the same office.

[cxvii] The office of deacon was established in Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Peter 5:1-3 where they were called to assist the apostles by serving those in the congregation who were being neglected. The primary distinction that appears to be made between the office of deacon and elder is that of aptness to teach. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that the role of a deacon is to care for the non-instructional needs of the congregation, including social ministry to the congregation. There is no indication in the text that deacons formed some sort of board of trustees who directed the operation of the church and the office of deacon should be one marked by service to the congregation.

[cxviii] Titus 1:5-16 provides insight into the role that Paul held for an Elder to oppose false teachers. A central component of Paul’s teaching here is that the elder should correct those who speak against the “faithful message.” Early in church history the authority of the elder to preserve the teaching of Christ and the apostles was voiced. For example, Ignatius of Antioch in To the Trallians 3.1 speaks of following the Bishop as one would follow Christ and the presbyters as the apostles. In Against Heresies 1.10.2, Iraenaeus of Lyons argues that the presbyters possess the succession of the apostles and the gift of truth. This however brings up an important issue. What is the role of the Elder and the member in interpreting Scripture? This issue has divided many and the Southern Baptist view deserves particular attention. That is, the Southern Baptist view on the priesthood of all believers includes the ability to read and interpret Scripture. Rogers (speaking of Mullins a Southern Baptist theologian) argues that a key difference between Mullin’s view and Luther was that for Mullins every Christian had the ability to read and interpret Scripture (Rogers, M. (2010). A Dangerous Idea? Martin Luther, E. Y. Mullins, and the Priesthood of All Believers. Westminster Theological Journal, 72(1), 130.). Both 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph 2:2 teach that unbelievers are spiritually blind and unable to spiritually discern (1 Cor. 2:14). However, Jn 16:13 teaches that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth. Together with the fact that some individuals are gifted for teaching (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph 4:11). It seems reasonable to state that all believers can read and interpret the Bible through the Holy Spirit. However, the God has equipped certain individuals in the church to assist with this process and especially with the responsibility to guard against false doctrine as individuals read and interpret Scripture.

[cxix] Acts 2:41-42 uses the language of individuals being added (προσετέθησαν) which can be defined as “of persons who are added to a group already existing, or who are attached to an individual, to whom they henceforth belong.” Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 885). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The act of binding together occurs through a covenant commitment. Many groups have chosen to move away from formal church membership. However, several arguments support church membership. First, when Paul came to Jerusalem after his conversion (Acts 9:26-27) he attempted to join (κολλᾶσθαι) a verb which means to join together or closely associate, BDAG, 555-556. The same verb was used in 1 Clement 15.1 and 30.3 to describe the joining together of Christians. Second, the early church practiced church discipline as evidence in 1 Cor. 5:13, the practice of discipline depends upon a practice of membership. Third, the leaders of the early church were commanded to care for their flock as in Acts 20:28. The delineation of a flock depends on an idea of membership. Finally, the church members appear to have been charged with commissioning missionaries as in Acts 13:1-3 and exercising discipline as in 1 Cor. 5:1-5, and even appoint representatives for doctrinal discussions as in Acts 15:22. Such actions would seem to necessitate some formal means of determining who was part of the congregation. Hence, the early church appears to have held the notion of some formal covenant community. 

Some have argued that in an era of persecution churches would not have a formal list of individuals. However, 1 Tim. 5:9 also indicates that there was a formal roll for widows.

[cxx] A couple of arguments deserve attention. First, all believers are ontologically equal even though some are called to different positions of leadership. Second, several NT passages suggest that congregations made important decisions. Acts 6:1-6 suggests that the local congregation appointed leaders. Paul expected the local church to take responsibility for disciplining members who fell away in 1 Cor. 5. In Acts 13:1-3, the congregation appears to be the one’s sending Paul and Barnabas. Even the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 seems to indicate there was wide participation by more than just the Apostles. For further information see Patterson and Waldron’s discussion of congregationalism in Peter Toon, L. Roy Taylor, Page Patterson and Samuel E. Waldron, Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government, ed. Steve B. Cowen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004).

[cxxi] Geisler identifies 11 evidences of local church autonomy 1) own officers (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:2); 2) own membership (1 Tim. 5:9); 3) elected offices (Acts 6:1-7); 4) sent representative to council (Acts 15:2); 5) personal responsibility (1 Cor. 6:1-5); 6) own discipline (1 Cor. 6:1-5); 7) own authority to extend fellowship (Gal. 2:9); 8) own missionaries (Acts 13:2); 9) own responsibility to Christ (Rev. 1-3); 10) freedom to cooperate with other churches (2 Cor. 8:8-19); 11) authority for ordinances (1 Cor. 11:23). Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1145

[cxxii] 1 Peter 5:1-4 clearly identifies Christ as the chief shepherd.

[cxxiii] The choice of the word ordinance is intended to capture the facts that these two acts are commanded in Matthew 26:26-28 and Matthew 28:19-20. Historically, much has been made of the terms ordinance and sacrament. The term sacrament was originally intended to convey the sense of a visible sign of an invisible grace. However, the term has come to represent a vehicle of saving grace for some. Therefore, the choice of the word ordinance captures the command but admittedly deprives the ordinances of some of their meaning, namely visible signs of invisible grace. Ultimately, one’s understanding of the term sacrament is a soteriological issue, not an ecclesiastical issue. However, in traditions that I am generally associated with the term sacrament carries enough baggage that I choose the term ordinance.

[cxxiv] First note that baptism appears to have immediately followed conversion in Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 38. Second, note that salvation is by grace alone as discussed in Eph. 2:8-9. Therefore, baptism must serve a non-salvific purpose that is closely associated with salvation, representation. That is, baptism models the change described in Romans 6:3-5.

[cxxv] This is contrary to the teaching of many groups which view baptism of infants as a replacement of circumcision by drawing on Col. 2:11-12. However, several issues deserve attention. First, the passage is not a command to baptize infants. Second, circumcision only applied to males and hence a direct correlation between baptism and circumcision is not reasonable. Third, the passage explicitly calls our faith as the mechanism for salvation, not baptism. For further information see Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1167-1168.

[cxxvi] Baptism is a picture of Christ’s burial and resurrection as described in Rom. 6:3-5 and Col. 2:12. Further, baptism described in the NT seems to have been in locations with much water (John 3:23).  Finally, early church baptismal tanks suggest baptism was by immersion Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1170. Hence, the practice of the early church seems to have preferred immersion. However, as indicated in Didache 7.1-4 there appears to have been a provision made for those who could not have been baptized by immersion. As a general rule of thumb, the practice of the early church seems to have been to prefer baptism by immersion but if immersion is not possible then that should not prevent someone from being baptized. This may have specific implications for individuals who convert at an elderly age or who would for some physical reason be unable to be baptized by immersion in our modern world.

[cxxvii] This view was advocated by Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and literally interprets Luke 22:19 where Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It is worth noting that this view requires that the phrase “this is my body” be taken metaphorically.

[cxxviii] Building hope toward the second coming of Christ is a critical component of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Cor. 11:26 Paul teaches that the practice of the Lord’s Supper proclaimed his death until he comes.

[cxxix] A central component of the church is the edification of the body and a key component of edification is progressive sanctification. Hence, a discussion of the church should include a discussion of sanctification.

[cxxx] Heb. 10:10

[cxxxi] The progressive nature is discussed in Eph. 4:24. Contrary to Antinomianism, the Christian is to pursue righteousness (1 Jn. 3:6; 9; Rom 7;) and contrary to perfectionism the Christian should not expect to achieve a sinless state (Jam. 3:2).

[cxxxii] 2 Cor. 3:18

[cxxxiii] In Phil 2:12-13 Paul calls on the Philippian Christians to work out their own salvation but goes on to note that it is God who works in the individual. Rather than speculate on exactly what happens, I believe that we are called to work to live for Christ and simultaneously, God is working in us.

[cxxxiv] Examples include Ex. 31:2-4, Deut. 34:9, Judges 15:14-15, 1 Sam 10:10.

[cxxxv] These lists are found in Rom. 12:6–8; 1 Cor. 12:8–10; 1 Pet. 4:11; and as indicated in Rom 12, the gifts seem to be related to the individual. Some of the gifts are clearly supernatural and some could be natural talents.

[cxxxvi] In fact, none of the lists of spiritual gifts completely overlap. Furthermore, the gifts as discussed in Romans 12:4-5 are clearly indented to be used for the body of Christ. Additionally, 1 Cor. 12 teaches that all the gifts, great or small are important and to be used.

[cxxxvii] Speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing were temporary gifts and are no longer in effect today. A brief discussion is in order. Healing was used as a means of confirming the message and authority of the apostles (Acts 3:1-31, Acts 6:12,15). The office of apostle and prophet were special offices that are no longer necessary with the completion of the canon of Scripture. The gift of tongues used in the NT were actual languages, were evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit, (Acts 2:14-18; Joel 2:28) and are also no longer necessary. Hence, the gifts of tongues, speaking, and prophecy are all unnecessary for the church today. This does not mean that God cannot supernaturally work through someone to exercise these types of miracles; but rather that as a principle, these gifts should not be considered normative for today.

[cxxxviii] In the biblical story we see God taking what was created and recreating it to make it better. Hence, the story of Scripture is a story of redemption. A proper eschatological view involves the entire story of Scripture. While redemption was secured on the cross, the earth and its inhabitants are still fallen. All of creation is awaiting a final redemption.

[cxxxix] There is only one God, the creator of heaven and earth, and he and he alone is the king of heaven and earth. His kingdom is eternal.

[cxl] The first instance of this is found in Gen 1:28 but throughout biblical history there are mediators who mediate the rule of God, Abraham (Gen. 18), Melchizedek (Gen. 13), Moses (Dt. 5; Ex. 32-33), a prophet like Moses (Dt. 18:14-20), the Levitical priests (Ex. 29:44-46), the Judges, and the son of David (2 Sam. 7).

[cxli] Ex. 19:6

[cxlii] The notion of a better coming kingdom is throughout the Old Testament. Two examples include Ps. 89, Isa. 9 The eternality of the kingdom is predicted by Dn. 2:44-45.

[cxliii] That is, as evidenced beginning in Genesis, God is progressively working to redeem creation. Jesus reveals four stages, the time of Jesus, the church age, the millennium, the eternal kingdom.  Matthew 11:1-15 demonstrates that the kingdom was present in the life and ministry of Jesus. In particular, Matthew 11:12 shows that the Kingdom has been present (Matt. 12:22-33; Lk. 17:20-21). In Matt. 13 Jesus teaches about a kingdom that starts small and grows large consistent with the stone in Dan. 2. Hence, the church age is a stage of the coming kingdom. Regarding the present position of Christ, he has been coronated as King (Acts 2:33-38; Acts 5:31; Acts 7:55-56; Eph. 1:18-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:13-14; Col. 2:9-10; Heb. 1:1-4; Rev. 1:4-6) but has not realized the full reign in fulfillment of the Davidic promises. The full fulfillment of Christ as king will come in the millennium as discussed in Rev. 21:1-6. However, even in this kingdom, there will not be complete righteousness as evidenced in Rev. 21:7-11. The ultimate and final realization of the Kingdom of God on earth will be mediated in the eternal state as discussed in Rev. 21-22.

[cxliv] The Day of the Lord can be any day of God’s judgement (Joel 2:1-11, Amos 5:14-27, Isa. 13:6-22). As a day of judgement, the Day of the Lord is not something we necessarily hope for but a woeful event. However, there is a coming eschatological Day of the Lord which will be preceded by Elijah coming and calling for repentance Mal 3:1-5; 4:1-6. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus synthesized the trouble seen by Daniel with the Day of the Lord. Craig A Blaising and Darrell L Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993). 302.

[cxlv] I believe that Dan 9:27; Rev 6:1-19:21 refer to a future period of seven years in which an enemy of God will make war against God and in the middle of which God responds by judging this enemy. Specifically, while AD 70 has some characteristics of the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70 weeks, it is not a perfect fulfillment and so these events are still future.

[cxlvi] Since the 69 weeks of Daniel were a specific period of time it makes sense for the 70^th week to be a specific period of time. Also, since Dan. 9:27 begins with a specific even (a covenant), includes a specific midpoint (the abomination of desolation), and has a specific end, it makes sense to think of this 70^th week as a specific period of time.

[cxlvii] The term Great Tribulation is found in Rev. 7:14. The Great Tribulation itself is discussed in Rev. 5-20. These events are described in apocalyptic genre and generally discuss things to come during the period of the Great Tribulation. However, humility must be exercised in describing these events because the genre together with the fact that most of these events are future create interpretational challenges. For example, I believe that Rev. 12:1-6 has already occurred, but I would not be willing to take a strong stance against someone who disagrees.

[cxlviii] In 1 Thess. 4-5 Paul describes an event whereby Christ comes down from heaven and raises the dead in Christ and those who are alive in Christ. The event is noticeably not a time of judgement and so cannot be a reference to Matt. 24:31. Since in Rev. 19 those coming with Christ are embodied this cannot be a reference to Rev. 19. Therefore, the event discussed in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 must be something not previously revealed.

Further, Rev. 19 suggests a need for resurrected saints which suggests an event like the rapture prior to the millennium, since the millennium is populated by mortal believers and embodied saints this suggests a period of time between the rapture of the Church and the millennium.

[cxlix] A pretribulation rapture that is the first stage of the Second Coming preserves the doctrine of immanency discussed in Matt. 24:36. The doctrine of imminency has had widespread acceptance throughout Church history being testified by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, and many others, Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1493-1495.

[cl] More extensive discussion is available in Craig A. Blaising, "The Day of the Lord and the Rapture," Bibliotheca Sacra 169, no. 673-676: 269-270.

[cli] The language from Matt. 24:29-31 is further explained in Matt. 24:36-40 where Jesus compares the taking away of the people to the days of Noah when people were taken in judgement. Therefore, this must be a reference not to the rapture of the Church but to taking in judgement. Geisler, Systematic Theology, 1471-1472.

[clii] Rev. 19:14 describes riders coming with Christ in white robes. The white robes refer to the saints (Rev. 6:11; Rev 7:9; Rev 7:13;). Hence, the embodying of the saints must occur prior to this coming of Christ.

[cliii] Rev. 20:2,5

[cliv] Rev. 20:6

[clv] Rev 20:7-10

[clvi] In Rev. 20:11-15 the dead are judged. That these are individuals described as dead suggests that these are only those who God has not saved and granted eternal life. Buist M Fanning, Revelation: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020). 518

[clvii] Rev 21-22 describes the eternal state as being one of dwelling together with God. The details provided in chapters 21-22 demonstrate that this state is one of justice, peace, and prosperity.

[clviii] The tree of life (Rev. 22:2) is present in this state and reminds the reader of how God intended the garden to be. The point here seems to be that God has taken what was, was broken, and not only redeemed it, but made it better.